Harold

by Ian W. Walker

  25. EHD I, No. 53, pp. 476–8 for Cnut’s letter. Snorri Sturluson-Heimskringla, The Olaf Sagas, tr. S. Laing, rev. edn (London, 1964), for Ulf. JW 1027. EHD I, No. 18, pp. 339–40. ASC F 1028 for Olaf. Larson, Canute, p. 237 for a runic inscription said to record Godwine’s actions in Norway, which is however rejected by N. Lund, ‘The Armies of Swein Forkbeard and Cnut’, Anglo-Saxon England, 15 (1986), p. 118.

  26. EHD I, No. 48, pp. 452–4 for Thorkell as regent. EHD I, No. 53, pp. 476–8 for the 1027 letter. VER, p. 11 and Stafford, Unification, p. 75 for Godwine’s prominence.

  27. Sawyer, A-S Charters, No. 970 for Polhampton. Lawson, Cnut, p. 188 for another view.

  28. S.B.F. Jansson, Runes in Sweden (Varnamo, 1987), p. 77–9 for the likely origin of the name Tosti.

  29. Grammaticus-Danorum Regum Heroumque istoria, Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, pp. 132, 150–1, 170–1, Keynes, ‘Cnut’s Earls’, pp. 76, 84–7. Lawson, Cnut, p. 185 suggests Eilaf survived later than this.

  30. Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, pp. 169–70, 217. Stafford, East Midlands, pp. 74–5, G.N. Garmonsway, Canute and his Empire (London, 1964), pp. 18–25 and Lawson, Cnut, pp. 95–102 for Cnut’s absences abroad.

  31. ASC C/D/E/F 1035, JW 1035. Stafford, East Midlands, p. 127 for Harold’s Midland connections through his mother, Aelfgifu of Northampton, perhaps already including Earl Leofric himself. Cnut’s other son by Aelfgifu, Swein, had died probably in 1034.

  32. ASC E/F 1036 and JW 1035. The Chronicle account refers to Harold’s regency but JW 1035 and EER, pp. 38–9 make it clear this was an attempt on the throne. The rumours about Harold’s birth were part of the propaganda put out by his opponents to discredit him. EER, p. 41 and F. Barlow, The English Church 1000–1066 (London, 1979), pp. 43–4 for Archbishop Aethelnoth.

  33. T. Talvio, ‘Harold I and Harthacnut’s Jewel Cross Type Reconsidered’ in M.A.S. Blackburn (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Monetary History (Leicester, 1986), pp. 288–9 for the division of the coinage between Harold and Hardecnut reflecting the Chronicle’s division at the Thames. AB, p. 108, Saxo Grammaticus-Danorum Regum Heroumque Historia, ed. E. Christiansen (Oxford, 1980), Volume 1, Books X–XVI, p. 46 and G. Jones, A History of the Vikings (Oxford, 1984), p. 398 for Magnus of Norway. ASC C/D 1035 for the seizure of Emma’s treasure, which occurred sometime between Cnut’s death and March 1036 but whether before or after the Oxford council is unclear. I have placed it after as this appears to coincide with the period when the power of Hardecnut’s supporters began to wane.

  34. Stafford, Unification, p. 79 and Talvio, ‘Harold I and Hardecnut’, pp. 283–9 for the change in control of the coinage south of the Thames.

  35. EER, pp. 40–3 for the trap. JW 1036 attempts to reconcile the two versions. Barlow, Edward, p. 44 and Stafford, Unification, p. 79.

  36. WJ, pp. 105–7 and WP, pp. 5–7 for Edward’s invasion.

  37. ASC C/D 1036, VER, p. 20, EER, p. 42–7, WJ, pp. 105–7 and WP, pp. 5–7 for Alfred. The lack of any mention of Edward’s role in the English sources may reflect the wish to draw a veil over his failure. The Norman sources would wish to demonstrate the powerful support they provided and which later supposedly prompted Edward to bequeath his kingdom to William.

  38. ASC C/D 1036, JW 1036, EER, pp. 42–7, WJ, pp. 105–7 and WP, pp. 5–11 for this.

  39. ASC C/D 1036, JW 1036, EER, pp. 44–7, WJ, pp. 105–7, and WP, pp. 9–11 for the murder.

  40. ASC C/D/E/F 1037, JW 1037 and EER, pp. 46–9.

  41. ASC C 1039, JW 1039, ASC C/D/E/F 1040, JW 1040 and EER, pp. 48–53.

  42. ASC C/D 1040 and JW 1040, J.M. Cooper, The Last Four Anglo-Saxon Archbishops of York (York, 1970), p. 15 and V. King, ‘Ealdred, Archbishop of York: the Worcester Years’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XVIII (1995), pp. 125–6 for Aelfric and Lyfing.

