King Edward was by now becoming increasingly stifled in the claustrophobic grip of Earl Godwine. Unlike previous English kings, Edward did not have full control over Wessex but had to share it with Godwine, who controlled much of it through his extensive landholdings there. Despite minor triumphs of independent action, such as his refusal to aid Swein of Denmark in 1047 and the expulsions of Earl Swein in 1047 and 1049, Edward was still very much under Godwine’s tutelage and must increasingly have resented this. Under Godwine’s influence Edward had twice been compelled to restore Earl Swein, a criminal who had been declared nithing by the fleet and who was described by a writer, commissioned by his own sister, Queen Edith, as a ‘gulping monster’.17
In addition to these conflicts and pressures, it must, by this time, have been becoming clear to Edward that he and Queen Edith would have no heir, probably because the queen was barren. It is true, but unlikely, that Edward might have chosen to be celibate, the most plausible reason being that he wanted to prevent a grandson of Godwine succeeding to the throne thereby permanently securing the latter’s influence. Although later monastic writers were naturally only too happy to encourage the idea of celibacy as evidence of Edward’s sainthood, this appears to be refuted by Bishop Leofric’s composition of a benediction for a childless king, undoubtedly Edward himself. Whatever the details of the situation, Queen Edith could not provide an heir and as a result she appeared to the king increasingly as little more than a symbol of her father’s domination. Certainly from 1046 onwards she had been missing from among the witnesses to royal diplomas, perhaps indicating some disfavour. King Edward now needed an heir to secure the kingdom and this effectively meant divorcing Edith in order to remarry. However, there was a major obstacle to this – Earl Godwine was quite unlikely to permit such an action which would undermine his influence over the king. At this point, therefore, Edward was not in control of his own destiny and was surely seeking a way out. He began by disbanding the mercenary fleet in 1050, which the Godwine family had been prominent in leading, either to deprive them of a source of support in the forthcoming struggle or, more probably, to boost his own popularity by abolishing the burdensome tax associated with it. This was the background to the great crisis of 1051, when Edward attempted both to secure the succession and to shake free of Godwine’s control, the two problems being elaborately intertwined.18
Edward’s frustrations concerning Godwine’s influence were no doubt shared by his intimates, including Robert of Jumieges, who had been brought by Edward from Normandy and promoted to the bishopric of London. No doubt he loyally shared his royal master’s disapproval of Swein’s conduct and Earl Godwine’s support for him, and of the earl’s power and influence generally, but soon he was to add to this a more personal grudge against him.19
On the death of Archbishop Eadsige of Canterbury on 29 October 1050, the monks of Christ Church sought to elect one of their own number named Aethelric to succeed him. This Aethelric was a kinsman of Earl Godwine and the monks quite naturally appealed to him to support their cause. Indeed, Godwine had possibly been supporting Christ Church in its temporal business since 1044 when Archbishop Eadsige became too infirm to do this himself. The earl spoke to the king on Aethelric’s behalf, but given the current tensions this probably only made matters worse. Edward had regularly appointed bishops during his reign and had not permitted any free elections, and he was not about to do so as a favour to Godwine. Thus, as the Vita Eadwardi states, ‘the earl suffered a defeat in pressing his request’. Instead, Edward appointed his favourite, Robert of Jumieges, to the archbishopric at a council held on 1 March 1051, and selected Spearhafoc, Abbot of Abingdon, to replace the latter as Bishop of London. This significant victory over Godwine probably whetted Edward’s appetite for further action against him, and his new archbishop was soon to have his own reasons to support such action.20
That same Lent, Archbishop Robert left for Rome to receive his pallium from the Pope. He returned apparently imbued with the fire of reform currently burning in Rome, and was installed on 29 June 1051. Following his election in 1049, Pope Leo IX had issued a series of canons against simony and dealt ruthlessly with any clergy accused of this sin. In 1050 at Vercelli Bishop Ulf of Dorchester, another of Edward’s appointees, had almost been deposed by Leo on suspicion of this sin. Robert was undoubtedly impressed by this display of the power of the Church, as were many at the time, and at once he seems to have set out on what he probably saw as a personal mission: to reform the English Church, and perhaps enhance his own power and influence in the process. He began by refusing to consecrate Spearhafoc as his successor in the bishopric of London because ‘the Pope had forbidden him’, probably for the sin of simony. Indeed, this man was Edward’s royal goldsmith and may have purchased the position, something the Pope could only have learnt from Robert himself. This action was in direct defiance of the king and in spite of Edward allowing Spearhafoc to occupy the bishopric throughout that summer and autumn. Robert’s stance reveals not only his new found zeal for reform, but also a certain amount of arrogance in opposing his mentor, the king himself. It also shows that he was not acting purely as a Norman infiltrator out to harm Godwine and his family. In this situation, Robert was not purposefully showing allegiance to Edward or Godwine, but was following his own agenda. The categorization of all interests as either pro-Norman or Godwinist at this time is not helpful. Men had their own interests, some but not all of which may have coincided with what might be interpreted as pro-Norman or Godwinist. There is no real evidence to suggest that Spearhafoc was associated with Godwine rather than the king, and Robert’s action in blocking his promotion was in defiance of the king rather than Godwine.21
