Harold (40 page)

The restoration of the Godwine family a year later brought about further reorganization. Earl Harold recovered his earldom of East Anglia from Aelfgar, including Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex and Cambridgeshire, but possibly with the exception of Huntingdonshire, which may have been retained by Siward. Earl Swein’s death later that year, before he could return to England, avoided any need to reorder Ralph’s earldom in the west, which he continued to hold after this point. Thereafter, Earl Aelfgar resumed control of Harold’s East Anglian earldom in 1053, when the latter succeeded to Wessex.
¹⁵

The next rearrangement of the smaller earldoms arose following the consecutive deaths of Earl Leofric and Earl Ralph in 1057. Earl Aelfgar succeeded his father in Mercia and surrendered his earldom of East Anglia, which was subsequently passed unchanged to Gyrth. In contrast, the shires of Ralph’s former earldom were redistributed to a number of other earls. As we have seen, Earl Harold certainly received Herefordshire and probably Gloucestershire. In addition, Earl Leofwine is known to have obtained Hertfordshire and Middlesex, but possibly also received Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. It would seem that Oxfordshire should also have fallen to Leofwine, but instead we have evidence that this shire was held by both Earl Aelfgar and Earl Gyrth. The solution to this difficulty would appear to be that Earl Aelfgar was granted Oxfordshire as his share of Ralph’s earldom, but this shire later passed to Earl Gyrth, either as the price of Aelfgar’s exile in 1058 or after his death in 1062.
¹⁶

This summary of the succession to earldoms and the variations in their extent and composition is by no means final, but represents simply an account which fits the available evidence. The resultant pattern of earldoms over this time is illustrated in the series of maps on pp. 237–8. In light of the scarcity of this evidence, other interpretations remain possible and there remain some difficulties, for example, the fate of Earl Odda’s earldom. Nevertheless, the framework presented is a valid one and has been employed to provide the background to this account of events in King Edward’s reign.

1. E.B. Fryde, D.E. Greenway, S. Porter and I. Roy,
Handbook of British Chronology
, 3rd edn (London, 1986), p. 29 for the length of Harold’s reign. Only King Edmund ‘Ironside’ ruled for a shorter period at seven months twelve days.

2. P. Compton,
Harold the King
(London, 1961) and H.R. Loyn, ‘Harold, Son of Godwine’ in
1066 Commemoration Lectures
(London, 1966). F. Barlow,
Edward the Confessor
(London, 1979), D.C. Douglas,
William the Conqueror
(London, 1964) and D. Bates,
William the Conqueror
(London, 1989) all feature Harold but only in relation to their eponymous subjects.

3. P. Stafford,
Unification and Conquest
(London, 1989), pp. 83–100 for a new interpretation.

4. H.R. Loyn,
The Governance of Anglo-Saxon England 500–1087
(London, 1984), Chapters 4, 5, 6, F.M. Stenton,
Anglo-Saxon England
(Oxford, 1971), Chapter XV, pp. 545–56, D. Whitelock,
The Beginnings of English Society
, rev. edn (Harmondsworth, 1972), Chapters II, III, IV, and V, D. Crouch,
The Image of Aristocracy in Britain 1000–1300
(London, 1992), pp. 46–50, Stafford,
Unification
, Chapters 8, 9, 11, Barlow,
Edward
, Chapters III, VIII for more detail on the social and political background.

5. R. Fleming,
Kings and Lords in Conquest England
(Cambridge, 1991), pp. 52–4, R.A. Brown,
The Normans and the Norman Conquest
(London, 1969), pp. 78–84, P.A. Clarke,
The English Nobility under Edward the Confessor
(Oxford, 1994), pp. 162–3, E. John, ‘Edward the Confessor and the Norman Succession’,
EHR
, XCIV (1979), pp. 244–6 for the view of weak kingship and over-mighty earls. Barlow,
Edward
, pp. 286–8 for a more balanced view.

