The other details of the settlement agreed in the council reflect a return to equilibrium rather than further upheaval. Earls Godwine and Harold had been restored, though perhaps with slightly reduced authority. Earl Aelfgar must have had to resign his earldom to Harold, indicating the agreement of Earl Leofric to the settlement. In 1053 Aelfgar was to succeed again to Harold’s East Anglian earldom, when the latter moved on to Wessex, and this succession may have been agreed as part of the terms at this council. Earls Ralph and Odda appear to have retained their earldoms. Ralph’s earldom appears to have consisted of parts of Swein’s former earldom, and the latter’s death later that year removed the possibility of his returning to reclaim them. The position of Odda is less clear; either he may have retained Somerset, which Swein had previously held and could not reclaim, or he may have retained his entire earldom under Godwine. In the Church too equilibrium was restored with absent clerics Archbishop Robert and Bishop Ulf of Dorchester replaced by Stigand and Wulfwig respectively. Some have regarded Stigand’s appointment as a reward for his support of Godwine, but this seems unlikely as during the crisis period he played a neutral role as negotiator between the factions. The appointment may rather have been his reward from Edward for arranging a peaceful settlement.
21
A great deal has been written concerning Stigand’s uncanonical investiture with the archbishopric of Canterbury when his predecessor was still alive. However, it must be remembered that his appointment was dictated by politics. The Norman Robert was now politically unacceptable in England, and Stigand was seen by Edward as a suitable successor to the post, both as diplomat and administrator. William of Normandy himself would later recognize this fact by retaining Stigand as archbishop until 1070, and only disposing of him when he was no longer of value. It has been suggested that the appointment of Aethelric, the unsuccessful candidate of 1050, would have been better. In canonical terms, this is certainly true, but he could hardly be an acceptable choice to Edward, as he was not only related to Godwine, but by now identified too closely with his cause. King Edward had always controlled all Church appointments, as he demonstrated in 1051, and even after Godwine’s dramatic change of fortune he still retained this control. Stigand had been a royal servant for many years, first under Cnut and later under Edward himself when, in spite of his early links to Queen Emma, he had been successively promoted to the sees of East Anglia, Winchester and now Canterbury in recognition of his abilities and his service to the king. The fact that he retained control of the see of Winchester, after his promotion to Canterbury, was highly unusual and an important factor in his subsequent condemnation, and it is hard to understand what purpose lay behind this.
22
The canonical irregularity of Stigand’s position was clearly recognized in England, both in terms of his occupation of Canterbury and his pluralist retention of Winchester. He would not be called upon to perform the normal duties of his position and hence did not consecrate any bishops or kings except during his brief period of acceptance by Pope Benedict X in 1058. Similarly, he was not called upon to consecrate Harold’s church at Waltham in 1060. Nevertheless, he continued to hold his archbishopric and was even able to sit in council with the Papal legates who visited England in 1062 to supervise the pluralist Archbishop Ealdred of York’s surrender of the Bishopric of Worcester. It would seem that much of the distaste for Stigand’s uncanonical position arose after his political fall from grace, and it certainly did not hinder his retention of his position prior to this.
23
It is interesting to note that little of the same concern is ever expressed over the similar position of Bishop Wulfwig, who had replaced the Norman Ulf as Bishop of Dorchester in exactly the same circumstances as Stigand had replaced Robert at Canterbury. This may perhaps reflect the relative importance of the two men and the sees concerned. Stigand’s additional pluralism in retaining Winchester may also have played a part. However, Ulf’s own unsavoury reputation as a simonist, almost deposed by Pope Leo IX in 1050, may be the main reason for the lack of concern about his successor’s uncanonical position.
24
There was one important result of the crisis of 1051–2 which was unknown in England at the time, but which was to have grave consequences for the future. The defeated Archbishop Robert of Jumieges had fled to the Continent fearful for his own safety and taken Godwine’s son and grandson with him, probably as a guarantee of this. There, he learned of his banishment by King Edward and his replacement as Archbishop of Canterbury by Stigand, and travelled to Rome to complain of his treatment and to condemn his successor. This action resulted in the condemnation of Archbishop Stigand by successive Popes and the related decline in the reputation of the English Church.
