Harold E-Book

Ian W. Walker

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 589

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

King Harold Godwineson is one of history's shadowy figures, known mainly for his defeat and death at the Battle of Hastings. His true status and achievements have been overshadowed by the events of October 1066 and by the bias imposed by the Norman victory. In truth, he deserves to be recalled as one of the greatest rulers. Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King sets out to correct this distorted image by presenting Harold's life in its proper context, offering the first full-length critical study of his career in the years leading up to 1066. Ian Walker's carefully researched critique allows the reader to realistically assess the lives of both Harold and his rival William, significantly enhancing our knowledge of both.

Leseprobe

HAROLD

The Last Anglo-Saxon King

To My Mother and Father

HAROLD

The Last Anglo-Saxon King

IAN W. WALKER

First published in 1997

This edition published in 2010

The History Press

The Mill, Brimscombe Port

Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QG

www.thehistorypress.co.uk

This ebook edition first published in 2011

All rights reserved

© Ian W. Walker, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2010

The right of Ian W. Walker, to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 6826 6

MOBI ISBN 978 0 7524 6827 3

Original typesetting by The History Press

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Family Trees

General Maps

Introduction

 1   Family Origins

 2   Harold, Son of Godwine

 3   Exile and Return

 4   The Lands and Wealth of Harold

 5   Earl of Wessex

 6   William of Normandy

 7   Earl Tosti

 8   Harold the Man

 9   King Harold

10  Harald of Norway

11  The Last Campaign

12  End of a Dynasty

Conclusion

Appendix One

Appendix Two

Abbreviations

Notes

Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank a number of people for their assistance during the writing of this book. I would like in particular to thank Sheila. She inspired and encouraged me to write this book in the first place. I would like to pay tribute to my tutors at the University of Glasgow, who fostered my interest in history and provided me with the investigative skills necessary to study the subject. I would like to express my appreciation to Denis Butler, whose admittedly somewhat romantic account of Harold Godwineson in 1066 The Story of a Year (London, 1966) nevertheless first attracted my attention to this fascinating character, and provided a starting point for many years of interesting research thereafter. I would like to express my gratitude to the staffs at Glasgow University Library, Edinburgh University Library, the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, the Library of the University of Wales, Cardiff, and East Kilbride Public Library, who provided access to many of the sources consulted, and to the staffs of all those various organizations which supplied illustrations and provided the necessary permissions to reproduce them herein. I would like to express my warm appreciation to Jane and Clare and the rest of the staff at Sutton Publishing, who succeeded in making the process of publication almost entirely painless. I would also like to thank Dr Bill Aird of the University of Wales, Cardiff, who read this work at an earlier stage and offered encouraging advice and helpful suggestions. This improved the final text immensely and saved me from a number of errors and omissions. I must accept full blame for any mistakes which remain in the finished book. Finally, I would like to thank my father and mother, without whose assistance on the word processor and in type-checking this book could not have been completed.

The Godwine Family

King Harold and his Descendants

The English Succession 1016–66(Names in bold signify a claim to the throne)

King Harold and his Scandinavian Connections

Map of England, c. 1060. (© Ian W. Walker)

Map of north-west Europe, c. 1060. (© Ian W. Walker)

Map of Europe, c.1060. (© Ian W. Walker)

INTRODUCTION

King Harold Godwineson is one of history’s shadowy figures, almost unknown to the public at large. The few who are familiar with his name at all, usually know little more than that he lost the battle of Hastings and was killed by an arrow in the eye. Many general histories of England begin with the Norman Conquest and those which look back, beyond it, to the Anglo-Saxon period usually pass over Harold as a minor interruption between the long reigns of Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror. This obscurity is partly, it is certain, a result of King Harold’s brief reign of only nine months and nine days, almost the shortest in English history. Nevertheless, he reigned at a crucial turning-point in that history and played a vital role in the events of the memorable year 1066. As a result one would expect him to have received rather more attention than he has received.1

