Harold (5 page)

An opportunity to test Godwine’s new loyalty soon presented itself. In the autumn of 1019, and again in 1022–3, Cnut returned to Denmark – on the first occasion, to secure that kingdom for himself, and on the second probably to stifle a potential rebellion by the recently exiled Earl Thorkell. According to the author of the
Vita Eadwardi
, on one or perhaps both of these occasions Godwine accompanied him. This source is close to the earl’s family and can probably be relied on for his presence on such an expedition, but unfortunately it provides no date. As fitting reward for his services on one or other of these expeditions, Godwine’s authority appears to have been extended to the western shires of Wessex also, either in 1020 or 1023, and he was given Cnut’s sister-in-law, Gytha, for his wife. The exile of
Ealdorman
Aethelweard on 17 April 1020, probably for fomenting a rebellion in favour of
Atheling
Eadwig, made possible this promotion of Godwine to control all of Wessex. The important marriage to Gytha further tied Godwine to Cnut and drew him into the circle of Scandinavian earls related to the king. Godwine was now brother-in-law of Earl Eilaf of Gloucestershire and
Jarl
Ulf of Denmark, the latter of whom was himself married to Cnut’s sister, Estrith.
²⁰

Later legends in England and Denmark explained the rise of Godwine, Wulfnoth’s son, by romantic tales of a farmer’s son providing refuge and assistance either to King Aethelred, lost in the forest while hunting, or to the Danish
Jarl
Ulf, lost in the hostile English countryside. As a result, in the former case King Aethelred raised Godwine to an earldom, and in the latter Ulf is said to have given him his sister, Gytha, in marriage and to have advised Cnut to reward him with an earldom. These romantic tales in widely separated traditions add little to our knowledge but reflect a common perception of the spectacular nature of Godwine’s rise.
²¹

Whatever the background to his rise and whatever its exact dating, by 1023 at the latest Earl Godwine held what was a unique position in Cnut’s kingdom. He was an Englishman appointed to one of the highest offices in the land by the Danish king himself, and closely related to him and his Scandinavian followers by marriage. The only other English survivor,
Ealdorman
Leofwine, had originally been appointed by King Aethelred in 994 and was not related to Cnut, as far as is known. In these circumstances Leofwine’s survival and appointment to succeed Eadric of Mercia in 1017 are a mystery. It is possible that Cnut’s execution of his son, Northman, in the same year was sufficient to ward off any threat of treachery on the part of his father. Earl Godwine was to retain and develop his own unique position amidst occasionally very difficult circumstances until his death in 1053, and his success in doing so shows that Cnut was justified in placing his trust in him and was in turn repaid with loyalty.
²²

Cnut’s trust in Godwine is reflected in his swift rise to first place among the lay witnesses to the king’s diplomas. This appears to have occurred as a result of Cnut’s exile of Earl Thorkell in November 1021 and of the death of Earl Erik around 1023. The dearth of surviving diplomas for Cnut’s reign makes it difficult to be sure on the latter point but it seems likely. Although Thorkell and Cnut were subsequently reconciled in 1023, the former never returned to England. Previously, Thorkell had been the Danish king’s leading supporter, followed in turn by Erik, but they were now succeeded in this role by Earl Godwine, who heads the lay witnesses of every surviving diploma of Cnut from this point onwards. The brevity of Chronicle entries at this time means that the reason for Thorkell’s exile is unrecorded but it may have been another symptom of Cnut’s distrust. After all, Thorkell had previously deserted the Danes to serve King Aethelred, only returning to Cnut’s allegiance after the former’s death. A further augmentation of Godwine’s power came probably sometime after 1023, though when exactly is unclear; at this time the little known Earl Sired disappears from the witness lists of Cnut’s diplomas and Godwine appears to succeed to his authority over Kent.
²³

After 1023, Earl Godwine solidly maintained his allegiance to King Cnut and even his new family ties in Scandinavia failed to draw him from this. Even when his brothers-in-law,
Jarl
Ulf and Eilaf, rebelled against King Cnut in 1025, joining the Norwegians and Swedes, perhaps in an attempt to place his infant son Hardecnut on the Danish throne, Godwine remained loyal. When Cnut sailed to fight the combined forces of these opponents in 1025 or 1026, at a battle on the Holy River on the borders of Denmark and Sweden, Godwine probably supported Cnut and he may even have provided men for him as the Chronicle refers to Englishmen who fell there.
²⁴

