On his return to England Harold probably discussed William’s designs on the throne with Edward and with his family. The Tapestry shows Harold reporting to Edward on his return. Otherwise, these matters may not have been discussed more widely at this time. We do not know this, but the lack of any reference to the Norman visit or William’s claim in contemporary English sources is suggestive. This may have been to conceal Harold’s discomfiture, but more likely it was intended to prevent any undue alarm in England over this new threat. Some sources hint at concern on King Edward’s part and this may have resulted from this situation. Indeed, it may have contributed to his deathbed resolution to entrust his kingdom to Harold and to advise others to support Harold’s succession.
25
These two great brothers of a cloud-born land, the kingdom’s sacred oaks, two Hercules, excel all Englishmen when joined in peace.
1
H
arold had been considering the Norman duke’s ambitions for a year when a new problem arose which was to split apart his previously close-knit family. The northern earldom of Northumbria, which had been ruled since 1055 by his younger brother Tosti, rose in rebellion against its earl.
It has been suggested that the rebellion was largely the result of the appointment of Tosti, a ‘West Saxon’ earl, to rule the Anglo-Danish earldom of Northumbria. This conclusion does not fit the facts because although Tosti’s father, Godwine, was a West Saxon, his mother, Gytha, was a Dane. Earl Tosti was therefore an Anglo-Dane, raised speaking both languages and steeped in both traditions, very much like the men of his new earldom. He certainly had no local connections but, as far as we know, neither had his predecessor, the Danish Earl Siward, who had ruled Northumbria with considerable success for over twenty years, and nor had the man chosen by the rebels to be his successor, Morcar, younger brother of Earl Edwin of Mercia. Siward had been appointed earl of the southern part of Northumbria by Cnut in 1033 and secured the rest after Earl Eadwulf’s murder in 1041. It is true that Siward did subsequently marry into the family of the old Northumbrian earls during his rule, while Tosti could not do so since he was already married to Judith of Flanders. Morcar was equally an intruder. In spite of his Danish name, he had only tenuous connections through his mother, Aelfgifu, with Northumbria. She appears to have been connected to the family of Wulfric
Spott
, which held lands in Lancashire around 1000 and one of whose members, Aelfhelm, was briefly
ealdorman
of York before his murder in 1006.
2
Nevertheless, in spite of his lack of local connections, Tosti successfully ruled the earldom for some ten years before facing rebellion in 1065.
3
If the cause of the rebellion lay not in Tosti’s origins, then it must instead be sought in his actions as earl. He began his rule well by taking full account of local conditions in his new earldom. He appointed as his deputy and advisor a local man called Copsi, who held lands in the North Riding of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and who could provide advice on local affairs. In addition, the new earl and his wife lavished veneration and gifts on St Cuthbert’s Church in Durham with the intention of propitating the local saint in support of his rule. This generosity appears to have proved effective in securing their good memory in the records of the clerks of Durham, who subsequently remained loyal to the earl. In 1056 Tosti installed Aethelwine, King Edward’s choice as Bishop of Durham in succession to the unpopular Aethelric, and he was subsequently to provide solid support for Tosti. The earl also maintained the close relationship that his predecessor Siward had established with Malcolm, King of Scots. The two men are referred to as ‘sworn brothers’, and in 1059 Earl Tosti escorted Malcolm to make his formal submission to King Edward following the final elimination of his Scottish rivals the year before.
4
The result of these careful policies was that Tosti ruled the earldom successfully for almost ten years. There are no records of any real dissatisfaction with his rule during this period, indeed there appear to be indications of approval. The earl is widely reported to have enforced law and order in his earldom, something generally approved of by the Church and specifically reflected in a later Durham miracle story. This tells of a certain Barcwith, one of Earl Tosti’s men, zealously pursuing a fugitive outlaw called Aldan-Hamal into St Cuthbert’s Church. Naturally, Barcwith was struck down by the saint for this violation of sanctuary, but the story nevertheless reflects Tosti’s eagerness to enforce justice. The northern earldom was undoubtedly considered more unruly than any others with its blood feuds, the most famous being that involving the family of the Northumbrian earls itself, and with Earl Oswulf falling victim to a robber in 1067. The
Vita Eadwardi
also speaks of Tosti reducing ‘the number of robbers . . . by mutilating or killing them’. This enforcement of justice may have produced tensions with local
thegns
by interfering with their local jurisdictions, but these appear to have been not unduly disruptive. Earl Tosti certainly won the approval of some since his name, along with that of his father, Godwine, was entered in gold letters in the
Liber Vitae
of the Durham clerks. The earl’s name was also incorporated in the commemorative inscription on the sundial of St Gregory’s Church in Kirkdale commissioned by Orm Gamalsson, the father of one of his later opponents. Indeed, the restoration of St Gregory’s Church itself, which this inscription commemorates, may imply more settled conditions in the area as a result of Tosti’s rule.