  43. ASC C/D/E/F 1041, JW 1041, EER, pp. 52–3. Also Stafford, ‘Unification’, p. 81 and Barlow, Edward, pp. 48–52 for possible reasons. William of Poitiers’ account of Norman support being responsible for Edward’s return appears unlikely given the chaotic state of Normandy at this time, for which see Douglas, William, pp. 39–50. In contrast, WJ, p. 107 clearly attributes Edward’s return to Hardecnut.

  44. ASC C/D/E/F 1042, JW 1042. VER, p. 9. D. Hill, An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1981), maps 154–163 and 167–169 for royal itineraries, and map 179 for royal lands.

  45. ASC C/D/E 1043, JW 1043, K.E. Cutler, ‘Edith, Queen of England 1045–1066’ Medieval Studies, 35 (1973), p. 224.

  46. ASC C/E 1044. Barlow, English Church, pp. 108–9. Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 81 for these grants.

  47. ASC C/E 1045. ASW, pp. 557, 563 for Beorn and Harold, and Barlow Edward, p. 74 for Swein.

  CHAPTER TWO

  1. VER, pp. 47–9. (By permission of Oxford University Press)

  2. ASW, p. 563 for Harold as earl in diplomas. EHD II, No. 184, pp. 901–2 and Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. D. Whitelock (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 80–4 for Thurstan’s will.

  3. ASC D 1045.

  4. EHD II, No. 184, pp. 901–2 and No. 187, pp. 903–4 for these wills.

  5. ASW, Nos 13 and 14, pp. 157–8 for Harold, and Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 97 for Colne.

  6. ASC D 1044 and JW 1044 for Gunnhild and her sons, and ASC C/D/E 1046 for Osgod Clapa. Also Williams et al., Dark Age Britain, p. 193 and Barlow, Edward, pp. 88–9. Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 89 for Wroxall on the Isle of Wight.

  7. Brown, Normans, pp. 113–20, Douglas, William, pp. 166–70 and M.W. Campbell, ‘A Pre-Conquest Norman Occupation of England’, Speculum, 46 (1971) for the theory of Norman infiltration but Stenton, A-S England, pp. 425–6 and H.R. Loyn, The Norman Conquest, 3rd edn (London, 1982), pp. 54–5 for a cautionary note.

  8. Campbell, ‘Norman Occupation’, pp. 21–31 for this fifth column. Barlow, English Church, pp. 81–4 for foreigners as only seven out of twenty-nine appointees to bishoprics and Barlow, Edward, pp. 164–5 for only some four or five foreign nobles in total. ASC D 1051 and 1052 refer to the castle men only as Frenchmen. In contrast, JW 1051 and 1052 do refer to these men as Normans, but this may simply be analogous with the use of the generic term Norman to refer to William’s followers in 1066 whether Breton, French or Norman. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 224–6, 332–6 for the lands of Earl Ralph, Ralph the Staller and Robert fitzWimarch.

  9. ASC C 1046, JW 1049, Hemingi Chartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, ed. T. Hearne (1723), Volume i, pp. 275–6, Barlow, Edward, p. 91 and K.L. Maund, Ireland, Wales and England in the Eleventh Century (Woodbridge, 1991), pp. 126–30. DB Herefordshire, 1: 14 and 38 n. 1, 10a for her lands in 1066, EHD I, No. 49, p. 463 where Cnut’s laws lay down penalties for the abduction of nuns. ASC E 1047, JW 1049, ASC D 1049 for Swein’s exile.

  10. ASC C/D/E 1049 for the division of Swein’s lands between Harold and Beorn.

  11. ASC D 1047, JW 1049, ASC D 1049, AB, p. 108 and Jones, Vikings, p. 401 for Swein of Denmark’s defeat.

  12. ASC E 1046, Barlow,Edward, p. 97, Stafford, Unification, pp. 117–18, ASC C/D/E 1049, D. Nicholas, Medieval Flanders (London, 1992), p. 50.

