The first of these Norman sources, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumieges, was written with the explicit purpose of recounting the way in which Duke William succeeded in becoming the ‘orthodox’ king of the English. William wrote that part of this work dealing with the Norman claim to the English throne around 1070. He therefore had the benefit of hindsight in organizing his material and directing it to his purpose. He placed great emphasis on the Norman claim that Harold was a perjured usurper, mentioning the latter’s oath some four times in his otherwise very spare narrative of these events. The very sparseness of his account, which largely sticks to relating the unembroidered facts, may indicate that it is basically reliable. In addition, William was able to use Robert of Jumieges, the exiled Archbishop of Canterbury and a central character in these events, as a direct source of information for his narrative. Indeed, it would appear that William’s account was accepted by subsequent generations as the fundamental record of the events of the Conquest, since almost fifty surviving manuscripts of his work are recorded.9
In contrast, William of Poitiers adds a great deal of elaborate detail to his own very polished and highly literate version of the events of the Conquest. William of Poitiers probably wrote his Gesta Guillelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum around 1077. According to R. Allen Brown, it is ‘very much a planned literary work . . . steeped in the classics’ whose theme is ‘the deliberate justification’ of Duke William’s conquest of England. In it, William of Poitiers provides a much more elaborate account of the Norman claim to the English throne than William of Jumieges, but in doing so raises a significant number of inconsistencies which tend to detract from his trustworthiness. This trustworthiness is also rather undermined by his very clear bias in favour of Duke William and against Harold. It appears that this is also how subsequent generations viewed his work since it only survived into the modern period in a single unique and incomplete manuscript, which was itself subsequently lost during the seventeenth century. William of Poitier’s work is Norman propaganda and therefore must be treated with considerable caution, his evidence sifted very carefully for possible additions and omissions, and his views or interpretations closely questioned. In spite of these problems, William does provide some support for the basic account of William of Jumieges and, in addition, offers plausible information on some events, which is found nowhere else. For example, his account of the Battle of Hastings is unique and convincing in most of its aspects.10
The last ‘Norman’ source for Harold’s life is certainly the most unique and also the most tantalizing. This is the great pictorial representation of Harold’s downfall and William’s triumph contained in the Bayeux Tapestry. This work is, clearly, part of the Norman propaganda offensive, along with the works of William of Jumieges and William of Poitiers, since it was made for Bishop Odo, William’s half-brother, perhaps around 1077. However, the allusive nature of the medium in which it is composed and the brevity of the accompanying text have often left it open to differing interpretation. Indeed, this may have been the intention of its makers since, although the Tapestry appears on the surface to repeat the Norman version of events, the accompanying text sometimes hints at other possibilities. The fact that the Tapestry was created by English hands makes divergent meanings a fascinating prospect and perhaps indicates an alternative English version of the events of the Conquest. Indeed there may be evidence in the later account by the monk Eadmer of Canterbury to support such a version of these events. Despite its difficulties, the Tapestry remains a very important source for Harold’s career.11
An important factor to bear in mind when examining these three Norman sources is the fact that although they are interrelated they do not appear to be derivative. They all incorporate accounts of the same basic events, but occasionally present some of them in a different sequence while omitting others altogether. William of Jumieges emphasizes Edward’s promise and Harold’s oath but provides little information on the actual conquest. William of Poitiers provides an elaborate account of all the events from Edward’s promise to the Battle of Hastings. The Tapestry omits Edward’s promise of 1051 altogether and concentrates instead on Harold’s visit to Normandy and the subsequent conquest. The differences and similarities between these sources can sometimes be useful in attempting to interpret events.12
The construction of all these Norman accounts of the events of 1066 may have been inspired by concerns expressed around 1070 by the Pope about the nature of the Norman Conquest. The Papacy became concerned about the aggression and brutality involved in the conquest of England and, perhaps in particular, the recent and notorious Harrying of the North. This concern is clearly evidenced by the Penitential Ordinance of Bishop Erminfrid, issued around 1070. This placed a penance on all those who had participated in the Conquest. The purpose of these Norman texts may have been as attempts to justify the Conquest under Papal scrutiny, and hence their emphasis throughout on the legitimacy of William’s cause. The substantial additions of William of Poitiers are perhaps best interpreted in this light. Thus the latter’s introduction of the English earls as guarantors was intended to reinforce the bare promise of the crown, which was all that William of Jumieges recorded. Similarly, the elaborate oath sworn by Harold, according to William of Poitiers, was intended to reinforce the impact of his subsequent perjury. It is difficult to see for whom such additions were intended if not the Papacy, and if this is the case then it too should be borne in mind.13
