King Edward the poisoner?

Godwin -  Act of Revenge?

So can we believe the Norman cleric that wrote about Godwin choking on a piece of bread after making an oath to Edward regarding Godwin's part in Alfred's death ? According to historians this is just propaganda in order to get Edward recognised as a saint.

Here's what the Abingdon version of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle has to say.

"...

1053: In this year the King was at Winchester at Easter, with him Earl Godwin and Earl Harold, his son and Tostig. When on the second day of Easter he sat at table with the King, he suddenly sank down against the footstool, speechless and helpless: he was carried into the Kings chamber and it was thought it would pass off, but it was not to be: yet he lingered on like this, unable to speak and helpless until the Thursday; and he gave up his life.

..."

The Thursday in question was 15 April 1053

The book "The Life and times of St Edward, King and confessor" ( pages 64 and 65) has it that Edward and Godwin were sitting together when a servant trips but manages to keep his footing. Godwin says something about a "brother helping a brother in trouble" and Edward, thinking of the deceased Alfred, makes a barbed reply. Whereupon, Godwin  makes a plea to the King saying in effect "let God make me choke on this bread if I've done you wrong". Godwin puts the bread in his mouth, swallows and chokes to death.

Godwin was 52.

Means

 Both reports has the King and Godwin eating together but the Anglo Saxon Chronicle actually time stamps the event. 

Now, Edward must have picked up some herb lore during the time of his exile. No one seems particularly amazed it his "healing" powers and the saying in the "Return of the King" p 842 ( JRR Tolkien) "The hands of the King are the hands of a healer" could have it's roots in this time. 

Motive

Edward seems to have a couple of motives for wanting Godwin dead. 

First and foremost in my mind is the death of his elder brother, Alfred. 

Alfred came to England with 25 ships with plans to seize the English throne. It's not clear to me when this took place but what is crystal clear is that Godwin was put in charge of getting rid of this challenge. Godwin did what he was told to by the present King of England and therefore it could not have been  traitorous as has been intimated by the book "The Life and times of St Edward, King and confessor" ( pages 64 and 65).  

The second motive surrounds Edward's mother Emma of Normandy. She was accused jointly by Godwin and Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury of having "unchaste"conversations with Alwin, Bishop of Winchester amongst other "crimes".  Once Emma had "proved " her innocence no doubt Edward really wanted to "get back" at, at least, one of her accusers.

Previous Form?

Edward returns to England in 1041 at the behest of someone  probably Emma working through Godwin. There is some confusion as to whether or not he was made regent. However, at a wedding banquet held in Lambeth, London, Harthacnut apparently was hale and hearty ( according to John of Worcester) until he took a drink - at which point Harthacnut drops down dead. The death reads as being very suspicious and who should be there too? Yes Edward.

Opportunity

Emma dies in 1052.  Godwin,  et al returns in 1052 at the head of impressive forces which forces Edward to re-instate the Earldoms etc. So Easter 1053 probably represents the first opportunity at a religious festival the Edward has to meet his troublesome Earl. It's interesting to note that Robert Former Archbishop of Canterbury is reputed to have died in the same year. ( Loyn English Church p. 59)

Personal Thoughts

The more I dig into Edward's life story the more I seem to find fault with his rule. He seemed to have forgotten his English roots in favour of his French ones. I have no problems with him being gay but in my mind he was not an "English " King. I think the title of the last English King should rest with Harold or even Æthelred but certainly not with Edward.

Emma of Normandy: Her part in the pre-1066 shenanigans?

Emma of Normandy

This woman seems to have lived though much of the late early medieval history of England. Born in 985 to the then Duke of Normandy and his second wife, Gunnora. She was married to Æthelred the Unready in 1002. Her first born, Alfred, according to the chronicler of  Life and Times of King Edward, was passed over by the Witan in favour of his unborn brother Edward. This suggests to me that the time between Alfred's birth and the marriage ceremony was less than 9 months rather than "the Witan being moved by the Holy Spirit". So at age 17 she was already pregnant, probably why her Father so easily agreed to her becoming Æthelred's second wife. 

Year of Our Lord 1005

Ecgberht, one of the five sons of Æthelred, dies. But Emma gives birth?

Year of Our Lord 1008

Eadgar, another of the five sons of Æthelred dies. But Emma gives birth again?

Year of our Lord 1014

This is supposed to be the year that Æthelstan, the oldest of Æthelred's male offspring dies (3 down and two to go). I haven't found out the cause of death but there is an interesting story. Apparently, Æthelstan made a new will on the day of his death and in it he makes NO MENTION of his second family. So all his worldly goods are distributed to his full surviving brothers, Edmund and Eadwig, and others including the church.

