In addition to the evidence of the sources, the actions of the people of England in response to Harold’s succession indicate a broad acceptance. There exists no evidence of rebellion against his kingship, either in favour of
Atheling
Edgar or as we shall see in support of either of the foreign invaders of 1066. There are no significant recorded depositions or exiles by Harold, even of Norman vassals of King Edward, and no indication of major changes of personnel in positions of national or local importance. There was unease in some quarters about his succession in place of
Atheling
Edgar, but this never resulted in any overt opposition to his rule. Thus a source close to Abbot Baldwin of Bury St Edmunds speaks of Harold ‘succeeding to the kingdom by craft’, probably indicating a natural preference for Edgar as Edward’s successor felt by the latter’s former physician. However, in spite of this, Abbot Baldwin did not fail in his duty during 1066 to supply troops for the new King Harold’s armies. There can really be no doubt that Harold’s succession to the kingdom was accepted by the majority of the population.
32
Before moving on to Harold’s coronation, we must pause to look in more detail at the character of the man who was about to ascend to the throne of England.
A true friend of his race and country.
1
W
e have seen Harold as Earl of East Anglia, as an exile driven from the land, as the powerful Earl of Wessex, and now on the threshold of kingship, but what can be said about him personally? To identify him as an individual, we need to have answers to some of the following questions. What did he look like? What can we tell about his character? What were his relations with his family like? Who were his friends and supporters? To answer these questions for any early medieval figure is difficult. The dearth of sources of the kind necessary to consider these matters is always a problem, and given King Harold’s brief fame, this is particularly the case. In addition, the few sources which do survive for Harold tend to suffer from bias, whether in favour or against him, as a result of his central role in the controversial events of 1066. In spite of this, the few available sources are sufficient to permit us at least to attempt to sketch him in outline.
What can we say about Harold’s physical appearance? This is always the most difficult aspect to determine of a medieval figure, because at that time symbol and allegory were more prized in art than realism. The few ‘portraits’ which survive of figures from this period tend therefore to be representations rather than true likenesses. This means effectively that we cannot know what people actually looked like but only how they themselves or others wished them to be represented. We are fortunate in possessing two probably independent representations of Harold’s face. The first can be found in the scenes of the later Bayeux Tapestry, and the other on the coinage which he would issue as king. These sources are both very much representational but they share sufficient common features to allow us to consider that they provide a general likeness of Harold. They show him with long hair and a moustache in the style of an Anglo-Saxon noble, which later so intrigued the Normans. The significance of the moustache as representational of a warrior will be recalled from the Chronicle account of Harold’s chaplain Leofgar, who retained his moustache as a bishop. The coins add a neatly trimmed beard, perhaps grown after he became king or perhaps considered to represent the gravitas of his new position. In this context, it should be noted that King Edward is shown with a beard in the Bayeux Tapestry, as are a number of English kings elsewhere, although this may be as equally representational of age as of status. The actual ‘portrait’ of Harold on his coins shows strong influence from earlier Roman Imperial designs, particularly in the construction of the neck muscles. It is not therefore a true portrait of Harold himself, but rather represents how he wished to be shown. It was the king who finally authorised the design to be used on the coinage, even in cases where archbishops may have inspired their choice as with the
Agnus Dei
coinage of King Aethelred II. The fact that Harold’s face on the coins has the rugged and determined look of a warrior was ultimately a result of his endorsement of this image.
2
This face was placed on a body described as handsome, graceful and strong by the author of the
Vita Eadwardi
, who either gained his information from Harold’s sister, Queen Edith, or perhaps from direct observation. This is not exactly a detailed description but he was apparently taller than his brother Tosti, and ‘well practised in endless fatigues’. Although rather conventional, this account does not seem to be solely panegyric. Harold’s strength is witnessed by the famous scene in the Bayeux Tapestry, where he pulls two men from quicksand while crossing the river Couesnon. Harold’s endurance would also be amply evidenced in the year 1066, by his ability to undertake two journeys of 190 miles each and fight a tough battle at the end of each of them, all within the space of a month.