Only two modern works have dealt with Harold’s career in any detail: a biography of 1961, and a commemorative lecture of 1966. Only the latter sought to examine Harold’s career in a critical fashion. Otherwise, discussion of Harold has been largely confined to a number of academic essays on specific aspects of his career, or on his role as a supporting character in the careers of others. The former, by their nature, cannot consider his career in its entirety. The latter naturally tend to place him in an historical framework constructed with reference to the careers of others and as a result his own image is somewhat distorted. He has been portrayed as an over-mighty noble, who ruthlessly manipulated a weak King Edward the Confessor in order to oust his rivals, overshadow the king and ultimately seize the kingdom itself. He has also been seen as a man who rashly opposed Duke William of Normandy, Edward’s designated successor, only to find himself outmatched as a statesman, as a general and as a propagandist, and paying the ultimate price for his folly.2

There is a need to consider Harold and his career in its proper context and to review his actions in this light. A full understanding of Harold’s actions and their historical context in the years leading up to 1066 is a prerequisite for developing a complete perspective on his role in the events of that year. A number of recent historians have made a start but this book is intended to do so fully by focusing directly on Harold.3

BACKGROUND

In eleventh-century England, the monarchy was the focus of all political authority and the cornerstone of society. The king reigned by the Grace of God and his power over the people was divinely sanctioned. He provided leadership and protection for his people in time of war and dispensed justice and preserved order in time of peace. In order to perform these functions, he drew on tribute and taxation from his subjects. In practice, although royal power could ultimately be imposed by coercion this did not make it absolute. In fact, no king could successfully rule for long by force alone, especially if his subjects were united in their opposition to him. In most cases a significant degree of cooperation between ruler and subjects was usually required. A king could not be physically present throughout the kingdom and in order to operate beyond his immediate environs he required the cooperation of subordinates in each local area to act as his deputies, perform his duties, impose his authority, and collect his dues. These subordinates, who included both clergy and laymen, were royal civil servants, who gained rewards in return for their loyal service.

The clergy, the archbishops, bishops and abbots, whose appointments were subject to royal approval, supplied the king with both a religious sanction for his authority and administrative skills to support it. There did exist an alternative source of Church authority to that of the king in the Roman Papacy. However, until King Edward’s reign this had fallen into the habit of merely endorsing the choice of clergy appointed by the monarch. The secular officials, the earls, sheriffs and others, provided services which included collecting royal taxes, supplying provisions to the royal household, and providing men for the royal armies. All of these royal officials in turn appointed their own deputies, deans and priests, thegns and reeves, who served them in similar ways.

Many of these men, clerical and lay, wielded great power and influence but ultimately all remained subject to royal authority. They formed a nobility founded on service to the king. They were men from families of local lords with local lands and supporters, who were recruited by the king in order to harness their local power to support his kingship. In return they were endowed by the king with a share of royal lands and wealth, which assisted them in their performance of delegated royal functions. If they performed their duties well these men would be further rewarded by personal gifts of lands and wealth, which in turn reinforced their position and their family’s local power. These lords had similar relationships with their own followers, who provided them with services in return for reward. In each case this symbiotic relationship brought benefits to both sides and provided a strong bond for society as a whole.4

It is true that there were tensions and divisions between the local lords and the king, including between King Edward the Confessor and his great earls, and these often distract attention away from the cooperative side of the relationship. However, when we look closely at King Edward’s reign what should strike us are the long periods of cooperation and harmony rather than the relatively few instances of dispute. The earls, in fact, most often operated with the king to impose justice, to collect taxes and to defend the kingdom. It was only on a few occasions that one or more of these men found themselves in dispute with the king – there were only four cases of exile or rebellion during Edward’s entire reign of twenty-four years. Such upheavals were common in other kingdoms too, and Normandy under Duke William witnessed a number of similar rebellions. They did not necessarily mean that a ruler was weak and his subjects too powerful, but simply that in a cooperative relationship it was inevitable that tensions would sometimes arise.