The new archbishop soon applied a similar rigorous scrutiny to the property of his see and discovered that Earl Godwine had invaded some of the lands of the archbishopric and was keeping them for his own use. It is possible that the estates in question were part of those granted to Godwine by Archbishop Eadsige in return for his assistance in secular affairs during the latter’s period of infirmity but it is suspicious that the archbishop’s claim is not denied by the author of the Vita Eadwardi, a source close to the earl. Robert immediately attempted to recover these lands in the shire courts but met with little success against Godwine’s entrenched power. He therefore started a whispering campaign with King Edward, reminding him of Godwine’s involvement in the death of his brother, Alfred. This accusation was a particularly sensitive issue with both Edward and Godwine, one which had never really been resolved. King Edward and Archbishop Robert both had their reasons to seek Godwine’s downfall as tensions became potentially explosive during the summer of 1051. In need of an heir, Edward contemplated the removal of his wife and her father’s possible reaction; Archbishop Robert disputed control of lands with Godwine; and Swein and Ralph contested the control of lands and men in Hereford. It only required a spark to ignite a major crisis between them.22
The spark was provided by the visit to England of Edward’s former brother-in-law, Count Eustace of Boulogne. Chronicle E, associated with Canterbury and therefore closest to the scene, provides the fullest account of the events which followed. According to its account, Eustace appears to have arrived in England soon after the return of Archbishop Robert to Canterbury, possibly in July 1051. He had talks with his kinsman King Edward and then on his way home was involved in an incident with the citizens of Dover, in Earl Godwine’s earldom, in which a number of men were killed. Chronicle D, more distant from the scene, records the incident as having happened on Eustace’s initial landing at Dover, and lacks detail. Chronicle C fails to record the event at all despite its obvious potential for showing Godwine in a damaging light. This is an example of the danger of accepting the theory of any general political bias in the text of the various Chronicles. Chronicle C, supposedly anti-Godwine, misses this opportunity to condemn Godwine unless, of course, he was indeed innocent and there were no points to score. The local source, Chronicle E, should probably
be preferred and it points to Edward putting Eustace up to the attack, though the latter may have been only too willing to participate. The fact that Eustace and his men put their armour on before entering Dover indicates preparedness for trouble, probably because they planned to cause it. In order to banish Godwine, Edward needed a very good cause if he was to ensure the backing in England necessary to do so effectively. It would seem that he planned this incident with his former brother-in-law hoping, in the charged atmosphere of the time, to provoke Godwine into a reaction which he could exploit. This seems to fit the outline of events better than theories that it was part of an attempt at securing a planned Norman succession. It has been demonstrated that Eustace probably had an interest in securing Edward’s support against both William of Normandy and Baldwin of Flanders, who were on the point of concluding a marriage alliance which would directly threaten him. In contrast, he had little interest in helping Edward offer his crown to William of Normandy, as this would result in the possibility of three major powers being ranged against him. Indeed, the proposed alliance between Normandy and Flanders could also be seen as a threat to England itself to be opposed by stronger links with Eustace.23
If this interpretation is correct then the plan worked perfectly. Edward was able to feign anger at the conduct of the townsmen of Dover and their treatment of his relative and ally, and consequently to send for Godwine and order him to ravage the town in retaliation. This was too much for the powerful earl, who had personal memories of the ravaging of Worcester by Hardecnut in 1041, and he refused to inflict the same treatment on the people of his own earldom especially when they appeared to have right on their side. Edward therefore summoned a meeting of the royal council to Gloucester on 8 September to deal with the earl. A showdown was now inevitable, as both parties were only too well aware, and they made their preparations.24
Until now Godwine had probably considered that he had maintained his position well, in spite of increased tension with the king and a number of set-backs at his hands. Now he appreciated that things were more serious and his own position under threat as Edward resurrected the old accusation of Godwine’s complicity in the murder of his brother Alfred. He decided to call out the forces of his earldom to provide him with some leverage at the council meeting, and his loyal sons, Earls Swein and Harold, rallied to his aid by doing likewise. He may also have made arrangements for the marriage of his son Tosti to Judith, sister of Count Baldwin V of Flanders. The wedding is said to have been celebrated just prior to Godwine’s exile, probably about this time. This marriage would certainly provide the family with a safe refuge should they require it, but may also have been intended to balance Edward’s alliance with Eustace. On the other hand, it may already have been planned, ironically as it would turn out, as part of an attempt to stop Baldwin giving refuge to other English exiles. If so, then the plans for the marriage may have contributed to the crisis by offending Eustace of Boulogne, the prime mover of the events at Dover, who had no wish to see a rapprochement between England and Flanders.25
Meanwhile, Edward set about rallying his own supporters. These would no doubt have included his loyal followers like Archbishop Robert and other clerics, but more important in subsequent events were the laymen with military followings. These included his relatives Earl Ralph and possibly Count Eustace, who was apparently still in the country, and perhaps other more minor figures including the Herefordshire Frenchmen. However, Edward’s most vital supporters were the other great earls Leofric and Siward, who alone could provide the necessary counterweight to Godwine. He probably attempted to win them over by complaints of Godwine’s rebellion and by offers of land and offices, or they themselves may have considered that Godwine had now gone too far.26