25
More importantly, it seems likely that it was at this time that Robert visited Duke William of Normandy, probably soon after his return from Rome, to declare that King Edward had nominated him as his heir and to hand over Godwine’s son and grandson, supposedly as hostages to secure his claim. This seems to fit the evidence better than those interpretations which place Robert’s declaration of William as King Edward’s heir as ocurring during 1051. The Norman sources fail to date the event, except to say that Robert was archbishop at the time, but William of Poitiers clearly links it to the handing over of the hostages. In 1052, as has already been mentioned, Robert was in a position to do this. Further, after his exile in 1052, Robert had plenty of time to raise such matters with Duke William, resident as he was in Normandy until his death, sometime between 9 January 1053 and 1055, perhaps closer to the former.
26
The truth of what Robert of Jumieges said to Duke William concerning the English throne, in what were probably private discussions, will never be known. He must have been a disenchanted and bitter man, deeply resentful of Godwine, who had brought about his fall from power, and disenchanted with the English in general, who had failed to support him. If Earl Godwine had remained an exile, Robert would have been Archbishop of Canterbury, enjoying the power and prestige that went with the post. He may have attempted to gain William’s aid for his restoration, and in doing so may have tempted him with an offer of the English crown as an incentive. It should be remembered that the archbishopric of Canterbury carried with it the duty of performing royal consecrations and Robert may have emphasized this in his discussions with William. All of this would explain the Norman accounts of Edward’s designation of William as his heir, as well as William’s clear belief in this himself. At the same time, the fact that Edward did not make any such designation personally provides an explanation as to why it seemed such an extraordinary move in the first place, and why no such event is found recorded in contemporary English sources.
It should be noted here that it is possible that an alarmed Edward, faced with the imminent return of Godwine in September 1052, might have been ready to grasp at any straw. In such circumstances, Robert may have dangled the idea, however fanciful, of military aid from William, and gained an impromptu promise from Edward in return, which the latter soon forgot in the heat of subsequent events but which Robert passed on to William as a solemn pledge. This is suggested only as an outside possibility. It seems far more likely that the designation was the work of Robert himself.
Whatever the events, Robert of Jumieges clearly left William with the impression that Edward had designated him heir to his kingdom and perhaps that Godwine’s hostages were his guarantee of it. This ‘designation’ then formed the foundation for the Norman justification of William’s conquest, and was truthful in these terms. This interpretation accounts for William’s subsequent actions in 1064, his invasion in 1066, and for the constant references in later documents to his succession to Edward by rightful inheritance. It also accounts for the lack of any reference to such a designation in the contemporary English sources. We have seen that it is unlikely that such a promise was in fact made by Edward, but that William believed it had been made there can surely be no doubt. The sequence of events posed here would appear to resolve the main contradictions between the English and Norman records and is probably the closest to the truth we are ever likely to get. It also provides an explanation as to why William of Jumieges made no mention of this ‘designation’ of Duke William when he wrote that part of his work covering the years 1051–2; that part of the work was completed before Duke William had let the news be known to anyone other than his most intimate circle. William of Jumieges only learnt of it as a result of Harold’s visit to Normandy in 1064, when Duke William revealed it to his barons, and then inserted it into his account of this later visit.
27
However, in 1052 this dark cloud was still beyond the horizon, and in England, in the meantime, the great crisis was over and the Godwine family, including Earl Harold, busied themselves in restoring their estates and authority. How long this peaceful
rapprochement
would last was unclear. Edward must have been unhappy about Godwine’s restoration and the banishment of some of his close friends and supporters. He had also been forced to abandon his plans for remarriage, and instead found himself still married to Edith with no prospect of direct male heirs. There was also the thorny problem of Swein, who could be expected home from his pilgrimage soon and who would, no doubt, again receive the support of his father for the restoration of his earldom. Thus there remained a number of unresolved problems which required to be dealt with before lasting peace could be restored and the kingdom stand united once again behind King Edward.