6.
ASC
, pp. xi–xxiv for the references in this book cited by Chronicle version year date. Ibid., pp. xvii–xviii.
EHD II
, No. 1, p. 103, Barlow,
Edward
, p. xviii,
The Norman Conquest
, ed. R.A. Brown (London, 1984), p. 51,
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
, ed. M. Swanton (London, 1996), pp. xxiii– xxviii for political bias in the different versions of the Chronicle. The new translation by Swanton appeared too late to be used in this book and I have relied on that of Whitelock
et al.
(see Abbreviations) throughout.

7.
JW
for the references in the book cited by the year date. R.R. Darlington and P. McGurk ‘The
Chronicon ex Chronicis
of “Florence” of Worcester and its Sources for English History before 1066’,
Anglo-Norman Studies
, V (1982), pp. 185–96,
EHD I
, p. 120 for the date and make up of this work. Unfortunately I have only been able to consult the single published volume of this new edition which ends in 1066. I refer to the older and less reliable translation of
Flor
for the years after 1066. The volume of the new edition covering the period after 1066 is now available.

8.
VER
, Introduction for the probable date and purpose of this work. E.K. Heningham, ‘The Literary Unity, the Date and the Purpose of Lady Edith’s Book: “The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster”’,
Albion
, 7 (1975), pp. 24–40 for another view of its purpose.
VER
, p. xlv for the focus on Tosti; Ibid., p. xxi for this confusion of purpose; and Ibid., p. 89 for its quote.

9.
WJ
, Volume I, pp. xxxii–xxxv, and pp. xlv–l, liii–liv for William of Jumieges’ chapters on Duke William’s claim and the Conquest, dated between 1067 and 1070.

10.
WP
, pp. xii–xx. R.H.C. Davis, ‘William of Poitiers and his History of William the Conqueror’ in R.H.C. Davis (ed.),
From Alfred the Great to Stephen
(London, 1981), pp. 101, 104, Brown,
Norman Conquest
, p. 15 and
EHD II
, No. 4, p. 230 for the dating of this work. I have referred to Foreville’s French edition throughout but have added in parentheses references to English translations where these exist. Thus ( ) refers to the translation contained in Brown,
Norman Conquest
, pp. 15–41, and [ ] to that contained in S. Morillo (ed.),
The Battle of Hastings
(Woodbridge, 1996), pp. 3–15. A new English translation is now available in R.H.C. Davis and M. Chibnall,
The Guesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers
, Oxford 1998.

11. D.M. Wilson,
The Bayeux Tapestry
(London, 1985), p. 12,
The Bayeux Tapestry
, ed. F.M. Stenton (London, 1965), pp. 9–11, and Brown,
Norman Conquest
, pp. 173–173 for the background. Wilson,
Bayeux
, pp. 17–18, Stenton,
Bayeux
, pp. 9–24, and D.J. Bernstein,
The Mystery of the Bayeux Tapestry
(London, 1986), pp. 114–15 for the allusiveness and difficulties of interpretation. The number of interpretations of Aelfgyva scene are legion. For example, Wilson,
Bayeux
, p. 178, Stenton,
Bayeux
, p. 10, Bernstein,
Mystery
, p. 19, J.B. McNulty, ‘The Lady Aelfgyva in the Bayeux Tapestry’,
Speculum
, 55 (1980), pp. 659–68 and R.D. Wissolik, ‘The Saxon Statement: Code in the Bayeux Tapestry’,
Annuale Mediaevale
, 19 (1979), pp. 81-8.

12. Davis, ‘William of Poitiers’, pp. 104–112 for the interrelationship of these three sources.

13. C. Morton, ‘Pope Alexander II and the Norman Conquest’,
Latomus
, XXXIV (1975), pp. 362–82, and H.E.J. Cowdrey, ‘Bishop Ermenfrid of Sion and the Penitential Ordinance following the Battle of Hastings’,
Journal of Ecclesiastical History
, XX (1969), pp. 225–42 for later Papal concerns about the Norman Conquest, and
EHD II
, No. 81, pp. 649–50 for the text of the penance imposed on those participating in the Conquest.