  13. ASC C/D/E 1049.

  14. ASC C/D/E 1049, JW 1049.

  15. ASC C/D/E 1049, P.G. Foote and D.M. Wilson, The Viking Achievement (London, 1970), p. 426 for Scandinavian use of this sentence, and R.I. Page, Chronicles of the Vikings (London, 1995), p. 145 for record of a similar act of nithingswerk on a Swedish rune-stone of this period.

  16. ASW, p. 570 and A. Williams, ‘The King’s Nephew: The Family and Career of Earl Ralph of Hereford’ in C. Harper-Bill et al., Studies, pp. 330–8. Ralph appears as earl in diplomas dated to 1050 before the exile of Godwine and his family. Appendix Two for the earldoms at this time. ASC C 1052 for Swein’s pilgrimage. ASC C/E 1050 for Swein’s return. JW 1049, Cooper, York, p. 25 and King, ‘Ealdred’, p. 127 for Ealdred’s role in this. ASC D/E 1051 for the disputes between the foreigners of Hereford and Earl Swein.

  17. VER, p. 27, P. Stafford, Queens, Concubines and Dowagers (London, 1983),
p. 82, Stafford, Unification, p. 92 and Cutler, ‘Edith, Queen of England’, pp. 222–31.

  18. John, ‘Edward the Confessor’, p. 248 for Edward’s celibacy. This suggestion is dismissed by Barlow, Edward, pp. 81–5. Edward himself may have been impotent but if so, why did he marry Edith, and Godwine consent to this? Clearly they both anticipated the birth of an heir. The Leofric Missal, ed. F.E. Warren (Oxford, 1883), p. 9a and VER, p. lxxv for Leofric’s benediction. Sawyer, A-S Charters, Nos 1007–13 for Edith as witness, but Nos 1014 onwards for Edith’s absence until No. 1026 of 1055 when she reappears. ASC C/E 1050 for the fleet, which had intervened on behalf of Harold ‘Harefoot’.

  19. Barlow, English Church, pp. 85–6.

  20. ASC C/D/E 1050 and E 1051, VER, p. 31 and Barlow, Edward, p. 104.

  21. ASC E 1051, and Barlow, English Church, pp. 47–8 for Spearhafoc. C. Morris, The Papal Monarchy (Oxford, 1991), p. 87, Barlow, English Church, p302 and ASC E 1050 for Ulf. M.F. Smith, ‘Archbishop Stigand and the Eye of the Needle’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XVI (1994), pp. 202, 208 for Stigand’s support for Spearhafoc and the lack of any definite connection between the former and Godwine respectively.

  22. VER, p. 33, N. Brooks, The Early History of the Church of Canterbury (Leicester, 1984), p. 304, Barlow, English Church, pp. 47–8. He may have even suggested that Godwine was plotting to kill King Edward himself.

  23. ASC E 1051, H.J. Tanner, ‘The Expansion of the Power and the Influence of the Counts of Boulogne Under Eustace II’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XIV (1992), pp. 264–8, Douglas, William, pp. 391–2 for the date of this Norman-Flemish alliance through Duke William’s marriage to Mathilda of Flanders.

  24. ASC E1051 and VER, p. 35. JW 1041 for the attack on Worcester in which Godwine participated.

  25. ASC D/E 1051, VER, p. 39, i.e. September 1051. Tanner, ‘Eustace II’, pp. 264–8.

  26. ASC D 1051 for Ralph supporting the king. ASC D 1051, and JW 1051 for Eustace still in England in September when Godwine demanded his surrender. ASC D/E 1051 and VER, p. 35 for Leofric and Siward at Gloucester, the Chronicles state in support of King Edward.

  27. ASC D/E 1051, JW 1051 and VER, p. 35, the last for a milder account but ASC D 1051 perhaps, reveals better Godwine’s assessment of the strength of his position at this point.

  28. ASC D/E 1051 reveal the tensions of this period, although these were resolved by negotiation.

  29. ASC D/E 1051, JW 1051, WP, p. 32 (20) fails to name them, noting them only as the ‘son and grandson of earl Godwine’ but Eadmer – Historia Novorum in Anglia, tr. G. Bosanquet (London, 1964), p. 6 identifies them as Wulfnoth and Hakon. This is also suggested by F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983), p. 66 which speaks of Wulfnoth’s captivity beginning when still a boy. ASC C/D/E 1067 (recte 1068) for Harold’s sons, both Godwine and Edmund were probably born before 1051.