5
The first interruption to Tosti’s rule apparently came from outside when a Norse fleet, which had allied itself with Earl Aelfgar, raided England in 1058. This raid probably struck at the Irish Sea coasts of Tosti’s earldom, and Domesday Book records of wasted land in Amounderness may be confirmation of this. However, Earl Tosti appears not to have been blamed for failing to counter this ‘unexpected’ raid. Again in 1061, when Earl Tosti was on a pilgrimage to Rome, Malcolm of Scotland took advantage of his absence to raid the north of England, including Lindisfarne. This incident has been seen as a sign of weakness on Tosti’s part because no susequent retaliation is recorded. This may, of course, be a result of the paucity of our sources at this time, but it is also possible that Tosti was able to keep Malcolm in check with diplomacy. The author of the
Vita Eadwardi
hints at this when he speaks of Tosti wearing down the Scots ‘as much by cunning as by . . . military campaigns’ and indeed no further Scottish attacks are recorded until after the Conquest. It is possible that Tosti’s links with Gospatric, son of Maldred, Malcolm’s cousin, may have helped him to secure the latter’s quiescence.
6
William Kapelle claims that this Scottish invasion resulted in the loss of Cumbria, and in Earl Tosti’s position being undermined by his failure to recover it. However, there is no clear evidence for the loss of Cumbria at this date, and the arguments Kapelle advances in support of this claim are unconvincing. The existence of wasted land in Amounderness proves nothing as it could have been caused by the Norse raids of 1058, or by William’s later harrying of the north in 1069. The fact that King Malcolm held Cumbria in 1070 does not necessarily mean that he gained it in 1061, and it seems much more likely that this occurred in the immediate post-Conquest period when Northumbria was in a state of chaos. The suggestion that Earl Tosti was unable to retaliate militarily against Malcolm because of the insecurity of his position in Northumbria, where a force of 200
huscarls
was needed to hold down the earldom itself, is absurd. In 1063 Earl Tosti’s position was sufficiently secure that he was able to lead a major force into North Wales, to participate in his brother’s great campaign, with no ill effects in Northumbria. This would have been impossible if he had faced widespread discontent in his own earldom. Indeed, the booty gained on the expedition may have reinforced his popularity there.
7
If we consider the evidence objectively it is apparent that the discontent against Tosti’s rule first arose not in 1055 or 1061 but after the successful Welsh campaign of 1063. This was probably when Tosti began to be drawn into the confused local politics of the Northumbrian nobility. Either late in 1063, after the Welsh campaign, or early in 1064, Tosti had Gamal, son of Orm, and Ulf, son of Dolfin, assassinated in his own chamber at York while they visited him under safe conduct. (The fathers of these men were probably the Orm who commissioned the Kirkdale sundial, and the Dolfin who fell in Siward’s battle with Macbeth in 1054.) The date is not clear from John of Worcester, who speaks of these killings taking place ‘the year before’ the death of Gospatric on 28 December 1064. This Gospatric, the son of Uhtred, was slain by order of Queen Edith while attending King Edward’s Christmas court. His murder was reportedly the result of the queen’s intervention in a dispute between Gospatric and her brother, Tosti. He was probably the same man who issued the famous writ concerning lands in Allerdale in Cumbria. What were the reasons behind these savage actions carried out by Earl Tosti, or on his behalf? It has been suggested that it was an attempt to stifle opposition by removing its potential leaders and this is certainly possible. Earl Tosti’s predecessor, Siward, had acted in a similar manner, killing Earl Eadwulf, who controlled the region beyond the Tees in 1041, in order to seize control of all Northumbria.
