Harold (27 page)

The ceremony was not only novel, but also became the subject of controversy as a result of William’s rival claim. The Norman sources claim that Harold was consecrated by the controversial Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury. In contrast, the English sources claim the rite was performed by Ealdred, Archbishop of York. The roots of this confusion lie in the Norman requirement after the Conquest to undermine Harold’s legitimate reign and present it as a usurpation. The association of Harold’s kingship with ‘unholy’ consecration by Stigand, a man who had gained his archbishopric uncanonically and who held no valid pallium, was part of this process. It is more likely that Archbishop Ealdred performed the ceremony, for although it was customary for the Archbishop of Canterbury to do so, the English were just as aware as the Normans of Stigand’s uncanonical position. Thus Stigand had consecrated no bishops during his term of office, with the exception of Aethelric of Sussex and Siward of Rochester, who were only consecrated because at that point Stigand held a pallium, received from Pope Benedict X before the latter’s expulsion from office. In all other cases Ealdred of York had performed Stigand’s duties of consecration and he was to do so after the Conquest as well. It is therefore almost certain that Harold received consecration from Ealdred as stated by John of Worcester, who was in a position to know. In view of the need to legitimize his kingship as a king not of Alfred’s line, Harold would have wished no doubt to be cast on his legitimacy by Stigand’s involvement. It should be recalled that Harold showed similar concern about the consecration of his church of Holy Cross at Waltham in 1060, when he sought the services of Archbishop Cynesige of York rather than Stigand. In similar circumstances, William sought consecration from Ealdred later the same year and there is no reason to think that Harold did otherwise.
⁴

One of the first actions of the new King Harold was probably to receive messengers from Normandy demanding that the throne be surrendered to Duke William as Edward’s rightful heir. Harold made clear to them that the oaths extracted from him under duress were worthless and that he had no intention of accepting William’s demands. Thus William was faced with the daunting prospect of actually turning his claim into a reality, and he set about this with his customary determination. Well aware of William’s ruthless ambition, Harold in turn set about organizing his kingdom and its defences against this danger.
⁵

As we saw in Chapter Seven, support for Harold’s succession seems to have been fairly widespread, but there was one source of restlessness, the Earldom of Northumbria. This unrest is only recorded in the later
Vita Wulfstani
, but it is not unlikely in view of recent events in the earldom. It is perhaps confirmed by two coin hoards deposited at around this time at Harewood and Bishophill near York. The disinclination of the Northumbrians to welcome King Harold’s accession probably reflects a fear that he would restore Tosti to favour, rather than simple dislike for a West Saxon on the throne. They probably considered that the settlement of 1065 had been made by King Edward, and now that he was dead they feared that Harold would overturn it and allow Tosti’s return.
⁶

King Harold had to settle this anxiety and did so by travelling north, not with an army to ravage the land but with a small party, including Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester, a man widely renowned and respected for his holiness. Harold’s conciliatory approach and powers of persuasion were successful and the Northumbrians swore allegiance to him. In return, Harold must have confirmed that Tosti would not be permitted to return. It was perhaps to reinforce this pledge that at this point Harold probably completed a marriage alliance by marrying Alditha, the sister of Earls Edwin and Morcar. This marriage must have taken place some time between the death in August 1063 of Gruffydd of Wales, Alditha’s first husband, and October 1066, when she is recorded as Harold’s queen, and it is unlikely that it took place before autumn 1065, when the Northumbrian revolt and the exile of Tosti made a
rapprochement
with Edwin and Morcar essential. Negotiations on such an important matter would have taken some time and thus early 1066 is perhaps the most likely time for the marriage. This date seems confirmed by the fact that not only was Alditha Harold’s queen by the end of the year, but that she bore a son to him, named Harold after his father and probably born after his death. In addition to removing any concern on the part of the Northumbrians at the possibility of Tosti’s return, this marriage also further bound the northern earls to Harold. They now had a direct stake in the success of their brother-in-law’s kingship. Unfortunately, Chronicle accounts mention nothing of this and record only Harold’s return from York, in time to spend the Easter festival on 16 April at Westminster.
⁷