3
So, we know only a little about Harold’s actual appearance. What can we say about his character? The author of the
Vita Eadwardi
describes him as wise, patient, merciful, courageous, temperate, and prudent but ruthless with opponents. This portrayal seems to lean rather heavily in Harold’s favour, and we need to test it against what we know of Harold’s character from his actions as earl and later as king.
4
The essential dual nature of Harold’s character is perhaps best summed up by two very important symbols from his career. The first of these is the device on his personal banner, which is described in the sources as consisting of the image of a warrior or armed man, worked in pure gold and jewels. This perhaps represented the essential Harold, a warrior, steeped in the military traditions of his English and Danish forebears. This may be confirmed by the names given to two of his sons, Edmund and Magnus, which were not family names. These almost certainly commemorate Edmund ‘Ironside’, the warrior king who stoutly defended England against Cnut, and Magnus of Norway, the conqueror of Denmark, both of whom were probably heroic figures to Harold. The probable personal association of Harold’s father, Godwine, with Edmund ‘Ironside’ makes the former likely, while the latter is almost certain since Magnus of Norway was first to bear this name in imitation of Charlemagne. Also Leofgar, Harold’s personal chaplain, was seen as a very military figure, who, when appointed Bishop of Hereford in 1056, continued to wear a warrior’s moustache and took the field against the Welsh. Harold’s own military skills and abilities are indisputable from his record in 1063 and later in 1066. They are indirectly confirmed by William of Poitiers, who described him as warlike, courageous and eager for renown and highlighted his great victory over Harald of Norway.
5
In contrast to this military aspect of Harold’s character was a second, represented by the legend found on the coinage which would be issued on his accession to the throne. This coinage bears, on the reverse, opposite the king’s head, the single Latin word
pax
or peace. This has been seen as a rather ironic coincidence, but the iconography of coinage was important to English kings in this period. Harold’s active choice of this design is evidenced by the complete change of coin dies on his accession. King Edward himself had adopted a
pax
coin type on his own accession, perhaps in hope of peace after the upheavals of the previous reigns, and Harold may have intended this legend as a symbol of his lawful succession to Edward. However, the symbolism of this word as an appeal for peace and an invocation to Christ probably also represented a desire of his heart. The confirmation of this can perhaps be seen in several cases where Harold sought the path of peace in preference to war, even when this path was not necessarily directly of benefit to himself. On several occasions, he chose to secure peace with Gruffydd of Wales and Earl Aelfgar, and so prevented open war, even though his family might have gained from Aelfgar’s permanent exile. Similarly, in 1065 he agreed to Tosti’s exile in order to avoid civil war in England, even though this was undoubtedly a major blow to his family.
6
It was a blend of these two qualities, an aptitude for war with a desire for peace, which probably brought about the qualities highlighted by the
Vita Eadwardi
. Can we find supporting evidence of these specific qualities? Harold’s wisdom and courage are acknowledged by the otherwise hostile Norman sources as well as being shown by his actions. Patience and temperance reveal themselves in his initial dealings with the exiled Earl Aelfgar and Gruffydd of Wales and with the Northumbrian rebels in 1065, when he held talks rather than open hostilities. Mercy was to be shown to Olaf Haraldsson, after Harold’s resounding victory at Stamford Bridge. Prudence would reveal itself in his preparations to meet William’s invasion and in his cultivation of the northern earls, after Tosti’s exile. He was also ruthless when necessary, for example in the way he finally dealt with Gruffydd of Wales, in his refusal to restore Tosti in 1065, and in the way he would deal with Harald of Norway in 1066.
