Meanwhile, Edward’s brother, Alfred, sailing from Wissant, landed at Dover at a time when the Chronicle says ‘feeling was veering much towards Harold’. The Chronicle reference to Alfred’s intention being to join Queen Emma may be a confused echo of his brother Edward’s expedition. Instead, Alfred’s route as recorded in the
Encomium Emmae
indicates him moving against Harold’s base in London. John of Worcester’s suggestion that Alfred wished simply to confer with Harold is possible but seems belied by subsequent events indicating either that he is wrong or that Alfred’s reading of events was poor. The author of the
Encomium Emmae
speaks of Alfred being accompanied ‘by only a few men of Boulogne’ in addition to his own company, implying a small force. This is confirmed by the
Vita Eadwardi
, which speaks of ‘a few armed Frenchmen’. These references should warn us against the exaggeration of the Norman role in this event by the later Norman writers William of Jumieges and William of Poitiers. The earlier records suggest instead that the exiled
athelings
probably drew their support from Boulogne, where their sister Godgifu had just married Count Eustace, or possibly from the Vexin, where their nephew was count, rather than from Normandy. Indeed, at this time William of Normandy was having difficulty holding his own duchy and could probably have spared little to assist the
athelings
. What happened to Alfred after his arrival in England was to overshadow Godwine’s subsequent career and ultimately that of his son, the future King Harold.
37
The sources are confused and contradictory but all agree that Alfred’s return was opposed by those in power. This is not surprising since everyone except Queen Emma must have viewed his arrival as an unnecessary complication to an already confused situation. Almost all the sources name Godwine as the man who arrested Alfred and dispersed or killed his followers at Guildford and this makes sense as the town lay in his earldom. The author of the
Encomium Emmae
does say that Godwine only detained them under his protection and that King Harold ‘Harefoot’s’ men actually arrested Alfred and slew his followers, but this source was influenced by a desire to blacken Harold’s name and can probably be discounted. This action by Godwine was in all probability prompted by the pressing need to curry favour with King Harold, to whose authority he had now decided to submit. This motivation is suggested by the fact that Godwine almost immediately handed over the captive Alfred to Harold. Godwine’s previous support for Hardecnut had made the performance of some important service to Harold a necessity to gain his favour. The seizure of
Atheling
Alfred, to whom Godwine had no feelings of loyalty, suited this purpose admirably. A curious statement by John of Worcester, that Godwine was especially devoted to Harold, perhaps arises from this occasion. This had certainly not been the case in late 1035 or early 1036 when Godwine had solidly supported Hardecnut, but it may reflect what he now wished Harold to think.
38
Captivity and the ruin of his hopes were not all that befell the unfortunate
Atheling
Alfred for he was cruelly blinded at Ely, and he died shortly afterwards. This murder was to be laid at Godwine’s door in later years, although the sources closest to the event fail to identify him as the culprit, implicating Harold ‘Harefoot’ instead. That the crime took place at Ely, an area under Harold’s control at this time, seems to reinforce this. Important confirmation is provided by the later Norman writers William of Jumieges and William of Poitiers, who despite other conscious efforts to blacken Godwine’s reputation, both clearly identify Harold ‘Harefoot’ as the man responsible for Alfred’s murder. Godwine therefore appears to have been guilty essentially of Alfred’s capture and of handing him over to Harold ‘Harefoot’. Nevertheless, he was unable to escape being tarnished by association, and that Edward, Alfred’s brother, harboured ill-feeling towards Earl Godwine as a result, was later to become clear.
39
One of the immediate results of these events was to reconcile King Harold ‘Harefoot’ and Earl Godwine, and in 1037 the former was ‘chosen as king everywhere’ and became ‘full king over all England’ while Godwine remained Earl of Wessex. As part of this process, Queen Emma, Hardecnut’s mother, was finally driven from Winchester and fled into exile at Bruges in Flanders, whence she tried unsuccessfully to persuade her son Edward to come to her aid once more.