Year of Our Lord 1016

This is a momentous year.

Æthelred dies aged 48. The Witan decides that neither Edmund nor Eadwig are suitable candidates for the throne of England and instead selects Cnut to become King. Emma and her children are forced into exile as is Eadwig. Edmund, with the backing of the London burghs, disputes the decision and stages a rebellion. After about 5 months of on and off fighting, someone slips a blade into Edmund and he is no more. And then there was one.

Cnut the Great was the first Danish king of England. He had inherited the Danelaw area of England from his father Sven Forkbeard. So from 1016 until 1035 Canute (English spelling) ruled England.

Birth of Canute's first son Harold, who was illegitimate.

Year of Our Lord 1017

So Eadwig, sole surviving son of Æthelred, is now made an outlaw by Canute. From memory, isn't it the case that an outlaw was outside the law and therefore could be killed with impunity? However, Eadwig manages to make peace with Canute, only to be murdered later on in the year. 1017 also sees Canute marry Emma. Not knowing the exact dates involved could the timeline look something like this...

Canute marries Emma.

Emma conceives. 

Emma persuades Canute to make Eadwig an outlaw.

Eadwig bypasses Emma and becomes respectable again. 

Eadwig lets his guard down and is murdered on Emma's orders.

And the last son of Æthelred makes an exit, stage right. 

Year of Our Lord 1018

Birth of Harthacnut - mother, Emma of Normandy, -  father, Canute the Great.


Year of Our Lord 1035

Canute dies, Harold elected king. Emma aged 50, now has the role of "Dowager Queen"

Year of Our Lord 1036

Alfred makes a bid on the throne of England with an "army" contained on 25 ships. Alfred is subsequently killed by Earl Godwin. According the chronicler of "The life and times of St Edward, King and Confessor" this is when Prince Edward laments " .... and my own Mother, careless of my safety, is given in marriage to the only envy-er and destroyer of my Glory...."

Year of Our Lord 1040

Harold dies and Harthacnut is elected King

Year of Our Lord 1042

Harthacnut dies and the Witan decides to return to the House of Wessex for the next King.
Now aged 57, Emma could have persuaded the Witan to elect her "second" son to take up the throne of England.

Year of Our Lord 1052

Emma dies aged about 67.

My Thoughts

I have grown to dislike this woman intensely over the past few months as I have researched her life and times. Given she was "Queen" of England from 1002 until 1016 and from 1017 until 1035, (that makes about 39 years in total) shows she was a born survivor. She also had two offspring take up the crown of England  ( both having different fathers) which shows she was an expert manipulator too.
No doubt the accomplishments of this woman in those very male dominated times rank up there with the best. No one can take that away from her but she put someone on the throne who decidedly put England on a collision course with disaster. 

Battle of Hastings Site - Experimental Entry

Experimental Entry

I've had 256 views and no comments! So I don't know if you people out there in internetspace agree or disagree with my theory of where the "Battle of Hastings" was fought. This entry I hope will change this. 

In coming to my decision as where the battle took place I laid down a few criteria in the hope that it would lead to the actual site and not one solely based on the site of Battle Abbey. What I would like you, yes you, to do is send me one criterion ( in English if possible) you think is relevant. If you like, this is a thought shower and you're providing the rain or at least a droplet!

To start the ball rolling then .....

1. The battle took place on what is still a "green"field site. This means that the site has not been developed with houses or roads. Otherwise some or a lot of stuff from the 11th century would have come to life and folk would know where the bloody battle took place and I wouldn't be doing this. This criterion does rule out Time Teams preferred option of the mini- roundabout but not the English Heritage site "next door". 

2. The battle took place between Harold's overnight camp and Williams lookout position on Telham Hill. This criterion  rules out Crowhurst as the battle site because would any sane commander give up the high ground on Telham Hill (142 m above sea level) to fight a pitched battle from Crowhurst Church (20 m above sea level). 

3.... 

Over to you.

2nd July 2016

3. The place that Harold drew up his troops must have been very defendable by 7000 or so foot troops. This is because some reports mention the battle went on for 9 hours ( most battles of that time only lasted about a couple (2) hours. 

One thing that bothers me is the lack of casualties amongst the cavalry. We are told that the cavalry charged several times only to be repulsed by the Saxon line but the number of casualties was about the same overall initially and that most of the nobles fighting for the Normans survived. This leads me to think that the cavalry was neutralised rather than engaged. 

4. Harold had time on the morning of the battle to prepare defenses against the Norman cavalry.