7
There is thus some evidence to support the description of Harold’s character given by the author of the
Vita Eadwardi
and to suggest that it was more than panegyric. Indeed, the account of Harold in this text is not entirely positive and the author mentions also that Harold had two faults. These were a tendency not to share his plans with others and an overindulgence in swearing oaths. These references are possibly related to Harold’s Normandy visit, though this is not clear. If so, they may be tinged by hindsight and so be less valuable, but nevertheless we should consider them. If, as Eadmer suggests, Harold visited Normandy as part of a private visit to free his family hostages, that he did not reveal this plan to others who might have dissuaded him may be what is referred to here. This may be confirmed perhaps by the absence of any reference to Harold’s Norman visit in the English sources. However, this interpretation depends on Harold’s Norman visit being viewed as the entry of an unwary man into what was clearly a trap, which has already been refuted. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone could in fact have advised against it. Nevertheless, the reference may reflect an early version of Eadmer’s later story that Edward warned against the visit. Similarly, the statement that Harold was ‘rather too generous with oaths’ may be a reference to his Norman oath. Although it has been shown that this was probably a case of an oath taken under duress, it may have caused considerable unease in some quarters close to Harold. The breach of an oath was something which struck at the fabric of early medieval society. However, these references are difficult to judge, and it is perhaps unwise to try and infer more from them.
8
What of the Norman views of Harold; can anything be discovered about his character from them? The most obvious aspect of these views is their hostility, which in the case of William of Poitiers often verges on the hysterical. Thus he describes Harold variously as ‘the basest of men’, ‘insane’, ‘defiled by luxury’, ‘a cruel murderer’ and ‘the enemy of justice and good’. In contrast to this general vilification, there are relatively few positive comments about Harold in the Norman accounts, chiefly general comments concerning his courage and wisdom. The extreme tone of William of Poitiers’ account makes it very difficult to accept much of what he says. The charge of murderer laid against Harold is blatantly false. It refers to the death of
Atheling
Alfred in 1036, which could not be laid at Harold’s door. If Harold was as bad as William of Poitiers claimed, why did the English support him to the extent that ‘he caused the whole English people also to be faithless to the duke’? Indeed, the negative slant of the Norman sources appears to be based on one charge against Harold, from which the rest follows – his breaking of the sacred oath sworn in Normandy.
9
The fact that Harold swore an oath on holy relics to William in Normandy and then broke it has been seen as evidence of a weakness in his character – if he was customarily an oathbreaker, then he must be a liar and deceiver and someone not to be trusted. The breaking of an oath was a serious breach of secular law, of one of the most important political and social bonds, and of faith before God. However, if, as we have seen, Harold found himself in a position where swearing this oath was the only way to extricate himself from William’s custody, then it is likely that he regarded his actions as fully justified. His subsequent actions show that he clearly regarded the oath as not binding. It is possible that he sought absolution from the Church and was given it. In support of this, there is no evidence that he broke oaths on other occasions but rather the opposite. He was entrusted with delicate negotiations which would involve solemn oaths as security for agreements reached in 1055, 1058 and 1065. Indeed, William of Poitiers describes Harold, before his journey to Normandy as ‘greatest in . . . honour’ among Edward’s earls. In 1065, when Tosti charged him with inciting the Northumbrian revolt and Harold cleared it by oath, the author of the
Vita Eadwardi
, despite his obvious sympathy for Tosti, seems to have believed him. This suggests his perjury in Normandy was out of character and enforced by circumstances.
10
This discussion of Harold’s sacred oath leads us to consideration of his religious views, which would naturally colour his interpretation of such an oath. Although his own chaplain, Leofgar, was a rather militant figure, Harold appears nevertheless to have shown a personal devotion and veneration for the saintly Bishop Wulfstan. Harold revealed this not only through his support for Wulfstan’s election as Bishop of Worcester in 1062, but also by often seeking out his counsel. Harold is said to have made the pilgrimage to Rome, dispensing ‘bounty’ there, probably in 1056–7. He is shown in the Bayeux Tapestry entering the church at Bosham to pray for a safe voyage to Normandy, and he also stopped to pray at the church of Holy Cross at Waltham on his journey south to Hastings in 1066. As we have already seen, when considering Harold’s landholdings, he was looked upon as a benefactor and supporter by a number of religious houses, including Worcester, Malmesbury, Peterborough and Abingdon. However, like many other major figures in England at this time, Harold chose to focus his devotional energies on a particular foundation with a correspondingly significant result.
11