There are other sources for Harold’s career besides these narrative texts. Domesday Book records unique details of Harold’s landholding in England, without which we would have a very limited idea of the extent of his power. However, this source has a number of practical drawbacks. It was compiled in 1086, chiefly as a record of who held specific lands and rights and therefore who owed particular services or dues at that date, and it provides clear documentary evidence for this later period. However, it also attempts to record who held the equivalent lands and rights and owed equivalent services or dues in the time of King Edward some twenty or more years earlier. For this earlier period, rather than offering strict documentary evidence, it represents a record of local memory and this has resulted in a number of apparent errors or inconsistencies. In addition, the text, even as regards 1086, does not provide consistent information for all areas of the country and omits some northern areas altogether. It has also suffered a certain amount of Norman interpretation so that Harold is neither referred to by his royal title nor shown as holding the royal lands, which are instead listed as King Edward’s. Nevertheless, it remains a vital text without which our information about Harold would be much poorer indeed.14
The few other, principally documentary, contemporary sources which still exist have been used wherever possible. By their nature, these can cast only oblique, if invaluable, shafts of light on Harold’s story. However, the small number of surviving diplomas and writs from this period is a major barrier to any study of Harold or other contemporary figures. An exception to this pattern of poor survival is provided by the royal coinage, which casts considerable light on the effectiveness of Harold’s government.15
A number of later sources remain to be considered. These must be viewed with some caution as they are more distant in time from Harold’s day and may have been subjected to later interpretation. The main examples of such sources are later accounts of the period by a number of Anglo-Norman historians, including Orderic Vitalis, Eadmer of Canterbury, William of Malmesbury, Guy of Amiens and Geffrei Gaimar. In addition, there exist the records of a number of religious houses, which have preserved local traditions concerning their house and its lands and patrons. These include, in particular, the Waltham Chronicle, of Harold’s own foundation, which although compiled in around 1177 has much to relate about its patron. These sources have in general only been used where they appear to offer reliable locally preserved traditions which do not survive in more contemporary sources.16
It is on the basis of these different
sources of variable value that we must attempt to reconstruct an account and an assessment of Harold’s life, character and actions. In doing so, we must try to consider and assess all of these sources against what we know of the contemporary scene. Only in this way can we seek to avoid the influence of hindsight, which is the bane of all historical writing but weighs perhaps particularly heavily on Harold.
The decisiveness of the Norman Conquest itself and the undoubted impact of the event on subsequent English history, however it may be assessed, has resulted in a very natural tendency to see it as the logical consequence of the events of King Edward’s reign. As a result the Norman sources, which were compiled to provide just such a logical pattern and sequence to these events, have received less critical assessment than they perhaps deserve. Although it is the task of the historian to assess the credibility of all his sources, in the case of the Norman records few have made a realistic evaluation of their account of William’s claim to the throne. The fact that William succeeded in enforcing this claim sometimes leads rather easily to a judgement about its validity, but any such judgement must be made against an assessment of the contemporary scene. Similarly, any view of the significance of Normandy in English policy during this period needs to be made against contemporary events. The great danger to England at this time was Scandinavia, whence Swein and Cnut had conquered the country within living memory. In a similar way, the decisive outcome of the Battle of Hastings itself has led to a tendency to assume that the Norman army or its leadership were somehow naturally superior. The immense gamble involved in any medieval battle should warn us against such assumptions. If the Normans had been defeated at Hastings, would we consider William as an incompetent general and the Norman troops as poorly trained? In these instances and others, knowledge of the outcome must be separated from consideration of the events themselves in their contemporary setting. Only this will permit a realistic assessment of King Harold and of his rival William of Normandy and so enhance our view of both.17
It is as well to remember that true biography is not really possible for any early medieval figure as a result of the paucity of surviving evidence. Nevertheless, in spite of the difficulties and pitfalls outlined above, there does remain enough evidence to permit a fairly detailed account of Harold’s career to be compiled. There remain obscure matters and gaps in our knowledge where we can do no more than make the best assumption possible on the evidence which we have. The effort should be made in order to restore to King Harold that which he deserves: a rightful place among the eleventh-century kings of England and a central role in the events of 1066.