14.
DB
, Introduction to each volume. Brown,
Norman Conquest
, pp. 158–9, V.H. Galbraith,
Domesday Book
(Oxford, 1974), pp. 33-7 and H.C. Darby,
Domesday England
(Cambridge, 1977), pp. 3–9 for the process of its compilation. Galbraith,
Domesday
, pp. 175–9 for the clearest statement of this revisionist position, but it is evident throughout the text itself.

15. T.J. Oleson,
The Witenagemot in the Reign of Edward the Confessor
(Oxford, 1955), pp. 35–47, A. Williams, ‘Land and Power in the Eleventh Century: The Estates of Harold Godwineson’,
Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, 1980
(1981), p. 171, Fleming,
Kings and Lords
, pp. 16–20, 47, and Barlow,
Edward
, pp. xxi–xxii for the scarcity of charters and the problems of reliability among those which do exist.

16. These sources are cited below where used.

17. Brown,
Norman Conquest
, p. xiv, Stafford,
Unification
, pp. 101–102, M. Chibnall,
Anglo-Norman England 1066–1166
(Oxford, 1986), p. 1 for the controversy about the impact of the conquest. Brown,
Normans
, pp. 121–4, Douglas,
William
, p. 169, Bates,
William
, p. 59, Barlow,
Edward
, pp. 107–8, 228, and John ‘Edward the Confessor’, pp. 241–67 for some assessments of the Norman claim.

1.
VER
, p. 11. (By permission of Oxford University Press)

2.
ASC
C/D/E 997 to 1005. The few exceptions were for justifiable reasons. Thus in 1000 and 1005 the Viking fleets withdrew to replenish in Normandy and Denmark respectively. While in 1002 they were paid off by the English with 24,000 pounds of silver.
ASC
C/D/E 1006 for the great fleet and 1007 for the payment.

3.
ASC
C/D/E 1008 and 1009.

4. S. Keynes,
The Diplomas of King Aethelred ‘The Unready’ 978–1016
(Cambridge, 1980), p. 212 for Eadric and Brihtric as
thegns
witnessing royal charters from 997 to 1007 and 997 to 1009 respectively.
ASC
C/D/E 1006 for Aelfhelm’s murder and
JW
1006 for Eadric’s involvement, supported by Keynes,
Diplomas
, p. 212.
ASC
C/D/E 1007 for Eadric’s elevation and Keynes,
Diplomas
, p. 213 for his marriage to Edith, which is recorded by
JW
1009 in a way which suggests it had occurred before that date.

5.
ASC
C 1009 for Wulfnoth
Cild
,
ASC
D/E/F 1009 and
JW
1008 for his Sussex origins and
ASC
F1009 for him as father of Earl Godwine.
JW
1008 does not indicate that Wulfnoth the Sussex
thegn
is the same as Wulfnoth father of Earl Godwine in
JW
1007 but since he makes the latter Wulfnoth a nephew of Eadric
Streona
and Brihtric, there appears to be confusion at this point in his account. Keynes,
Diplomas
, Tables 7 and 8 for Wulfnoth as a witness in only four out of fifty-four diplomas. N. Hooper, ‘Some Observations on the Navy in Late Anglo-Saxon England’ in C. Harper-Bill
et al.
(eds),
Studies in Medieval History for R. Allen Brown
(Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 206–7 for Kent and Sussex and the fleet.
ASC
C/D/E 994 Sussex was ravaged.
ASC
C/D/E 998 Danes ‘got their food’ from Sussex probably by plunder.
ASC
C/D/E 1006 they plundered ‘every shire of Wessex’.

6.
ASC
C/D/E 1009. (Methuen and Co.)