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
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
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