Harold (15 page)

A number of things should be borne in mind when considering the evidence of these cases against Harold. Domesday Book, which contains the majority of these accusations, is a source which is biased against the earl and it seems probable that its compilers took the opportunity to blacken his name by highlighting complaints against him in particular. To some extent this is confirmed by the failure of Domesday Book to record cases against Earl Leofric and members of his family, who are known, from other sources, to have been accused of similar actions. It is also worth noting that in at least eleven out of the twenty-six cases against Harold, Norman laymen subsequently continued to hold the lands concerned, in spite of the clergy’s complaints. Thus lands claimed by the Church were later retained by various Normans, including Alfred of Marlborough, Robert of Romney, King William’s half-brother, Count Robert of Mortain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and even King William himself. Indeed, King William kept Melcombe Horsey in Dorset in spite of the existence of a royal writ to the contrary! He did restore Eaton Bishop in Herefordshire to the Bishop of Hereford, but only in exchange for other lands. This suggests that either the Normans were not much different to Harold, or perhaps that in some cases the Church’s complaints were considered to have been unsubstantiated.
²⁵

The difficulty with the majority of the accusations against Harold is that we are unaware of the full background and thus we are unable to confirm or refute them clearly. In effect, we are presented with the case for the prosecution but not with that for the defence, which makes it difficult to reach a valid judgement. The case of Steyning in Sussex may represent the seizure, in 1066, of a coastal estate from a Norman holder to assist the defence of the area and it will be discussed in Chapter Nine. In the case raised by Giso, Bishop of Wells, over the estates at Congresbury and Banwell in Somerset, we are fortunate in having some details of the background. These appear to indicate that his complaint resulted from a legal dispute over the will of his predecessor, Duduc. In this case, Harold may in fact have been fulfilling his duty as head of the shire court by holding the lands until the dispute over the bequest was legally settled. The only surviving writ from Harold’s reign as king relates to Wells, and it seems to indicate no major dispute with Bishop Giso. Indeed, King William continued to hold Congresbury in 1086, allowing the bishop to hold only part of it from him, though Banwell had been restored to the bishop by then. In the case where Harold is accused of helping Aethelnoth
Cild
to take ‘by violence’ land at ‘Merclesham’ and Hawkhurst in Kent from St Martin’s Church at Dover, Domesday itself goes on to tell us that the canons were given ‘an unfair exchange’. This perhaps speaks of some astute dealing by Aethelnoth, rather than any actual misappropriation, and Harold’s violence may simply have meant the firm hand of the secular law. It should also be noted that these lands were among those the Normans would fail to restore.

A total of nine of the twenty-six cases against Harold concern lands taken from the Bishopric of Hereford, and it seems likely that Harold took control of these lands for reasons of national defence. In June 1056 Gruffydd of Wales slew Bishop Leofgar leaving the bishopric exposed to Welsh attacks, like the one which had resulted in the sack of Hereford the year before. It was probably at this point that Harold took control of these estates of the bishopric, in order to provide him with local resources to assist in the defence of the Border. Earl Harold would not secure authority over the earldom of Hereford until Earl Ralph’s death a year later, and so probably held few lands in the shire. Earl Ralph had lands there but had already proved himself incapable of defending the area. Bishop Ealdred, who had assumed temporary control of the bishopric at this point, may have invited Harold’s control of these lands. He was probably eager to adopt this arrangement as he already had his hands full administering the two bishoprics of Hereford and Worcester, without also having to look to their defence. However, Harold would subsequently retain these lands despite gaining control of the earldom of Hereford itself after 1057 and despite the final elimination of the Welsh threat in 1063. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that Harold acted dubiously in this case, although this is not certain.

There are no clues to assist us in determining the validity of the remaining twelve cases. The Church’s own custom of leasing lands for 1, 2 or 3 lives often resulted in disputes about ownership. There are hints of reasons or causes behind some of the alleged seizures, and the remainder involve rather small amounts of land representing a tiny proportion of Harold’s total estates. The recorded cases, excluding that of Steyning in Sussex, involve only some £150 worth of land compared to Harold’s total holdings of £2,846. If this does represent misappropriation, it seems rather small scale and not too different from that alleged against many others.
²⁶

In these various ways, legitimate and possibly unscrupulous, as Earl of Wessex Harold continued to build up a position of landed wealth which was unrivalled by any other noble in England. It was this which provided Harold with the means to make himself King Edward’s right-hand man and, ultimately, provided a base for his advance to the kingship itself. How Harold made use of his lands and wealth is another difficult question to answer because of the lack of sources, but again there are some clues.