On 1 September, Edward was resident at Gloucester, awaiting the council called for 8 September, when he was surprised by the arrival of Godwine and his sons at nearby Beverstone, a week early and supported by an armed force. Thus Godwine gained the initiative from the king, though briefly in the event. He demanded at least the opportunity to refute the charges being made against him, including complicity in Alfred’s murder, or alternatively the surrender of Count Eustace and the Frenchmen of Herefordshire for trial for offences allegedly committed by them. Godwine undoubtedly hoped his show of force would intimidate Edward, caught unprepared as he was, and bring about his capitulation. This was a grave mistake. It merely made Edward more determined than ever to deal with him once and for all. He summoned armed assistance from his own supporters, particularly the northern earls, while stalling Godwine and his sons. In his summons to the other earls, Edward portrayed Godwine’s action as that of a rebel against his lawful king. He highlighted those aspects of events which reflected this, namely Godwine’s arrival with an armed force and his demands of the king. Indeed, Chronicle E states that it was claimed that the Godwine family ‘meant to come to betray the king’.27
This tactic proved effective with the northern earls, who had initially brought south only small retinues of followers. On learning of Godwine’s virtually open rebellion and the apparently imminent danger to the king, they called out the full armed forces of their earldoms and prepared to oppose Godwine by force. Godwine’s bluff had been called. Edward had not been intimidated and Godwine could only gain his ends by giving battle. Civil war loomed large, and hotheads on both sides were advocating it, but fortunately wiser counsels prevailed.28
This is a notable aspect of the whole crisis of the years 1051 and 1052 which is worth comment. Neither party involved, no matter how inflamed tempers became, was prepared to resort to open warfare. Thus when Godwine held the initiative at Beverstone on 1 September, he did not attack the king, despite Edward’s rejection of his demands. Similarly, when reinforced by the northern earls, Edward did not crush Godwine by force. This same attitude was to be reflected during the rest of the crisis and it does credit to those involved on both sides. (It probably arose from the nightmare situation towards the end of Aethelred’s reign and immediately thereafter, when opposing forces of Englishmen clashed in support of rival kings, a period which Edward, Godwine and Leofric had all witnessed at first hand.)
Since neither side was willing to resort to force, negotiations got underway and it was agreed to exchange hostages and to reconvene at London at the equinox on 21 September. The hostages given at this stage for Godwine’s side were probably his own youngest son, Wulfnoth, and Swein’s son, Hakon. It is perhaps odd that no mention is made of a hostage for Harold, as might be expected. It seems unlikely that Harold had no sons who might fulfil this role as he was now about thirty years old and had been married since 1044 or 1045. In 1066 he had a total of seven children, three of whom were sons old enough to take part in raids against England. This suggests strongly that at least one of his children, and probably a son, had been born before 1051. If this was the case, it would appear natural for Harold’s son also to be taken as a hostage, but the sources which record details of the hostages at this time mention only two. They may omit Harold’s son in error but it seems possible that Harold was not required to provide a hostage. King Edward perhaps did not consider him to be untrustworthy in the way that his father and elder brother were. Nothing is said of any hostages given by the king’s side, which probably reflects the superiority of his position at this stage, or alternatively they may have been returned in 1052 when Godwine was restored.29
On 21 September at London, the opposing sides faced each other again with their armed forces in support. The delay had worked to Edward’s advantage and against Godwine. The northern earls, who now accepted that Godwine had gone too far by his armed threat to the king, had since had time to gather larger forces from their earldoms. On the other hand, Godwine’s forces had begun to dwindle; although many were prepared to support their earl, as at Gloucester, they were not prepared to oppose their rightful king by force. Indeed, the king may have summoned all royal thegns holding land directly of the king to join the royal army and so suborned many of those com
mended to the Godwine family but holding of the king. Perhaps this is the sense of the curious statement in Chronicle E that ‘the king asked for all those thegns that the earls had had, and they were all handed over to him’. Desertions gradually sapped Godwine’s strength and, in particular, the thegns of his son Harold transferred their allegiance to the king. This is perhaps not surprising since Earl Harold had only had some seven years to foster the loyalty of East Anglia, unlike his father’s thirty or more in Wessex, and the king’s forces north of the Thames lay directly across the road from the homes of Harold’s men.30
His confidence boosted by knowledge of Godwine’s difficulties, Edward now declared Swein an outlaw, without even waiting for the discussions to start. This precipitate action clearly confirms Edward’s reluctance to permit his return in 1050. He then commanded Godwine and Harold to appear before the council to answer the charges against them. Godwine now feared for his safety and attempted to obtain additional guarantees of safe conduct with hostages, before coming to the council to clear himself. However, these guarantees were refused as Edward became even more adamant that Godwine must be dealt with. Godwine was now in an impossible position, unable to risk meeting the angry king and unable, with his outnumbered forces, to fight to retain his earldom, even if he had been able to persuade his men to do so. He was beaten and began to make preparations for inevitable exile.31
Harold Page 6