40
Thus Godwine managed to survive what was a major crisis in his career, though at considerable cost to his reputation. However, within two years of this settlement being achieved and before it could be put to the test of time, another crisis loomed. Hardecnut had somehow temporarily resolved his problems with Magnus of Norway and in 1039 sailed with a fleet to join his mother at Bruges with the intention of invading England to enforce his claim to the throne in the summer of 1040. Before he could do so, his half-brother King Harold ‘Harefoot’ died on 17 March 1040 leaving Hardecnut to take control of the kingdom unopposed.
41
Harold ‘Harefoot’s’ death saved Godwine from making a further choice between the two rivals but left him with the problem of excusing his actions in support of Harold to Hardecnut. This would be no easy task, for Hardecnut appears to have been an angry man unlikely to give Godwine a sympathetic hearing, as demonstrated by his first actions: the new king had his half-brother’s body dug up from Westminster and thrown into a nearby fen, and then punished the English nobility for supporting Harold by taxing them to pay off his invasion fleet of sixty ships. To make matters worse for Godwine personally, John of Worcester adds that Aelfric, Archbishop of York, and others accused Godwine and Bishop Lyfing of complicity in the murder of
Atheling
Alfred. No other source records this episode but it may reflect rivalries among those who had formerly supported King Harold. Archbishop Aelfric may possibly have crowned Harold in 1036 since at that time Archbishop Aethelnoth of Canterbury had been in Hardecnut’s party and is unlikely to have done so. Hardecnut’s command that Earl Godwine and Archbishop Aelfric take part in the desecration of Harold’s grave may have been a punishment for their earlier actions in support of the latter. In an attempt to regain royal favour, Aelfric may have chosen to accuse Godwine and Lyfing in the hope of saving himself at their expense. He may have accused Lyfing largely in order to acquire his see of Worcester, of which he certainly appears to have gained temporary control in 1040. Indeed, Lyfing’s supposed role in Alfred’s death is otherwise unknown and since he soon regained his see it appears to have had no basis in fact. In contrast, Godwine’s role in Alfred’s death was well known and the accusation a serious threat to his position, especially if Hardecnut’s subsequent action in recalling his half-brother Edward to England was an indication of strong family ties between the half-brothers.
In response to these charges, Godwine is said to have cleared himself of guilt by swearing on oath that it was not by his counsel that Alfred was blinded but that Harold ‘Harefoot’ had ordered it. In addition and to make doubly sure, Godwine presented Hardecnut with a magnificent ship as a peace offering. This gift was very expensive and reflected both Godwine’s wealth and his maritime connections as Earl of Wessex. As a result of these actions Godwine weathered the storm and assuaged the new king’s anger, at least for the present.
42
The following year, 1041, in obedience to Hardecnut’s command, Godwine and the other earls ravaged Worcester and its shire in punishment for the killing, by the townsmen, of two royal
huscarls
who had been involved in collecting the tax to pay off his fleet. Hardecnut’s earlier arbitrary actions and now his huge tax demands probably weakened his support in England. As a result, according to a number of sources, he invited
Atheling
Edward, brother of the murdered Alfred, to England to share the rule of the kingdom and perhaps foster English support. This appears to have been a common practice in Scandinavia, designed to avoid dangerous strife between kinsmen.
43
However, before this arrangement had time to settle, fate again intervened when Hardecnut died on 8 June 1042 at a wedding feast in Lambeth and Edward became king. The
Vita Eadwardi
and John of Worcester speak of Earl Godwine leading the calls for Edward’s accession but this looks like special pleading as no alternative candidate existed. The
Vita Eadwardi
also records Godwine’s gift of a ship to Edward, apparently as magnificent as that presented to Hardecnut, and this suggests some trepidation on his part about Edward’s intentions towards him, no doubt based on fear of further accusations about Alfred’s death. Nevertheless, it is likely that Godwine, by virtue of his power and position, played a pivotal role in this kingmaking as he had already done in those of Harold and Hardecnut. Edward was very much a new arrival, with little local support, lacking even the support of a foreign fleet like Hardecnut, and hence dependent for his succession on the support of the three great earls, Godwine, Leofric and Siward. And of this triumvirate Godwine was the most important because he controlled ancestral Wessex, the land south of the Thames, where English kings spent most of their time and where most royal lands lay.