Although, according to the Chronicle, Cnut appears to have been defeated in this battle, the huge resources of England allowed him to recover and strike back against his enemies. Cnut’s letter of 1027 to the English tells of his returning from Rome by way of Denmark, ‘to conclude . . . peace . . . with those nations . . . who wished to deprive [him] of the kingdom and of life, but could not since God . . . destroyed their strength’. Cnut struck back at his opponents by executing
Jarl
Ulf around 1026, and then invading Norway in 1028 and expelling King Olaf Haraldsson, assisted by his English wealth. On this occasion, Earl Godwine may again have accompanied him since the Chronicle refers to fifty ships of ‘English
thegns
’. It is possible that these were supplied by Godwine, just as his father Wulfnoth had supplied twenty ships for Aethelred’s fleet in 1008. However, there exists no early evidence for Godwine’s personal presence on either of Cnut’s later expeditions, only that of unnamed Englishmen,
²⁵
and it is possible that rather than accompanying Cnut, Godwine instead fulfilled an even more essential role. This was that of Regent of England during Cnut’s absence in Scandinavia, the post held by Earl Thorkell before his downfall. The
Vita Eadwardi
perhaps suggests this possibility, with its references to Godwine’s ‘first place among the nobles of the kingdom’ and the fact that ‘he throve mightily in the seat of authority’. Godwine had after all replaced Thorkell as Cnut’s leading supporter around 1023 and was the obvious man to assume his mantle as regent during Cnut’s later absences. However, this cannot be proven as Cnut’s regent in England is unfortunately unnamed in his letter of 1027 to the English.
²⁶

The rewards of Godwine’s service whether at home or abroad, were lands and office, and he received both in large measure. Thus he had been made Earl of Wessex, which after 1023 incorporated all England south of the Thames, and he probably gained many of his later lands in connection with this office. Others may have arisen from royal grants – a single diploma of Cnut to Godwine survives granting him land at Polhampton in Hampshire but others have undoubtedly been lost. Whether private grants or related to his office the bulk of Godwine’s lands probably came from his great patron Cnut.
²⁷

Godwine’s great debt to Cnut is reflected by the names he gave the children born to him and his Danish wife Gytha during these years. Thus Swein, his eldest son, was probably named after Cnut’s father; Harold, his second son and the future king, after either Cnut’s grandfather or brother; Tosti, his third son, probably after a famous war captain commemorated on Swedish rune stones who perhaps served Cnut; and lastly Gunnhild, his younger daughter, was probably named after Cnut’s own daughter. Gyrth, his fourth son, also had a Danish name, though not apparently connected with Cnut. This left only Leofwine and Wulfnoth, his youngest sons, and Edith and Aelfgyva, his other daughters, with English names. Leofwine was perhaps named after Godwine’s surviving English colleague and Wulfnoth was undoubtedly named after his grandfather. The origin of Edith’s name is unknown but may have previously occurred in the family.
²⁸

The most significant aspect of Godwine’s career during Cnut’s reign, apart from his sudden rise to the summit of power, was his survival there; by the end of the reign, apart from the obscure Earl Hrani, Godwine alone remained from all of Cnut’s original appointees. We have seen above that Thorkell was exiled in 1021 and that Eilaf went into rebellion in 1025 or 1026 and appears to have vanished thereafter. Earls Erik, Sired and Leofwine probably died around 1023, as this is the date of their last attestations of royal diplomas, and Earl Hakon died in 1030. This left only Earl Hrani of Herefordshire and Godwine himself.
²⁹

Cnut’s reign was a time for survivors and Godwine was the greatest of these, perhaps as a result of lessons learnt during the upheavals of Aethelred’s reign. This instinct for survival was soon to stand Godwine in good stead. Meanwhile, he was foremost among the three great earls of Cnut’s later years, each of whom were in charge of large areas of England, the others being Leofric and Siward. The former was the son of the Leofwine retained by Cnut from Aethelred’s reign and the latter a Dane of unknown origin. The king relied heavily on the support of these men while he concentrated on ruling his North Sea empire.
³⁰

This relatively stable period of Godwine’s life came to an abrupt end on 12 November 1035 when King Cnut died at Shaftesbury. The situation on his death brought a severe crisis which Godwine was only to survive at considerable cost. The essential elements of this crisis were that Cnut was survived by two sons of different mothers, who became rivals in their attempts to succeed to his empire. Hardecnut, Cnut’s son by Emma of Normandy, was at this time ruling in Denmark having been installed there by his father, while Harold ‘Harefoot’, his son by Aelfgifu of Northampton, was in England probably with his mother’s relatives in the Midlands.
³¹

