Where Harold made an oath to Duke William.
1
I
n 1064 Harold was at the height of his power and influence. A successful military commander and the leading noble in England, with the demise of Earl Aelfgar he had no real rivals. Three of his brothers were earls and he himself was right-hand man to King Edward. However, an episode occurred about this time which was ultimately to lead to his downfall. This was his visit to Normandy and his memorable encounter with William, Duke of Normandy. No contemporary English source mentions this episode – the Chronicle record is particularly sparse at this point – thus we are dependent largely on Norman sources, although there are hints of an alternative version in one later Anglo-Norman source. The Norman sources, which are closely interrelated, were composed sometime after the event, around 1067–70, and with the specific purpose of justifying William’s claim to the English throne. We must bear this in mind when considering both their accounts of this episode and, more importantly, their interpretations of it.
2
The Norman sources provide no precise date for Harold’s visit to Normandy. William of Jumieges places it somewhere between the death of King Henry of France in August 1060, and the death of King Edward in January 1066. William of Poitiers places it a little more precisely, at about the same time as the acquisition of the County of Maine, by Duke William, which had certainly been completed by 1064. This Norman dating of around 1064–5 fits well enough with the lack of any positive English evidence that Harold was anywhere else between the death of Gruffydd of Wales, in August 1063, and his giving orders for the construction of a hunting lodge at Portskewet, in July 1065. Within this period, a visit to Normandy by Harold is probably best placed in 1064, since by then Maine had been conquered. William’s expedition against Brittany, on which Harold is said to have accompanied him, probably also occurred in that year.
3
According to the Norman version of events, Harold was sent to Normandy by King Edward in order to confirm the latter’s earlier promise of the succession to Duke William and to swear fealty to him. However, we have seen that it is unlikely that any such promise was given by Edward, but rather that it was probably invented and imparted to William by Robert of Jumieges, Archbishop of Canterbury, following his exile in 1052. If this was the case, could Edward nevertheless have intended to make William his heir at this later date? This is highly unlikely. In 1051 Edward had no clearly established heir, although he did have a number of potential heirs, all with better qualifications than William. Now, he had secured a suitable and established heir in the person of his nephew,
Atheling
Edgar, and a reserve in Harold, the son of his now deceased nephew, Earl Ralph. As a result of this change in circumstances the reasons adduced against the nomination of William as heir in 1051 apply with even greater force to any such nomination in 1064. He remained a man with only distant links to the English dynasty and little or no support in the country, although he was now secure in possession of his duchy and much more widely known and regarded than in 1051. In addition, William’s recent conquest of Maine had resulted in the imprisonment and death of Edward’s nephew, Count Walter of the Vexin. Count Walter died in suspicious circumstances while in William’s custody, allegedly by poison, something unlikely to endear him to Edward. William of Poitiers hints that Edward was close to death and this was why he now sent Harold to pledge his kingdom. There is no support for this in English sources, which show that the king was still healthy enough to go hunting in autumn 1065. The suggestion that Edward intended William as his heir in 1064 seems less credible even than the case for this in 1051.
4
Since there seems to be little support for the Norman account that Harold came to Normandy to pledge the English throne to William, should we believe that Harold visited Normandy at all? Harold’s previous visit to Europe, to Flanders in 1056, also goes unrecorded in the chronicles, yet is clearly evidenced by the albeit chance survival of his name among the witnesses to a Flemish diploma. Unfortunately, there exists no similarly conclusive contemporary evidence for the Norman visit. The reference in the
Vita Eadwardi
to Harold’s personal study of the princes of Gaul is a little too unspecific to warrant use as confirmation. However, this lack of evidence and of any reference to the event in the English sources cannot be taken as an indication that a visit did not take place, and although the Norman accounts are clearly biased, they present facts which cannot be entirely dismissed. Thus it seems likely that the basic facts contained in their accounts, Harold’s visit to Normandy, and his oath to Duke William, must have a basis in truth, otherwise their authors would lose credibility completely. This does not mean that the causation constructed around these facts and the elaborate details added to them are necessarily accurate. It must be our task to attempt to reconstruct the most plausible sequence of cause and effect which link the main events related by these sources.
5
If we accept that Harold visited Normandy, but not to pledge support for William’s succession, then some other cause must have brought him there. There exist several alternative explanations for such a journey in other sources. As stated above, the contemporary
Vita Eadwardi
speaks in general terms of Harold making visits in order to study the French princes. Although this is a possibility, for Duke William was undoubtedly the most prominent of these princes and a man well worth study at this time, when he was at the summit of his power, it must remain an outside one.
6
The Bayeux Tapestry provides no direct information on the reason for Harold’s visit. It was probably made for William’s half-brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, around 1077 and therefore presents the Norman outline of events. However, it was produced by an English workshop, which perhaps wove its own outlook and sympathies into the design. This mixed origin or perhaps the simple brevity of its textual style mean that the text provides little clarity in a number of controversial areas. Nothing specific is recorded in the accompanying text to explain the reason for Harold’s journey. He is clearly shown speaking to King Edward before his departure, but the text fails either to state that Edward sent him, or to provide any reason for the journey. There are hints later in the Tapestry of what may be a marriage alliance, but the scene which reflects this unfortunately remains the most inscrutable in the entire work.
7
The suggestion that the proposal of a marriage alliance was involved is reflected in a number of later sources, usually in a secondary context, although perhaps it was originally more central. It may have been pushed into the background by the need to tie Harold’s visit more closely to the Norman claim to the throne. This required a direct sequence of events consisting of a promise of the throne in 1051, the pledge of it by oath in 1064, and the rightful succession in 1066. The suggestion of another purpose behind Harold’s visit to Normandy would obviously detract from this sequence, but the possibility certainly exists that Harold went to Normandy to arrange an alliance, including a marriage, with the new power in northern France. After all, his younger brother, Tosti, had married the sister of Baldwin V of Flanders and gained both prestige and a useful ally as a result.