44
Initally, therefore, King Edward had to rely on his earls, and Godwine in particular, to secure and preserve his throne and he was enough of a realist to recognize this. Thus on 16 November 1043 he used their support to deprive his mother, Queen Emma, of her lands and of her treasure, which would no doubt help to restore a royal treasury diminished by Hardecnut’s expenditure on his fleet. This action has been viewed as a demonstration of Edward’s disapproval of his mother’s lack of support for him in the preceding years, or even for her supposed provocation of Magnus of Norway to invade. However, it seems unlikely that Emma should wish Magnus to invade as she would then lose her influence as Queen Mother, unless she proposed to marry him and so become queen again! It is more likely that Edward’s action was prompted by his desire to take a wife, who would usurp Emma’s position of influence as Queen Mother, a position she had resolutely sought to maintain through the previous seven years.
45
Another indication of the growing links between the king and Earl Godwine in this period came in 1044 when Eadsige, Archbishop of Canterbury, resigned his post due to infirmity. The latter sought permission to consecrate Siward, Abbot of Abingdon, as suffragan in his place, not only from King Edward, as was customary, but also from Earl Godwine. We should beware of reading more into this than is necessary. Some have seen it as evidence of Godwine’s interference in Church appointments but, with the exception of the events of 1051, there is otherwise little sign of this. Instead, it was probably an attempt to gain strong secular support for the archbishopric in what was likely to be a difficult period. The sickly Archbishop Eadsige would no longer be in a position to personally maintain the Church’s rights to its lands and properties. He would therefore require the active assistance and protection of powerful secular authorities including the king and, in the local context, Earl Godwine, providing another example of king and earl acting in concert. In return for his agreement to fulfil this protective role by supporting Siward in the shire courts, Godwine probably received grants of Church lands. These grants, although no doubt judged by Eadsige as a worthwhile investment at this time, would be perceived rather differently by his successor and were to cause considerable difficulties for Godwine. However, such problems lay in the future, and for the moment king and earl worked together.
46
In return for such backing by the three earls, and by Godwine in particular, King Edward issued rewards of land and authority and many of these naturally fell to Godwine’s family. Among these were earldoms for two of Earl Godwine’s sons, Swein and Harold, the future king, and for his nephew, Beorn. The seal was set on this alliance between the king and his great earl when King Edward married Earl Godwine’s eldest daughter, Edith, on 23 January 1045. In this year Earl Godwine was at the height of his power and influence. He was father-in-law of the king, he was Earl of Wessex, the richest earldom in England, and members of his family held a further three small earldoms.
47
His eldest – and also his wisest – son Harold, . . . wielded his father’s powers even more actively, and walked in his ways.
1
E
arl Godwine had survived this crisis period between 1035 and 1042 and emerged, as a result of his new alliance with King Edward, with enhanced power and influence. As part of this triumph his elder sons, royal brothers-in-law, entered public affairs, including his second son, Harold, the later king, who became Earl of East Anglia. Harold witnessed several royal diplomas, dated to 1044 and 1045, as
nobilis
or
ministri
but he first appears as earl at the head of the Norfolk witnesses in the will of Thurstan, son of Wine, which has been dated to 1044. This apparent confusion may arise from differing dates for the start of the year, but what is clear is that from 1045 onwards, Harold is styled
dux
or earl in all surviving royal diplomas.
2
There had been no earl in East Anglia since Cnut removed Earl Thorkell in 1021. The main reason for Harold’s appointment here and at this time probably lay in the renewed threat from Scandinavia at the start of King Edward’s reign. Cnut had needed no earl to defend this region after 1021, when he himself had controlled Denmark and dominated Norway thereby neutralizing any potential Viking threat. In contrast, King Edward was faced with an active threat from Magnus of Norway, who now also controlled Denmark, and he needed a trustworthy subordinate in this area. Indeed, Harold may have led ships from his earldom to Sandwich that same year of 1045 to defend the country against the threat of Magnus of Norway.
3