  30. ASC D/E 1051, VER, p. 35, JW 1051. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 93–4.

  31. ASC D/E 1051, JW 1051, VER, p. 35.

  32. ASC C/D/E 1051, JW 1051, VER, pp. 35–7.

  33. ASC D/E 1051, VER, pp. 37, 39–41. This account is to be preferred to that of the more distant Chronicle D, which names Thorney as their point of departure.

  34. ASC D/E 1051, JW 1051, VER, p. 41. The latter for King Diarmait since the Chronicle fails to name him. The Annals of Ulster to AD 1131, ed. S. MacAirt and G. MacNiocaill (Dublin, 1983), 1052 for Diarmait’s seizure of Dublin.

  35. ASC D/E 1051, Williams, ‘King’s Nephew’, p. 338 and Appendix Two. DB Herefordshire, 19: 3 records the gains of the Frenchmen of the castles at this time. Campbell, ‘Norman Occupation’, pp. 21–31.

  36. ASC D/E 1051, VER, pp. 37, 45, JW 1051. The Vita Eadwardi is closest to Queen Edith and should know the truth. It is possible the Chronicle accounts which have her sent to Wherwell reflect where she was sent first, before moving to Wilton. Stafford, Unification, p. 92. for Edward’s divorce plans.

  CHAPTER THREE

  1. ASC D 1052.

  2. ASC D 1051, Brown, Normans, p. 121, for this connection but Douglas, William, p. 169 and Bates, William, p. 34, for its refutation.

  3. WJ, p. 159, WP, p. 30 (20). ASC 1051 for Robert’s promotion to the archbishopric and Barlow, Edward, p. 126 for the date of his death.

  4. Brown, Norman Conquest, p. 2 and p. 17 for the purpose of these writers. WJ, p. 159 and WP, pp. 30–2 (19–20), 100 [4], 174–6 [11] for the basis of the claim. WP, pp. 174–6 [11] for Stigand’s part. Barlow, English Church, p. 78 for Stigand’s actual status. He did not become Archbishop of Canterbury until 1052, after Archbishop Robert fled into exile. Barlow, Edward, p. 108 for this as a simple error by William of Poitiers.

  5. Douglas, William, p. 168, Bates, William, pp. 59–60 and Barlow, Edward, pp. 107–9.

  6. ASC D/E 1051, JW 1051, Barlow, Edward, p. 108.

  7. A. Williams, ‘Some Notes and Considerations on Problems Connected with the English Royal Succession 860–1066’, Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, 1977 (1978), pp. 144–67 for English succession practices.

  8. Douglas, William, pp. 76–8, 391–5 and Bates, William, p. 100 for William’s marriage. Douglas, William, p. 380 for Adelaide and Ibid., p. 419, Table 2 for Enguerrand’s death in 1053. Douglas, William, pp. 58–69 for the Norman crisis of 1051–4.

  9. Williams, ‘King’s Nephew’, p. 327 for Ralph, Douglas, William, p. 418, Table 1 for William. Tanner, ‘Eustace II’, p. 263, Eustace of Boulogne had no claim since his first wife Godgifu, Edward’s sister, died before 1049 without issue by him.

  10. Barlow, Edward, pp. 28–53 and S. Keynes, ‘The Aethelings in Normandy’, Anglo-Norman Studies, XIII (1991), pp. 173–205 for Edward’s early years.

  11. WJ, p. 159 and WP, p. 30 (20) for the motivation for Edward’s action. Douglas, William pp. 31–7 for these Dukes. Keynes, ‘Aethelings’, pp. 193–4, Barlow, Edward, pp. 51–2 and Bates, William, p. 59 for Robert’s invasion plan. ASC C/D/E/F 1041, JW 1041,EER, p. 35, WJ, p. 107 and WP, p. 12 for Hardecnut inviting Edward to England. At this time William was in the midst of his difficult minority and in no position to assist anyone. Bates, William, p. 59 and Barlow Edward, p. 52 dismiss any suggestion of Norman aid. Keynes, ‘Aethelings’, pp. 173–205, Douglas, William, pp. 166–7 and Brown, Normans, pp. 111–16 for an alternative view.