In general, the relationship between a king and his great lords was essential to effective rule. It was this relationship of lordship and service that provided the key to the rise of Harold and of his family. It was only when this relationship was disrupted that they encountered problems, as occurred during Godwine’s exile in the period 1051–2. It was the ability of Harold’s father, Godwine, and later of Harold himself to foster and occasionally to manipulate this vital relationship both upwards and downwards that allowed them to advance in power and influence. By 1066 Harold would prove himself so effective in his role as first deputy for the king that he was able to make the final transition to the kingship itself. Thereafter, the performance of his royal duties was to encounter a series of threats, not least from William of Normandy.5

SOURCES

It is by no means an easy task to review Harold’s career, since even in contemporary sources we are given conflicting and contrasting views of Harold himself and his role in events. He is described in often insulting terms by the Norman writer William of Poitiers, but is referred to affectionately in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. King Harold’s central role in the controversial events of 1066 was responsible for these contrasting views. The strenuous opposition he offered to the Normans earned him the hatred of his conquerors. Indeed, as the Normans gradually established their rule, they commenced a process which sought to undermine Harold’s reputation and deny his royal status. Although immediately after William’s coronation English royal documents continued to refer to his predecessor as King Harold, thereafter he would gradually be downgraded to earl and King Edward would appear as William’s direct predecessor. This process was to reach its apogee in 1086, in Domesday Book where Harold is consistently termed comes or earl, and land holding is recorded as it stood in the time of King Edward. The reader must be aware of the background to this process in order to make an accurate assessment of the information contained in the sources for Harold’s reign.

The main contemporary English source for Harold’s career is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. During the period under consideration this was being compiled on a near contemporary basis in three different recensions. This work has been discussed in detail elsewhere (as indicated in the notes) but there is one thing which should perhaps be added here. Each of the different recensions of the Chronicle is often represented as holding a consistent political viewpoint over this period. Thus Chronicle C is stated to be anti-Godwine or royalist, Chronicle E is pro-Godwine, and Chronicle D neutral. However, when they are examined in more detail they appear to be much less straightforward. Chronicle C, compiled at Abingdon, is usually judged to be either royalist or at least hostile to the Godwine family. However, it includes events which appear sympathetic or favourable to the family, like Harold’s burial of his murdered cousin Beorn in 1049, and the tender account of Earl Godwine’s demise in 1053. It turns down a golden opportunity to criticize Godwine and his family by treating their rebellion in 1051 in a brief summary only, while providing a very full account of their triumphal return in 1052. These entries do not appear hostile to the family at all. Chronicle E, compiled at Canterbury, is widely considered to be a source favourable to Earl Godwine. It is certainly fascinated by the great crisis of 1051–2 and Godwine’s role in these events. However, it should be noted that many of the events of this crisis occurred close to the compiler – in Canterbury, in Dover, along the south coast, at Sandwich, and in London. It may be that the proximity of these events to his base rather than sympathy for Godwine explains the detailed knowledge of the compiler of Chronicle E. For example, Eustace of Boulogne’s men passed through Canterbury on their way to Dover and this would naturally be likely to feature prominently in the local Chronicle. Indeed, the impact of this crisis on the Archbishopric of Canterbury itself is perhaps enough to explain the prominence of its events in this text. The crisis, after all, began with a disputed election to the archbishopric and ended with the expulsion of one archbishop and his replacement by another. In contrast, other successes of the Godwine family, which might be expected to feature prominently in Chronicle E, like Harold’s invasion of Wales in 1063, are in fact treated rather briefly. The text is not, in fact, always favourable to the family. Lastly, Chronicle D is described as neutral but it alone refers rather affectionately to Harold in 1066 as ‘our king’. Thus the differences which occur in the various recensions of the Chronicle appear to reflect local or personal viewpoints of individual chroniclers, rather than any consistent political view.6

The chronicle now attributed to John of Worcester in a sense represents yet another recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. It was started perhaps in the late eleventh century and completed around 1140 but includes annals drawn from an earlier version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. This was probably related to the extant Chronicle D, but in John’s text these annals incorporate additions and variations, in some cases possibly added after reference to another existing version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but in others more probably added by John himself. John’s own additions often represent his own clarifications of the existing Chronicle texts, but he sometimes adds further details, perhaps culled from other textual sources available to him at the time but subsequently lost.7