8
The sources are confused on the details of any proposed marriage probably because it came to nothing in the end. The later English influenced sources appear to indicate some arrangement involving the marriage of Harold’s sister, Aelfgyva, to a Norman. Eadmer implies a marriage to William himself, which is clearly absurd since he was already married, but his eldest son, Robert, was then in his early teens and perhaps a suitable match. (Marriage between men and women of widely differing ages was fairly normal at this time.) One of William’s major barons may be an alternative candidate, but this would seem an unlikely match for the sister of someone of Harold’s importance. The tone of contempt considered by many to be present in the Tapestry’s reference to the woman Aelfgyva may possibly reflect a Norman view of this woman – as an unworthy match, and of a lower status. William may have viewed Harold as of vassal status in contrast to an almost sovereign lord like himself, but Harold undoubtedly viewed them as of equal status, great lords under a king. The Tapestry itself merely refers to a mysterious ‘Aelfgyva’, who may possibly be a sister of Harold. The form of the name in the Tapestry is English but this may be a result of the Tapestry’s English origins rather than an accurate representation of the original name. The woman could equally represent an anglicized Adeliza, William’s daughter, who may have been intended as a bride for Harold as part of William’s own arrangements for securing the English throne as later related by Orderic Vitalis. The real basis behind these traditions will probably never be established, but it nevertheless represents a possible reason for Harold’s journey.
9
There also exists the possibility that Harold did not intend to visit Normandy at all. A later Anglo-Norman source, William of Malmesbury, suggests that Harold was on a fishing trip when blown to shore by a storm. The Tapestry in one of its scenes may provide some evidence to support this by showing a fishing pole, although this may, in fact, be the origin of William’s story. It may simply be an incidental detail of the design, although it is absent from other scenes of sea voyages. Whether the English nobility of this period actually participated in fishing as a sport or pastime like hunting or hawking is unknown but perhaps unlikely.
10
The view of William of Malmesbury that Harold arrived in Normandy by accident leads us to the general possibility that Harold could have been en route to somewhere else on the Continent, and was caught in a storm and blown off course, ending up in Normandy. It should be remembered that in 1064 Harold made landfall in Ponthieu and not Normandy at all. He may have been travelling to arrange a marriage alliance elsewhere, hence the presence of his sister Aelfgyva, as, perhaps, recorded by the Tapestry. This would resolve the problem of there being no suitable groom in Normandy itself. Whatever the exact case, although it cannot be proved that his arrival in Normandy was purely accidental, this possibility should none the less be kept in mind.
11
Eadmer, whose writing dates to just before the end of the eleventh century, informs us that the reason for Harold’s journey was that he wished to secure the release of those members of his family held hostage by William since 1052. Eadmer was an English monk of Christ Church, Canterbury, in the period from before 1067 onwards. He would have been well informed about Harold and his career through the close contacts of that community with its former member and Harold’s relative the monk Aethelric, one-time candidate for the archbishopric of Canterbury and later bishop of Sussex. Full details about Aethelric’s career and connections will be found in Appendix One. Indeed, it is known that Eadmer consulted this very Bishop Aethelric when writing his Life of St Dunstan and he could therefore also have been in receipt of inside information from him when compiling his account of Harold’s journey. The need for Harold to secure the release of his relatives certainly provides a very direct link between Harold and William, which is perhaps lacking in the accounts of possible marriage alliances discussed above. These hostages had, it is true, been held for some twelve years, and Harold seems to have made no attempt to obtain their release until now. The reason for this is most probably that following his Welsh campaign and with England secure and at peace, Harold finally felt able to perform this mission personally, which had been impossible before. Alternatively, perhaps he had already sought their release but had been unsuccessful, and therefore no record remains. Eadmer’s account may represent the closest thing we have to an English account of Harold’s visit and one based on sources close to his family. It should therefore perhaps be given more credence than its late date would indicate.
12
If we dismiss confirmation of the Norman claim to the throne as a valid reason there remain three main possible reasons for Harold’s visit to Normandy: he arrived there purely by accident; he went there to arrange some form of alliance, possibly involving a marriage; he went there to negotiate the release of the hostages taken to Normandy by Robert of Jumieges in 1052. If Harold’s journey to Normandy was intentional, whether to free the hostages or arrange an alliance, it has been viewed as a grave error of judgement. He had by this action placed himself in the hands of Duke William, a ruthless ruler actively pursuing the English throne, who would not waste such an opportunity. However, if we accept that no promise of the succession was made in 1051, apart from the private pledge of Robert of Jumieges, then there was no reason for anyone outside William’s closest circle to know that he aimed at the English throne. This is especially the case when everyone in England in 1064 would have understood that
Atheling
Edgar held an unchallengable position as heir to the throne under all the necessary criteria.
It should also be emphasized that at this time a Norman invasion of England in support of such a claim must have seemed unlikely. In the previous hundred years the real threat to England had always come from the north, from whence Scandinavian kings always stood ready to invade England and seize the throne. Earl Tosti understood this and would seek aid from that quarter in 1066. In contrast, in the same period there had been no invasions at all from the Continent and the only previous threat from Normandy came from Scandinavian raiders using the duchy as a temporary base. True, Duke Robert had planned an invasion in 1033 or 1034 but this proved abortive and did not even come to the attention of the English chroniclers. The landings by
Athelings
Edward and Alfred in 1036, as we have seen, were little more than raids and may have originated outside Normandy itself. The natural assumption based on experience at the time was that Scandinavians invaded England, but Frenchmen did not.
13