At an assembly or
witan
held in Oxford soon after Cnut’s death, the English nobles were divided over who to support as his successor. Harold ‘Harefoot’, Cnut’s eldest son, locally based in England and strongly supported by his mother’s relatives, was chosen as king by Earl Leofric and the Mercians and by Cnut’s Danish mercenary fleet stationed in London. Godwine, along with Archbishop Aethelnoth and the men of Wessex, supported Hardecnut, and is described by the Chronicle as his ‘most loyal man’. Cnut may have intended Hardecnut to succeed him in both England and Denmark, although our main evidence for this comes from sources favourable to Queen Emma and Hardecnut. The fact that Cnut’s loyal subordinate Godwine supported Hardecnut even when it would perhaps have been easier not to do so perhaps supports this suggestion. Alternatively, Godwine may simply have felt his position would be more secure under Hardecnut who, like his father, had no links in England and would therefore have to depend on him. In contrast, Harold ‘Harefoot’s’ strong family ties in the Midlands would make him less dependent on Godwine.
³²

Whatever the reasons, Godwine gave his support to Queen Emma and her son, and held Wessex on their behalf. In the meantime, Leofric and Siward held Mercia and Northumbria for King Harold ‘Harefoot’. This division is reflected in the coinage of the time: coins in Hardecnut’s name were struck throughout Wessex from dies produced in Winchester, Emma’s base, while coins in Harold’s name were struck north of the Thames. Hardecnut was expected to arrive from Denmark in the near future and claim his share of the now effectively divided kingdom. However, this proved impossible as Magnus of Norway, who had recently expelled Danish influence from his country, was now threatening to invade Denmark. Hardecnut, therefore, was forced to remain in Denmark and Godwine consequently found himself out on a limb. From the start he had been unable to oppose Harold’s control in the north. Now it seems that he could do nothing but watch helplessly as Harold, probably in 1036, seized much of his father’s treasure from Queen Emma at Winchester within Godwine’s own earldom.
³³

Thereafter, Harold began to win support south of the Thames as reflected by his taking control of the minting of the coinage there. Earl Godwine was now in danger of losing influence altogether since Hardecnut was still unable to leave Denmark. To save himself he would have to make some form of accommodation with Harold, perhaps on a temporary basis, in the hope that Hardecnut’s arrival might restore the situation. This action by Earl Godwine appears to clash with the pattern of his loyalty to Edmund and then Cnut, but the contemporary circumstances were particularly difficult. We should recognize also that Godwine now had a great deal more to lose if he backed the wrong side, and the future prosperity of his large family to consider.
³⁴

It was probably at this point also that Queen Emma herself, increasingly insecure at Winchester, decided to abandon Hardecnut and seek help from her sons by her previous marriage, to King Aethelred, who were currently in exile on the Continent. This scenario seems more likely than her biographer’s suggestion that Harold ‘Harefoot’ set a trap for his half-brothers, which is a clear attempt to deflect blame away from Emma for what subsequently occurred. As a result of her plea, the
Athelings
Edward and Alfred crossed to England, partly to support their mother but also it would seem with the intention of rallying support to take the kingdom. This latter possibility seems validated by Alfred’s attempt to reach London, in contrast to Edward’s more direct attempt to join his mother at Winchester. If this was the case, the brothers were badly misled as to the reception they might expect.
³⁵

Edward, the elder brother, landed near Southampton but, in the face of what was probably local opposition, he returned to Normandy without reaching his mother in Winchester. The Norman accounts of Edward’s invasion speak of a force of ‘40 ships filled with armed men’ which was victorious over ‘a great host of English’ but which was nevertheless forced to retreat without achieving its aim. The size of the fleet could well be an exaggeration by the Norman sources; John of Worcester, in contrast, mentions only a few ships. In 1042 Hardecnut intended to conquer England with only sixty ships while Cnut had earlier maintained a fleet of forty to defend it. It seems feasible to believe, therefore, that had Edward indeed possessed forty ships he should have been able to achieve more. It seems likely that he had a much smaller force, similar to that of his brother, Alfred, and meeting local resistance, perhaps from the Hampshire
fyrd,
he was forced to abandon the attempt.
³⁶