However, within the space of a year the political situation was transformed, and Earl Harold was catapulted into prominence. Firstly, probably towards the end of 1052, news came that Godwine’s eldest son, the ill-starred Swein, had died on 29 September near Constantinople on his way home from Jerusalem. This made Earl Harold the heir to his father, in addition to removing a major obstacle to improved relations with King Edward. Earl Godwine himself had fallen ill soon after his triumphant return, no doubt as a result of his recent exertions on campaign. He was after all probably in his sixties by this time. He rallied again, but on Easter Monday 1053, during the royal feast at Winchester and with his sons Harold and Tosti present, he collapsed. Three days later, on 15 April, Earl Godwine died. He was buried in the Old Minster, Winchester. Earl Harold was chosen by King Edward to succeed to his father’s earldom of Wessex. The king replaced him as earl of East Anglia with Aelfgar, son of Leofric, who had held that earldom during Harold’s exile.
Finally, King Edward was free, both of Earl Godwine’s control and also of the possibility of the return of the brutal Swein. The deaths of Godwine and Swein removed two major points of dispute between the king and Godwine’s family, and paved the way for the possibility of long term reconciliation. This would depend on relations between the king and Harold, who had now been brought to centre stage. Only time would reveal how relations between the new Earl of Wessex and the king would develop, and how much Harold had learnt from the events of 1051–2. To understand his subsequent career, we must first look at the basis of the power that Harold was to wield at this present stage, which would become the foundation for his future rise to the kingship itself.
30
He abounded in riches whereby powerful kings and princes were brought into his alliance.
1
T
he previous chapters have described the rise of Harold’s father from relative obscurity as the son of a minor Sussex
thegn
to the heights of Earl of Wessex. Harold himself had now succeeded to this earldom and would continue this upward progression, ultimately ascending the throne itself. He would become the greatest man in England by 1066, more powerful by far than any of the other earls, and in combination with his brothers more powerful even than the king himself. This rise was based to a large part on an immense accession of lands and wealth to Harold and his family.
The basis of power in all agricultural societies was the ownership of land. It was land which ultimately provided for all the needs of every person in eleventh-century England. It supplied food for the table and clothing for the body, and, through the sale of surplus produce, wealth to permit the purchase of manufactured craft and luxury items both local and foreign. In addition to these immediate needs, the ownership of land also provided a source of political power. A man who owned a significant amount of land could not work it all directly but instead would rent it to tenants to work on his behalf. These tenants would support their own family directly from the land and in return would provide services and income to the owner. In this way, the owner would obtain supplies of food, clothing and other goods, a cash income and labour services for his own estates. He would also obtain political and military services from his tenants in return for his protection and support as their lord. The key significance of land is reflected by the existence of Domesday Book itself, which records landholding and the power stemming from it. The compilation of this work was a tremendous task, which involved significant government resources in eleventh-century terms, and it would not have been done had land not been the basis of royal and all other power.
2
Domesday Book records that in 1066 Earl Harold himself held lands valued for tax purposes at £2,846, while his men held lands valued at a further £836. (The land valuations in Domesday book represent values for tax purposes rather than the actual worth of the land itself or the amount of income arising from it.) The Godwine family as a whole, including Harold, held lands valued for tax at some £5,187, while their men held lands valued at a further £1,428. This compares with the king, who personally held lands valued for tax at £3,840, although adding the value of the land of the king’s men redressed the balance as it included the land of every man in England, and with Earl Leofric’s family, who held lands valued for tax at £2,493 and whose men held lands valued at a further £171. The fact that a contemporary source shows that a slave-woman was expected to feed herself through the winter for 3 pennies provides a comparative gauge for this immense wealth. This extensive landholding by Harold was the basis of the wealth which would later permit Harold’s generous gifts to his college of Holy Cross at Waltham and which would enable his mother to offer, for the return of his body after Hastings, its weight in gold. It would also provide the basis for Harold’s political power in England, which would very firmly place him second only to the king.
3