8
However, there is another possibility which could explain these actions by Tosti. When Tosti visited Rome in 1061, among his following was a young man named Gospatric, a kinsman of King Edward. This was almost certainly Gospatric, son of Maldred, a grandson of King Aethelred and cousin of King Malcolm, who was later to become Earl of Northumbria under William. This Gospatric, according to the
Vita Eadwardi
, which was written for Tosti’s sister, Queen Edith, showed considerable valour and loyalty in aiding the earl’s escape when their party was attacked by robbers on the return journey. The fact that Gospatric accompanied Tosti on this journey indicates that he had probably entered the service of the earl, and the prominence he is given shows that he had become an important member of his entourage. If this was the case, it would not be surprising if Tosti reciprocated by promoting Gospatric’s interests in Northumbria.
9
This would probably involve Tosti in acting against the rival lines of the descendants of
Ealdorman
Waltheof and the murders of Gamal, Ulf and Gospatric would fit such a pattern. Gospatric, son of Uhtred, Lord of Allerdale, was the senior representative of the elder line of Waltheof’s descendants. The other two murdered men were closely linked to this Gospatric. Ulf, son of Dolfin, was probably the grandson of the Thorfinn MacThore to whom Gospatric had granted lands in Allerdale in his famous writ, during Earl Siward’s rule. Gamal was probably the grandson of his namesake who also appeared in Gospatric’s Allerdale writ, and son of the Orm who commissioned the Kirkdale sundial and who married Gospatric’s niece, Aethelthryth. All of these killings may therefore have been arranged to further the career of Tosti’s protégé Gospatric, son of Maldred, who came from the junior line of Waltheof’s descendants. Whatever the reason behind Earl Tosti’s actions, these deaths undoubtedly aroused opposition to his rule among those linked to Gospatric of Allerdale, north of the Tees.
10
This unrest was not the main cause of the rebellion of 1065, although the rebels did use these slayings as justification for their actions. The identified leaders of the rebellion, Gamelbearn, Dunstan, son of Aethelnoth, and Gluniarn, son of Heardwulf, were
thegns
of Yorkshire with no apparent links to Gospatric. They were unlikely to be interested in the rivalries of Waltheof’s descendants. Instead, the interests of the leading rebels were centred on the extensive lands they held in Yorkshire. Domesday Book records these lands, including one estate at Temple Newsham held jointly by Dunstan and Gluniarn, which lay mainly in the West Riding but also included houses in York itself.
11
It is John of Worcester who indicates the probable reason for the involvement of these men in the rebellion when he speaks of a huge tribute Tosti had ‘unjustly levied on the whole of Northumbria’. In addition, the
Vita Eadwardi
, although otherwise sympathetic to Tosti, admits that he had ‘repressed [the Northumbrians] with the heavy yolk of his rule’, possibly another reference to this tax. It appears that the northern shires may have had a much more favourable tax assessment than the rest of England. Earl Tosti seems to have made the mistake of attempting to redress this anomaly and impose on the northern shires a level of tax closer to that found in the rest of England. The exact change made is unfortunately unknown, but that it may have caused the rebellion is suggested by the widespread participation of minor
thegns
in the revolt, all of whom, naturally, would be affected by such a change. Thus Chronicle C speaks of the participation of ‘all the
thegns
of Yorkshire’ and notes that ‘all Tosti’s earldom unanimously deserted him’, while Chronicle D adds ‘all the
thegns
of . . . Northumberland’ as well. The rebellion was also led by fairly minor figures in contrast to the leaders of other revolts, such as Earls Godwine and Aelfgar.
12
The purpose of such an increase in the tax level was clear. It would result in a substantial increase in revenue for the king, and since the earl took a third of all such revenue, it would enhance his own wealth too. This may have been particularly important since Tosti’s participation in Harold’s Welsh campaign and his vigorous enforcement of justice must have been draining his coffers. Although he should have realized that such a move would be widely unpopular, he may have considered his position sufficiently secure by 1065 for him to take this chance. He had already secured his government of the Northumbrians through increased enforcement of law and order, which possibly involved intervention in local blood feuds and had probably reduced general unrest in the earldom. This and the elimination of possible threats from Wales and Scotland and from the local nobility may have contributed to what was to prove a false sense of security on Tosti’s part.