ONE
FAMILY ORIGINS
In the reign of this King Cnut Godwin flourished in the royal palace, having the first place among the highest nobles in the kingdom. . . .1
The family of Harold Godwineson first came to notice during the final years of the troubled reign of King Aethelred II ‘the Unready’ when the Kingdom of England was facing a grave threat from Viking raids. These had been almost an annual event since 997 and had increased in extent and ferocity each year. Following the latest of these raids in 1006, when a great fleet ‘harried’ every shire of Wessex, the raiders were paid off in the following year with £36,000 of silver, in order to provide a respite for the overstretched defences.2
However, this respite could only be temporary, and so during 1008 an immense fleet was constructed to defend England against future raids. Larger than any prior to that time, this fleet was brought to Sandwich in Kent, ready to intercept the Vikings at sea; among its commanders were two men who would bring to naught all the efforts involved in its preparation.3
The first was Brihtric, brother of one of the most notorious figures in Anglo-Saxon history – Eadric of Mercia. This Eadric, named Streona or ‘The Grasper’, was a Shropshire thegn who gained royal favour in 1006 by murdering Ealdorman Aelfhelm of York, on King Aethelred’s orders. The king also had Aelfhelm’s sons blinded at this time and the removal of these prominent Mercian nobles paved the way for Eadric’s rise to power in the region. He was rewarded with the post of Ealdorman of Mercia in 1007 and also received the hand in marriage of Edith, the king’s daughter. Eadric was thus a man who had benefited from royal favour at the expense of other nobles, and his brother Brihtric probably sought the opportunity to do likewise.4
The second fleet commander in 1008 was a Sussex thegn called Wulfnoth Cild, father of Earl Godwine and grandfather of the future King Harold. This man was possibly the same as the Wulfnoth who witnessed four extant diplomas of King Aethelred between 986 and 1005. Wulfnoth is an unusual enough name for this to be possible, and his position near the bottom of the lists of ministri or thegns in these diplomas indicates a relatively minor figure who attended court only infrequently. The reason for Wulfnoth’s presence with the fleet probably relates to his Sussex origins, as this county often provided ships and men for English fleets. Apart from his part in supplying ships and seamen, Wulfnoth probably had personal reasons for opposing the Danes as they had ravaged Sussex in 994, 998 and 1006.5
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates quite clearly what happened to the great fleet in 1009:
It happened at this time . . . that Brihtric, Ealdorman Eadric’s brother, accused Wulfnoth Cild to the king, and he went away and enticed ships to him until he had 20 and then he ravaged everywhere along the south coast, doing all manner of damage. Then the naval force was informed that they (Wulfnoth’s party) could easily be surrounded if people were to set about it. Then the aforesaid Brihtric took with him 80 ships, intending to make a big reputation for himself and to capture Wulfnoth alive or dead. When they were on their way thither, such a wind blew against them that no man remembered its like, and did beat and dash to pieces all the ships, and cast them ashore, and at once Wulfnoth came and burnt the ships. When it became known to the other ships, where the king was (at Sandwich), how the others had fared, it was as if everything was in confusion, and the king betook himself home, as did the ealdormen and chief counsellors, and deserted the ships thus lightly. And the people who were on the ships took [the ships] back to London, and let the toil of all the nation thus lightly come to naught; and no better than this was the victory which all the English people had expected. When this ship-levy had ended thus, there came at once after Lammas the immense raiding army, which we called Thorkel’s army, to Sandwich. . . .6
We do not know why Brihtric made accusations against Wulfnoth. Perhaps it was a personal rivalry; perhaps Brihtric resented Wulfnoth’s influence with the fleet as an experienced sailor, compared with his own inexperience – a notion ironically borne out when he lost eighty ships in the storm while Wulfnoth’s twenty escaped unscathed. John of Worcester claims the accusations were ‘unjust’. Whatever caused the dispute, Wulfnoth fled to avoid being taken into custody – the fate of Ealdorman Aelfhelm and his sons in 1006 had demonstrated clearly what became of those who crossed King Aethelred and Ealdorman Eadric. Wulfnoth was subsequently sentenced to exile, as is confirmed by the loss of his lands at Compton, although these were restored in 1014 to his son, Godwine. As the Chronicle entry cites, the former responded to his expulsion by taking twenty ships and raiding along the south coast, perhaps seizing provisions from his own confiscated lands in Sussex. Brihtric pursued him, eager for glory and rewards to match those of his brother, but instead was caught in the storm and his ships lost.
The loss of a total of 100 ships in this incident meant the English fleet could no longer oppose the Danes at sea and indeed the latter subsequently landed unopposed at Sandwich. This disaster is clearly laid at the door of Brihtric by the chronicler. It was he who caused the initial dissension and, whether by poor seamanship or bad fortune, lost eighty ships of the fleet. Indeed, King Aethelred may have endorsed this view himself as Brihtric disappears from the record in this same year.7
Wulfnoth also disappears at this time. It is possible that he raided independently or even joined the Danes, but whatever happened it appears that he was dead by
1014. Although Wulfnoth was exiled and his lands forfeited, his son, Godwine, seems to have remained in England perhaps in an attempt to salvage the family fortune. In this he seems to have done well as, by 25 June 1014, he was a sufficiently valued member of the entourage of Atheling Athelstan, the king’s eldest son, to feature prominently in his will alongside such important persons as Athelstan’s younger brothers and foster mother.8
In his will, Athelstan made the following bequest: ‘I grant to Godwine, Wulfnoth’s son, the estate at Compton which his father possessed’. It was very unusual for a son not to inherit land once held by his father, and Athelstan’s statement confirms that Wulfnoth must have been dispossessed of his land. There are a number of Comptons in England, but given Wulfnoth’s Sussex origins the one referred to is probably one of the two in that county and most likely that in Westbourne Hundred, still listed as held by Godwine in Domesday Book. This bequest shows that despite Wulfnoth’s exile his son had, within five years, established himself among the close followers of the king’s eldest son and begun the recovery of his patrimony.9
If Godwine was to maintain this recovery of fortune after Athelstan’s death in 1014 it would be necessary for him to seek the patronage of another great lord. Fortunately for Godwine such an alternative patron was available in the person of Edmund, the elder of Athelstan’s two full brothers. It would appear that Athelstan and Edmund were close. This is supported by the fact that Edmund is named as the second lay beneficiary after the king in his brother’s will, receiving both lands and treasures, including a valuable sword which once belonged to King Offa, and acting as executor for some of the bequests. In contrast, Athelstan’s younger full brother, Eadwig, receives only a sword.10
Harold Page 2