The other major contemporary English source is the Vita Eadwardi Regis, attributed to Goscelin of St Bertin, which was written for Queen Edith, Harold’s sister. The original purpose behind its composition appears to have been to glorify the Godwine family and Queen Edith, and the latter’s marriage to the king in particular. It emphasizes the role of her family in the events of Edward’s reign and sometimes tends to exaggerate their importance and this must be kept in mind when using it. However, it is by no means entirely eulogistic in tone, as might be expected by its purpose, and both Godwine and Harold are subjected to some unfavourable associations by its author. He speaks of right being on the side of Archbishop Robert of Canterbury in his land dispute with Godwine in 1051 and refers to the earl’s involvement in the death of Atheling Alfred in 1036. He also records an accusation made by Tosti that his brother Harold instigated the Northumbrian rebellion in 1065. Aside from King Edward and Queen Edith, the main focus of Goscelin’s attention is not solely Harold but rather Harold and his brother Tosti, who appears to have been their sister Edith’s favourite. As a result, Harold is not the sole or even main focus of devotion of this work as is the case with William of Normandy in the work of William of Poitiers. In addition, although the original intention of Goscelin’s work may have been to enhance the prestige of the Godwine family, the contemporary events of 1066 and the death of all the Godwine brothers left this plan in ruins and the author asks plaintively ‘for whom shall I write now? This murderous page will hardly please the queen their sister . . .’. All of this means that this work is not simply a straightforward eulogy of Earl Harold and provided one is wary of accepting all of its views uncritically much can be learned from the facts it relates.8

In contrast to the English sources, which are all based on contemporary or near contemporary accounts, both of the main Norman sources which deal with the events of Harold’s career postdate the Norman Conquest of England. They also clearly set out to legitimize the succession of William of Normandy to the English throne. They are therefore partisan to a greater or lesser extent, and this must be kept in mind when using them. This does not necessarily mean that we need to doubt the basic facts of their narratives, but rather that we should consider carefully both their interpretation of these facts and the context in which they place them. The fact that these Norman accounts were compiled with the benefit of hindsight is also significant, as this puts them in a position to assemble their facts into an apparently natural and consistent account. This account comprises three principal elements: King Edward’s designation of William as his heir; Harold’s journey to Normandy to confirm this by oath; and, following Harold’s breach of his oath and seizure of the English throne, William’s successful campaign to claim his rightful inheritance.

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

In addition to this personal closeness, the two brothers also shared a similar political outlook which may have facilitated Godwine’s transfer of allegiance. Thus Athelstan and Edmund, the sons of Aethelred’s first marriage, had a common interest in ensuring that they were not superceded in the royal succession by the sons of his second marriage. This was a fairly common phenomenon, the sons of Cnut in England and of Louis the Pious in the Carolingian Empire providing the most notable examples. In this context it may be significant that Athelstan’s will includes bequests to both of his full brothers, Edmund and Eadwig, but nothing for his half-brothers, Edward and Alfred. Edward, the elder of these, was now reaching maturity and being shown considerable favour by his father. Indeed, the later Vita Eadwardi even suggests that the English swore an oath he should succeed his father, although the context it presents for this is unlikely. Therefore Athelstan, and Edmund after him, may have been recruiting supporters for the day when they might have to enforce a claim to the throne against their half-brother Edward.11

On the evidence of the bequests in Athelstan’s will these supporters included, apart from Godwine himself, Sigeferth, Morcar, and Thurbrand, three leading thegns of the Danelaw. The brothers Sigeferth and Morcar were related to that Ealdorman Aelfhelm of York murdered by Eadric Streona on Aethelred’s orders in 1006, and Thurbrand was a rival of Uhtred, whom Aethelred had chosen to replace Aelfhelm. Thus we can see Athelstan building up supporters among those thegns under threat from or out of favour with the king and his party. When Athelstan died in 1014, it seems probable, although largely unproven, that Edmund provided all these disaffected men with an alternative rallying point. Indeed, as regards Sigeferth and Morcar the family’s link to Edmund is further confirmed by the latter’s eventual marriage to Sigeferth’s widow, and his occupation of both of the brothers’ lands. The link to Thurbrand is not similarly established and must certainly have been severed by 1016 when Edmund sought support from the former’s rival, Uhtred. If we accept Edmund as leader of a party opposed to the policies of Eadric and the king, then we should consider the likelihood that in summer 1014 Godwine, son of Wulfnoth and rival of Eadric, also joined his following. One piece of evidence for this link may be the later naming of Harold Godwineson’s second son (that is, Godwine’s grandson) as Edmund, probably in honour of the Atheling and possibly in memory of his support for Harold’s father.12