Most importantly, the ownership of such large tracts of land allowed Harold to reward his own followers and to foster relations with royal
thegns
through gifts and leases of some of his land. Three of Harold’s
huscarls
, Scalpi, Gauti and Tofi, who had probably all retired from active service, are recorded as holding land in Domesday Book. Scalpi was provided with 4 hides and 128 acres of land in Essex and Suffolk valued at £7 in total. Gauti was provided with 5 hides of land in Middlesex, Essex and Hertfordshire valued at £8 and 10
s
in total. Tofi was provided with 4 hides of land at Great Barrington in Gloucestershire valued at £7. In the case of Scalpi’s estate at Leighs in Essex, he was certainly granted it by Harold, no doubt in return for his earlier loyal service, and this presumably is also how the others obtained their lands. There were probably many other men who had been endowed by Harold directly, but few are recorded. The exceptions are Beorhtweald of Wokefield in Berkshire and Leofgar of Thames Ditton in Surrey. The former was granted 1½ hides at Wokefield as a gift by Harold, and the latter received 6 hides at Thames Ditton valued at £4 in return for his service. Greater landholders were also propitiated by gifts of land, as in the cases already noted concerning Aethelnoth
Cild
and Eadnoth the
Staller
.
²⁷

These extensive lands also provided Harold with a cash income. However, although we know the tax valuation placed on Harold’s estates, we are unable to calculate the exact income that these lands produced for the earl. There can be no doubt that it was an immense fortune, especially given the favourable tax concessions on a number of Harold’s estates, such as that at Pyrford in Surrey, where the assessment had been reduced from 27 hides to 16 hides. In addition to the direct income from his lands, Harold’s official position as earl allowed him to reap the profits of the ‘third penny’ from royal dues associated with it. These peacetime profits could on occasion be boosted by loot from successful warfare, like Harold’s later campaigns against the Welsh and the Norwegians.
²⁸

The wealth thus gathered was put to many and varied uses, but again we have to search carefully for evidence of these. Firstly, a significant proportion would have been required simply to cover the costs arising from Harold’s official duties as earl and later royal lieutenant. This would have included the expenses of administration, taxation and justice, the costs of defence of the realm and of attendance at court and on royal embassies. The payment of the ‘third penny’ and the income from the comital estates was intended to cover the costs of these official duties. Secondly, a large portion would have been required to cover Harold’s own daily expenses and those of his immediate family. This included payment of stipends for those of his personal
huscarls
attending on the earl or garrisoning his estates, and not yet endowed with lands, unlike Scalpi, Gauti and Tofi mentioned above. It would also have had to cover the expenses of those reeves who administered Harold’s estates, like the unnamed man recorded by Domesday Book as responsible for Harold’s estate at Writtle in Essex. This personal income would also have been used to maintain priests, ranging from the unnamed individual, recorded only as Harold’s priest, also at Writtle in Essex, to Harold’s own chaplain Leofgar, later promoted to the Bishopric of Hereford. These priests ministered to the spiritual needs of Harold and his family. Other private expenses, such as the costs of his future pilgrimage to Rome, of the education of his daughter, Gunnhild, at Wilton, of the purchase of religious relics, of his hunting and hawking, and of commissioning precious books, would also have been met by these resources.
²⁹