King Harold’s position was now securely established and we can examine what is recorded, albeit very little, about the government of England during his reign. Few documentary records remain of his actions as king. The single writ, in Latin and English versions, which survives relates to the rights of Giso, Bishop of Wells. This is in the regular form for such documents, addressed by King Harold to Abbot Aethelnoth of Glastonbury, Tofi Sheriff of Somerset and all the thegns there. There are no surviving diplomas from his reign. Such documents would have been endorsed by Harold’s great seal, but this has also been lost although it may perhaps be suggested that its form is preserved in the arrangement of the Bayeux Tapestry scene of Harold’s coronation. A number of Tapestry scenes appear to have been derived from existing models in manuscript sources and there is a general similarity between the portrayal of King Edward on his great seal and that of Harold in the Tapestry.
⁸

The reasons for this scarcity of documents include the brevity of the reign itself, and the emphasis which was placed by William on his position as Edward’s rightful heir and on Harold as a usurper. Thus if we compare the ninety-nine genuine writs and diplomas which have survived from King Edward’s twenty-four-year reign (that is, four per annum) with the single genuine writ surviving from Harold’s nine-month reign, the latter equation appears not unusual. However, many such documents must have been issued by Harold since it was customary for men to seek confirmation of their lands from new rulers, but following the Conquest their value would, of course, have been limited. William could not afford to acknowledge Harold’s kingship by accepting them as legal documents, and there can be no doubt that the Norman insistence on William as Edward’s direct successor meant that those who did possess writs or diplomas from the ‘usurper’ King Harold later found them worthless. Most were therefore probably lost, or where possible swiftly replaced by new grants under William’s name. Thus Regenbald the Chancellor, Abbot Wulfwold of Bath, and the City of London all sought early confirmations of their rights from the new King William in 1067. This process began in William’s written acts soon after the Conquest. Some very early acts represent a transitional period when William had to recognize the existence of Harold’s reign in order to smooth the operation of English government but thereafter King Edward is consistently referred to as William’s immediate predecessor. This process reached its culmination in Domesday Book in 1086, where Harold is referred to throughout as
comes
and all land is listed as it was held
Tempore Regis Edwardi
and not when William conquered the kingdom.
⁹

In spite of this, a few sources do give some indication of King Harold’s activities. John of Worcester, though writing later, says he ‘began to abolish unjust laws and make good ones’ and ‘to imprison robbers and disturbers of the kingdom’. This may be merely conventional praise of a new king, but it is perhaps surprising, given the general treatment of Harold’s reputation at Norman hands. We also know from Domesday Book of at least five instances of men, admittedly minor, who were deprived of their lands by King Harold: Leofman and Godwine lost their lands at Hayling Island and Soberton in Hampshire, and Eadmer, Wiflet and Aelfric their lands at Haresfield, Down Hatherley and Sandhurst, and Harescombe and Brookethorpe respectively, all in Gloucestershire.
¹⁰

However, the major evidence for the regular functioning of King Harold’s administration comes from his coinage. Not unnaturally, this has survived much better than the written documents. During his short reign his government replaced Edward’s last coinage with a fine new design which survives in issues from some forty-six mints throughout England. There he appears as
Rex Anglorum
, or King of the English. Many of Edward’s moneyers continued to strike coins under Harold and would subsequently do so for William also.
¹¹

Another indication of the actions of King Harold’s government are appointments made during his reign. An English king normally made appointments to a number of official positions, including those of earls, sheriffs, and court officials such as
stallers
and those of archbishops, bishops and abbots in the Church. At least two abbacies fell vacant during Harold’s reign, and Harold played his part in the appointment of successors. On 22 January 1066 Abbot Ordric of Abingdon died and Ealdred the provost, in charge of the abbey’s external property, was appointed by Harold to replace him. Abbot Wulfric of Ely appears to have died on 19 August 1066 and his successor, Thurstan, was also appointed by Harold. Neither of these appointments was in any way unusual and were continued after the Conquest at least until the abbots concerned became involved in rebellion.
¹²