In 1015 King Aethelred reacted to the build-up of this party by having its chief representatives, Sigeferth and Morcar, murdered by Eadric Streona and their lands seized. The king also seized Sigeferth’s widow, no doubt intending to prevent her marriage to anyone who could then claim the brothers’ inheritance through her. The king, it is likely, felt threatened by this rival power base and decided to eliminate it. There exists the alternative possibility that Sigeferth and Morcar were killed for submitting to the Danish raider Cnut in 1013. The Chronicle in that year relates the submission of the thegns of the Five Boroughs to Cnut, although Sigeferth and Morcar are not specifically named. (At some time during this period also, Cnut married Aelfgifu of Northampton, daughter of Ealdorman Aelfhelm of York, the relative of Sigeferth and Morcar slain in 1006.) Whatever the true version of events, the fact remains that King Aethelred’s actions, however motivated, effectively removed two of Edmund’s main supporters.13

Atheling Edmund’s response to this was decisive. He freed Sigeferth’s widow, Ealdgyth, from royal custody at Malmesbury and in direct defiance of his father, married her and seized control of the lands of her late husband and his brother. Edmund was now effectively in rebellion against his father and all the men of the Five Boroughs submitted to him. This may have been an attempt by Edmund to force his father to recognize him as heir, or an attempt to seize the throne as his father may already have been suffering from what was to prove a fatal illness, leaving Eadric Streona in command of the royal army. In the midst of this crisis, and indeed while the king was lying sick at Cosham, the Danes under Cnut invaded, and the two rival camps in England each raised an army to oppose them. Unfortunately, the two English groups proved unable to put aside their differences and combine against the Danes. The climate of suspicion between Edmund and Eadric was too great and as a result both armies disbanded. It seems likely that throughout this period Godwine supported Edmund against Eadric and the king.14

As King Aethelred’s illness became more serious, Eadric’s position became perilous for if the king died he would be left unprotected from Edmund’s vengeance. In anticipation of this, Eadric attempted to save himself by deserting to Cnut with forty ships of Aethelred’s fleet, probably those of Earl Thorkell. This volte-face effectively deprived the West Saxons of leadership, since Aethelred was now lying gravely ill in London, and hence they submitted to Cnut and his army. This left England divided into three contesting zones: Cnut and Eadric controlled Wessex and Western Mercia; Edmund held the Five Boroughs and East Anglia; and the much weakened King Aethelred clung on to London. Cnut may have ravaged Warwickshire at Christmas 1015 because its thegns were considering defecting to Edmund. Although Edmund gathered an army in 1015 from ‘the north’ it is unlikely that this included the Northumbrians, who only appear to have joined him in the following year when he sought Ealdorman Uhtred’s support. This situation must have posed problems for Godwine, as a West Saxon landowner. However, it is likely that he remained with Edmund, although probably temporarily losing control of his Sussex lands. The alternatives for Godwine were, after all, not very attractive. King Aethelred was a dying man who could offer him little hope, while Cnut was now supported by Eadric Streona, Godwine’s enemy.15

Godwine probably participated in Atheling Edmund’s joint raid with Ealdorman Uhtred of Northumbria against Eadric’s lands in West Mercia during 1016. The chance to avenge the loss of his own lands by raiding Eadric’s must have been a pleasant prospect. When Cnut responded by attacking York and executing Uhtred, Edmund moved on London to secure the succession, and Godwine probably accompanied him. There Edmund succeeded to the kingship following his father’s death on 23 April 1016 and, escaping Cnut’s besieging forces, regained control of Wessex, including perhaps Godwine’s own lands in Sussex. It was possibly during the many battles between Edmund and Cnut, which took place in the summer and autumn of 1016, that Godwine gained his later reputation for being ‘most active in war’. The submission of his enemy Eadric Streona to King Edmund in the autumn of that year, although all too temporary as it turned out, must have posed a dilemma for Godwine, which only his loyalty to Edmund could have overcome. At the Battle of Ashingdon soon afterwards, this difficulty was resolved when Eadric Streona betrayed King Edmund, who was defeated with the loss of many of his greatest supporters. King Edmund himself escaped the disaster and Godwine, if present, must also have done so. The king was now forced to come to terms with Cnut and divide the kingdom with him. Edmund retained Wessex, where Godwine’s lands lay, while Cnut took control of Northumbria and Mercia, including London. This political arrangement ended soon afterwards with King Edmund’s death on 30 November 1016, perhaps as a result of wounds received at Ashingdon.16