Above and beyond these necessary expenses, a man of Harold’s stature was expected to reflect his wealth and power by means of personal display and by the giving of gifts. Harold’s personal ostentation is reflected in his banner, which portrayed the image of a warrior worked in pure gold and jewels and was later judged a fittingly expensive gift to be despatched to the Pope in Rome. The gifts Harold presented to his favourite church of Holy Cross at Waltham also give an indication of the ostentatious manner in which he and his family may have lived. If Harold could donate to Waltham vestments made of cloth of gold and adorned with gold and jewels, as well as furnishings of gold and silver, his own household must have been similarly blessed. In the scenes of the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold’s lifestyle is illustrated, including the lavish banquets he attended, the grand palaces he frequented, and the fine horses and ships he used for travel. He himself is usually portrayed finely dressed, in a way which indicates a man of rank. The need to display power and wealth would also have extended to Harold’s followers, who would have needed to reflect suitably their patron’s wealth. There are few examples in the records of gifts by Harold to others and those that do exist relate to gifts to the king. Nevertheless, these may stand as an indication of his ability to reward his followers. Thus Harold presented Edward with the solid gold figure-head from Gruffydd’s ship and other treasures from the spoils of his Welsh victory in 1063. He also built and furnished a hunting lodge at Portskewet in conquered Wales for the king’s use. In such ways, Harold sought to cement his relationship with the king and would have done the same with his followers, though on a lesser scale.
³⁰

In addition to the need to foster and encourage support among his lay supporters by gifts of land or money, there was the equally vital need for a great man like Harold to propitiate the Church. There were two reasons for this: firstly, senior churchmen, like great laymen, could provide support in many secular affairs, and Harold would certainly benefit from this on several occasions; and secondly, and far more importantly, the Church alone could intercede with God for a man’s immortal soul. The giving of gifts, whether in goods or lands, to the Church played a vital part in medieval life. It may appear from what has been written above about Harold’s apparent predation on some Church lands, that his status in this area was not good, but this is not the case. In common with other men of the time, Harold was selective about the churches which received his attention and bounty, and as a result was open to criticism by those which did not benefit. A similar favouritism was shown by King Edward to Westminster, Earl Leofric to Coventry and Earl Odda to Deerhurst.

Harold would be recorded as a benefactor or champion of Malmesbury Abbey, Durham Cathedral, Peterborough Abbey, Abingdon Abbey and in particular, of his own special foundation of Holy Cross at Waltham. Harold and his father, Godwine, apparently interceded with King Edward to prevent Hereman, Bishop of Ramsbury, taking over Malmesbury Abbey as the new seat of his diocese. The clerks of Durham recorded the obit of Harold Godwineson in their
Liber Vitae
. The monks of Peterborough also remembered Harold as their benefactor, despite their Abbot, Leofric, being a member of the supposedly rival family of Leofric. Harold also intervened to assist Abbot Ordric of Abingdon in the enforcement of the abbey’s rights to land at Leckhampstead and Kingston Bagpuize. In addition to Harold’s own patronage, Edith ‘Swan-neck’, his wife, was a benefactor of St Benet of Holme, presenting it with an estate at Thurgarton in Norfolk. However, the bulk of Harold’s attention was reserved for his own particular foundation at Waltham.
³¹

This small church had probably first come to Harold’s notice when he received the estate of Waltham, where it stood, as a gift from King Edward, following the forfeiture of Athelstan, son of Tofi the Proud, perhaps in the late 1040s. Tofi’s church at Waltham contained a ‘Holy Cross’ in the form of a carving of the crucifixion with venerable and miraculous associations. Tofi and his wife had made gifts of land and wealth to this church in keeping with their status. When Harold took control of the church he adopted it as his own, motivated, it would appear, by genuine religious devotion. The later
Vita Haroldi
attributed Harold’s devotion to a miraculous cure from a paralysis which supposedly affected him after his Welsh campaign of 1063. This story is clearly confused because Harold rebuilt the church in 1060, three years before this. The later Waltham Chronicle reveals Harold’s devotion in considerable detail. It includes the story of how he visited there to pray before his last battle at Hastings. He was also later reputed to have used ‘Holy Cross’ as a battle cry at Hastings. It was at Waltham that Harold instituted the construction and decoration of a new and elaborate stone church, perhaps in emulation of King Edward’s Westminster. Unfortunately, few traces of Harold’s church remain in the current fabric of the building, most of which is of a later date. On the basis of available evidence, it appears to have been constructed to a design derived from existing English or German traditions. This seems to reflect the influence of Harold’s background and his wide travels in Imperial lands. Further archaeological investigation may reveal more details. Harold’s new building was consecrated to Christ and the Holy Cross at a ceremony held on 3 May 1060, the feast of the Finding of the True Cross, and attended by King Edward, Queen Edith and many others.
³²