There exist two other appointments which may possibly have been made by Harold, although these are very much conjectural. The first is that of Waltheof, son of Siward, to an earldom. Sometime between the expulsion of Tosti, in October 1065, and the return of King William to Normandy in spring 1067, Waltheof had been appointed to an earldom in a part of the East Midlands previously ruled by Tosti. It is generally assumed that Waltheof succeeded to this Midland portion of Tosti’s earldom at the same time as Morcar obtained Northumbria in October 1065. This assumption rests partly on the basis of a reference in Domesday Book, which appears to imply that some lands transferred direct from Tosti to Waltheof, although this is not certain. However, there exist other references in Domesday Book where King Edward is recorded holding Tosti’s former lands before they passed to Earl Waltheof. Thus estates at Potton and Chalton in Bedfordshire were transferred from Tosti to King Edward and only thence to Waltheof. In spite of these latter references, most commentators believe that Waltheof was made earl of Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire some time between October and December 1065. The resultant attempt to squeeze Tosti’s expulsion, Edward’s forfeiture of his lands, and Waltheof’s appointment and succession to the lands into the period between 1 November 1065 and 5 January 1066, during which time Edward was seriously ill, seems rather inconceivable. The possibility has been overlooked that King Harold may have promoted Waltheof to this earldom created out of Tosti’s forfeited lands. The reason for this appointment would then be found in its value as a further gesture intended to reassure the Northumbrians that Tosti would not return. This would probably place it between 6 January and 16 April 1066, when Harold was active in the north.
¹³

The second appointment which may have been made by King Harold is possibly that of Marleswein Sheriff of Lincolnshire as a
staller
. However, the only evidence which might suggest this is very late and imprecise. A twelfth-century source, which may draw on local traditions and which knew much about Marleswein, suggests that in the aftermath of the battle of Stamford Bridge, King Harold placed Marleswein in some sort of official position in the north. This is sometimes seen as Harold replacing Earl Morcar, but it may in fact have been a move intended to provide assistance to the earl by appointing a royal
staller
to bolster his position in the north. Such a man, a sort of royal troubleshooter, provided a direct royal influence in local government such as might be required to raise further troops for the king’s war with William of Normandy after the losses at Fulford.
¹⁴

Other than these few new appointments, King Harold largely continued to employ the same personnel as served Edward during his last years, many of whom went on to serve William after him. The majority of Edward’s clerics also continued in post under Harold and then William, including Regenbald the Chancellor. The same thing occured among laymen, so that the
stallers
Ansgar, Robert Fitzwimarch, Ralph Aelfstan, Bondi, and Eadnoth appear to have remained in their posts under Harold. In a time of uncertainty, both Harold and William initially considered it best to retain the same personnel in post rather than create disturbance by making changes. In Harold’s case, he was never given the time to make changes but had he been victorious at Hastings he may have done so. Alternatively, it is possible that as Harold had already worked closely with many of these men for a number of years, their loyalty to him was simply not in question. The period of over twenty years that he had spent as earl, first of East Anglia then of Wessex, and more recently as
sub regulus
must have allowed Harold to foster widespread ties with men in all areas of government.
¹⁵

In all this, King Harold’s government appears to have functioned normally and without any significant opposition. Indeed, Norman sources admit that he was growing daily in strength. This was remarkable for a new king not from the traditional dynasty, and surely reflects the confidence felt in this man who had been Earl of Wessex since 1053 and
sub regulus
probably since the death of the last of the old earls in 1057. The Chronicle in 1063 speaks of Harold himself appointing Welsh princes, and William of Poitiers the following year calls him ‘second only to the king’. It was still admittedly early in Harold’s reign and perhaps this lack of unrest was merely acquiescence. If so, men’s loyalty to Harold was soon to be put severely to the test. The fact that his support was subsequently to prove solid, even in the face of major threats, surely indicates that it was genuine.
¹⁶