Godwine now found himself bereft of his royal lord and protector and was compelled like the rest of the English nobility to submit to Cnut, Edmund’s great rival. This might have been expected to be the end of his career, if not in death at least in disgrace. This was indeed the case for the majority of the late King Aethelred’s senior nobles between 1016 and 1020, when Cnut carried out what amounted to a purge of the English nobility. During this period, Cnut removed all of the surviving ealdormen appointed by King Aethelred, even including those who had switched allegiance to him during the struggle for the kingdom, most notably Eadric Streona of Mercia. In the period 1016–17 Ealdormen Uhtred, Northman and Eadric Streona were executed, as were the sons of Ealdormen Aethelmaer and Aelfheah. In 1020 Ealdorman Aethelweard was outlawed, while an Ealdorman Godric also disappeared at about this time. Indeed, Eadric Streona and Aethelweard were both removed despite retaining their posts initially at Cnut’s accession. In fact, only Ealdorman Leofwine is known to have survived the purge. In place of these men, Cnut appointed Scandinavians who were either related to him or among his close followers: Earls Erik and Eilaf were Cnut’s brothers-in-law; Earl Hakon was a son of Erik; Earl Thorkell may have been Cnut’s foster-father; and Earl Hrani was among his followers. The object of this policy was undoubtedly to place in power men the new king felt he could trust and who owed their positions directly to him.17

Perhaps surprisingly, Godwine also appears among these favoured Scandinavians, as the Vita Eadwardi says, as one of the ‘new nobles . . . attached to the king’s side’, in spite of the lack of any known link between him and Cnut. He is recorded as an earl in the witness list of a diploma of King Cnut dated to 1018. At first sight, it is difficult to explain this sudden acceptance and elevation of Godwine. However, a source composed for Cnut’s widow, Queen Emma, perhaps provides the key. There it is stated that Cnut ‘loved those whom he had heard to have fought previously for Eadmund faithfully without deceit, and . . . hated those whom he knew to have been deceitful, and to have hesitated between the two sides’. Thus Godwine’s steadfast loyalty to Edmund through many vicissitudes may have proved to Cnut that he was a man to be trusted in contrast to the treacherous Eadric, who had been executed in 1017 lest he betray Cnut as he had done Edmund. Indeed the execution of Eadric itself must have eased Godwine’s transfer of allegiance.18

Nevertheless, it seems likely that Cnut must have required some concrete evidence of Godwine’s loyalty and indeed ability, before raising him to the rank of earl by 1018. The occasion for this may have been Cnut’s collection of an immense tax during 1018, with which to pay off most of his Scandinavian mercenary troops. The cooperation of English administrators in the collection of such a large tax would have been essential and perhaps Godwine was one such cooperative agent, rewarded for his contribution when Cnut appointed him earl over the area of central Wessex. This position had fallen vacant with the death of the previous incumbent, Ealdorman Aelfric, at Ashingdon in 1016 and it was an apt appointment given Godwine’s lands in nearby Sussex. This office also must have brought with it an increase in his lands in the central Wessex shires of Hampshire and Wiltshire. This promotion was probably intended by Cnut to secure Godwine’s loyalty to him personally and at the same time provide him with a trustworthy subordinate to control this area. If so, it was a successful move, and Godwine responded to Cnut’s trust by providing him with loyal service thereafter. Indeed, Godwine’s first appearance as earl in a diploma of 1018 appears to seal his transfer of allegiance, as he witnesses Cnut’s confirmation of a grant made to Bishop Burhwold of Cornwall by his previous lord, King Edmund.19