  12. ASC C/D/E 1052, JW 1052.

  13. VER, pp. 39–41.

  14. Brut y Tywysogyon – Red Book of Hergest Version, tr. T. Jones, 2nd edn (Cardiff, 1973), VER, p. 41, ASC E 1052. MacAirt and MacNiocaill, Ulster 1052. The Annals of Tigernach, tr. Whitley Stokes (Lampeter, 1993), 1052. M.T. Flanagan, Irish Society, Anglo-Norman Settlers, Angevin Kingship (Oxford, 1989), pp. 57–8. Maund, Ireland, p. 165. P.F. Wallace, ‘The English Presence in Viking Dublin’ in M.A.S. Blackburn (ed.), Anglo-Saxon Monetary History (Leicester, 1986), pp. 204–5 for the English earls as the inspiration behind Diarmait’s conquest. ASC D 1052 for Gruffydd. Ralph was absent on duty with the fleet.

  15. ASC C 1052, JW 1052.

  16. ASC C/D/E 1052, Stafford, Unification, p. 86, Barlow, Edward, pp. 101–2, ASC E 1049 for Godwine, Harold, Swein and Tosti as captains of ships. VER, p. 41, ASC C/D/E 1052.

  17. ASC C/D/E 1052, VER, pp. 41–3, Hooper, ‘Some Observations’, p. 206.

  18. ASC C/D/E 1052, VER, pp. 41–3.

  19. ASC E 1052.

  20. ASC C/D/E 1052, JW 1052, VER, pp. 43–5, Stafford, Unification, p. 92.

  21. Barlow, Edward, pp. 114–15 and Appendix Two for the earldoms of Odda and Ralph, E. Okasha, Handlist of Anglo-Saxon Non-runic Inscriptions (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 63–4 and Barlow, Edward, p. 125 for their retention as earls.

  22. Barlow, English Church, pp. 77–81, Brooks, Canterbury, p. 305 and Smith, ‘Stigand’ for Stigand.

  23. ASC D/E 1058 Stigand consecrated Aethelric and Siward. He also consecrated Bishop Remigius in 1067 under King William but otherwise his actions were carefully restricted.

  24. ASC C 1053 and ASC E 1050, Barlow, English Church, p
p. 215–6 for Wulfwig.

  25. Stafford, Unification, p. 92, Barlow, Edward, p. 303, Barlow, English Church, p. 126, Brooks, Canterbury, p. 307.

  26. WJ, p. 159, WP, pp. 30–2 (20), Stafford, Unification, p. 92, Douglas, William, p. 169, Bates, William, p.59, Brown, Normans, p. 122, Barlow, Edward, pp. 106–9 and Loyn, Norman Conquest, p. 57, all date it to 1051. Barlow, Edward, p. 126 and WP, p. xxv for Robert’s death sometime between 9 January 1053 and 1055, perhaps closer to the former.

  27. Barlow, English Church, p. 86, WJ, p. 159 and WP, pp. 30–2 (20), WJ, pp. xlvi, liii for the dating of this passage in William of Jumieges.

  28. ASC C 1052, JW 1052, ASC C/D/E 1053, JW 1053.

  CHAPTER FOUR

  1. WP, p. 156 (27).

  2. This chapter relies substantially on the essential groundwork on Domesday Book carried out by the following: R.H. Davies, ‘The Lands of Harold, Son of Godwine, and their Distribution by William I’, unpublished ma dissertion (Cardiff, 1967); Williams, ‘Land and Power’; Fleming, Kings and Lords; R. Fleming, ‘Domesday Estates of the King and the Godwines: A Study in Late Saxon Politics’, Speculum, 58 (1983); and Clarke, English Nobility. I have not always followed the interpretation of the evidence by these writers but have drawn significantly on the data they have assembled.

  3. Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. xv–xvi, Whitelock, Beginnings, pp. 64–6 for the importance of land. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 205, 220, Williams, ‘Land and Power’, pp. 171–3, Fleming Kings and Lords, pp. 58–71, Hill, Atlas, pp. 100–5 and J. Campbell, The Anglo-Saxons (London, 1991), pp. 216–17 for landholdings. EHD II, No. 172, p. 877 for the costs of feeding a slave-woman.

  4. Williams, ‘Land and Power’, pp. 171–3, Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 11–20, 47, Barlow, Edward, pp. xxi–xxii, Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 1–12 for these problems. Williams, ‘Land and Power’, p. 177, Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 17–18 and Davies, ‘Lands of Harold’, pp. 6–17 for the problem of deceased owners.