An opportunity to test Godwine’s new loyalty soon presented itself. In the autumn of 1019, and again in 1022–3, Cnut returned to Denmark – on the first occasion, to secure that kingdom for himself, and on the second probably to stifle a potential rebellion by the recently exiled Earl Thorkell. According to the author of the Vita Eadwardi, on one or perhaps both of these occasions Godwine accompanied him. This source is close to the earl’s family and can probably be relied on for his presence on such an expedition, but unfortunately it provides no date. As fitting reward for his services on one or other of these expeditions, Godwine’s authority appears to have been extended to the western shires of Wessex also, either in 1020 or 1023, and he was given Cnut’s sister-in-law, Gytha, for his wife. The exile of Ealdorman Aethelweard on 17 April 1020, probably for fomenting a rebellion in favour of Atheling Eadwig, made possible this promotion of Godwine to control all of Wessex. The important marriage to Gytha further tied Godwine to Cnut and drew him into the circle of Scandinavian earls related to the king. Godwine was now brother-in-law of Earl Eilaf of Gloucestershire and Jarl Ulf of Denmark, the latter of whom was himself married to Cnut’s sister, Estrith.20

Later legends in England and Denmark explained the rise of Godwine, Wulfnoth’s son, by romantic tales of a farmer’s son providing refuge and assistance either to King Aethelred, lost in the forest while hunting, or to the Danish Jarl Ulf, lost in the hostile English countryside. As a result, in the former case King Aethelred raised Godwine to an earldom, and in the latter Ulf is said to have given him his sister, Gytha, in marriage and to have advised Cnut to reward him with an earldom. These romantic tales in widely separated traditions add little to our knowledge but reflect a common perception of the spectacular nature of Godwine’s rise.21

Whatever the background to his rise and whatever its exact dating, by 1023 at the latest Earl Godwine held what was a unique position in Cnut’s kingdom. He was an Englishman appointed to one of the highest offices in the land by the Danish king himself, and closely related to him and his Scandinavian followers by marriage. The only other English survivor, Ealdorman Leofwine, had originally been appointed by King Aethelred in 994 and was not related to Cnut, as far as is known. In these circumstances Leofwine’s survival and appointment to succeed Eadric of Mercia in 1017 are a mystery. It is possible that Cnut’s execution of his son, Northman, in the same year was sufficient to ward off any threat of treachery on the part of his father. Earl Godwine was to retain and develop his own unique position amidst occasionally very difficult circumstances until his death in 1053, and his success in doing so shows that Cnut was justified in placing his trust in him and was in turn repaid with loyalty.22

Cnut’s trust in Godwine is reflected in his swift rise to first place among the lay witnesses to the king’s diplomas. This appears to have occurred as a result of Cnut’s exile of Earl Thorkell in November 1021 and of the death of Earl Erik around 1023. The dearth of surviving diplomas for Cnut’s reign makes it difficult to be sure on the latter point but it seems likely. Although Thorkell and Cnut were subsequently reconciled in 1023, the former never returned to England. Previously, Thorkell had been the Danish king’s leading supporter, followed in turn by Erik, but they were now succeeded in this role by Earl Godwine, who heads the lay witnesses of every surviving diploma of Cnut from this point onwards. The brevity of Chronicle entries at this time means that the reason for Thorkell’s exile is unrecorded but it may have been another symptom of Cnut’s distrust. After all, Thorkell had previously deserted the Danes to serve King Aethelred, only returning to Cnut’s allegiance after the former’s death. A further augmentation of Godwine’s power came probably sometime after 1023, though when exactly is unclear; at this time the little known Earl Sired disappears from the witness lists of Cnut’s diplomas and Godwine appears to succeed to his authority over Kent.23

After 1023, Earl Godwine solidly maintained his allegiance to King Cnut and even his new family ties in Scandinavia failed to draw him from this. Even when his brothers-in-law, Jarl Ulf and Eilaf, rebelled against King Cnut in 1025, joining the Norwegians and Swedes, perhaps in an attempt to place his infant son Hardecnut on the Danish throne, Godwine remained loyal. When Cnut sailed to fight the combined forces of these opponents in 1025 or 1026, at a battle on the Holy River on the borders of Denmark and Sweden, Godwine probably supported Cnut and he may even have provided men for him as the Chronicle refers to Englishmen who fell there.24

Although, according to the Chronicle, Cnut appears to have been defeated in this battle, the huge resources of England allowed him to recover and strike back against his enemies. Cnut’s letter of 1027 to the English tells of his returning from Rome by way of Denmark, ‘to conclude . . . peace . . . with those nations . . . who wished to deprive [him] of the kingdom and of life, but could not since God . . . destroyed their strength’. Cnut struck back at his opponents by executing Jarl Ulf around 1026, and then invading Norway in 1028 and expelling King Olaf Haraldsson, assisted by his English wealth. On this occasion, Earl Godwine may again have accompanied him since the Chronicle refers to fifty ships of ‘English thegns’. It is possible that these were supplied by Godwine, just as his father Wulfnoth had supplied twenty ships for Aethelred’s fleet in 1008. However, there exists no early evidence for Godwine’s personal presence on either of Cnut’s later expeditions, only that of unnamed Englishmen,25 and it is possible that rather than accompanying Cnut, Godwine instead fulfilled an even more essential role. This was that of Regent of England during Cnut’s absence in Scandinavia, the post held by Earl Thorkell before his downfall. The Vita Eadwardi perhaps suggests this possibility, with its references to Godwine’s ‘first place among the nobles of the kingdom’ and the fact that ‘he throve mightily in the seat of authority’. Godwine had after all replaced Thorkell as Cnut’s leading supporter around 1023 and was the obvious man to assume his mantle as regent during Cnut’s later absences. However, this cannot be proven as Cnut’s regent in England is unfortunately unnamed in his letter of 1027 to the English.26

The rewards of Godwine’s service whether at home or abroad, were lands and office, and he received both in large measure. Thus he had been made Earl of Wessex, which after 1023 incorporated all England south of the Thames, and he probably gained many of his later lands in connection with this office. Others may have arisen from royal grants – a single diploma of Cnut to Godwine survives granting him land at Polhampton in Hampshire but others have undoubtedly been lost. Whether private grants or related to his office the bulk of Godwine’s lands probably came from his great patron Cnut.27

Godwine’s great debt to Cnut is reflected by the names he gave the children born to him and his Danish wife Gytha during these years. Thus Swein, his eldest son, was probably named after Cnut’s father; Harold, his second son and the future king, after either Cnut’s grandfather or brother; Tosti, his third son, probably after a famous war captain commemorated on Swedish rune stones who perhaps served Cnut; and lastly Gunnhild, his younger daughter, was probably named after Cnut’s own daughter. Gyrth, his fourth son, also had a Danish name, though not apparently connected with Cnut. This left only Leofwine and Wulfnoth, his youngest sons, and Edith and Aelfgyva, his other daughters, with English names. Leofwine was perhaps named after Godwine’s surviving English colleague and Wulfnoth was undoubtedly named after his grandfather. The origin of Edith’s name is unknown but may have previously occurred in the family.28

The most significant aspect of Godwine’s career during Cnut’s reign, apart from his sudden rise to the summit of power, was his survival there; by the end of the reign, apart from the obscure Earl Hrani, Godwine alone remained from all of Cnut’s original appointees. We have seen above that Thorkell was exiled in 1021 and that Eilaf went into rebellion in 1025 or 1026 and appears to have vanished thereafter. Earls Erik, Sired and Leofwine probably died around 1023, as this is the date of their last attestations of royal diplomas, and Earl Hakon died in 1030. This left only Earl Hrani of Herefordshire and Godwine himself.29

Cnut’s reign was a time for survivors and Godwine was the greatest of these, perhaps as a result of lessons learnt during the upheavals of Aethelred’s reign. This instinct for survival was soon to stand Godwine in good stead. Meanwhile, he was foremost among the three great earls of Cnut’s later years, each of whom were in charge of large areas of England, the others being Leofric and Siward. The former was the son of the Leofwine retained by Cnut from Aethelred’s reign and the latter a Dane of unknown origin. The king relied heavily on the support of these men while he concentrated on ruling his North Sea empire.30

This relatively stable period of Godwine’s life came to an abrupt end on 12 November 1035 when King Cnut died at Shaftesbury. The situation on his death brought a severe crisis which Godwine was only to survive at considerable cost. The essential elements of this crisis were that Cnut was survived by two sons of different mothers, who became rivals in their attempts to succeed to his empire. Hardecnut, Cnut’s son by Emma of Normandy, was at this time ruling in Denmark having been installed there by his father, while Harold ‘Harefoot’, his son by Aelfgifu of Northampton, was in England probably with his mother’s relatives in the Midlands.31

At an assembly or witan