Edward - Will the real Edward stand up?

Edward - Will the real Edward stand up? 

 In my previous posts on Edward ( Edward - Confessor or Con parts 1 to 3) I discuss the 4 main reasons why I think that Edward post-1030 was a con. In this post I'm going to look at some of the things that happened in the life of Edward post 1030 and before 1042. 

In doing so I would also like to introduce my candidate for the person who actually sat upon the throne of England between the years 1042 and 1066. 

Here's a recap of my 4 main reasons :- 

        1. Ignorance of the way that a King is selecting in England.    

        2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married. 

        3.  The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.

        4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey. 

A few dates and background first. 

1025           William (18), cousin to Edward, dies as a monk, Richard II is Duke of Normandy ( Brother                     to Emma and uncle to Edward). 

1026            Richard II dies and is buried outside the Abbey alongside his father, Richard I. Ongoing                        dissent from Robert, son of Richard II. Quelled by Richard III. Richard III dies late in the                        year and Robert becomes Duke.

early 1030's Edward appears at Robert's court in Rouen as part of a delegation from Fecamp. Edward                         stays with Robert's court. Edward is now listed on charters issued by Robert and even                             issues charters himself styled as King of England. 

1035            Robert organises an invasion fleet to put Edward on the the Throne of England. Ends up in                     the Channel Islands.

1036            Edward and Alfred make a joint effort to win back the Throne of England by force. Edward                     lands by Southampton, wins his battle, takes some booty and then retreats back to his small                     fleet. Alfred lands closer to London and meets and is captured by Godwin. Godwin hands                        Alfred over to Canute who then blinds Alfred and sends him to Ely to die. 

1041            Edward invited by his half brother to become co-Regent and help rule England. 

  In 1051, William is supposed to have visited Edward and come away with the impression that the throne of England had been promised to him. 

I find it unusual that Duke Robert is willing to put his cousin ( via the line Richard II - Emma - Edward) on the throne of England by force of arms rather than take it himself. Also consider the standing of women in the 11th cent. They were hardly the stuff that made bloodlines. 

Now substitute William, cousin to Edward, into the mix. So, instead of dying in 1025 as it is thought let Edward die in his place and let William take Edward's place. 

In the early 1030's, William, now in his early twenties, gets to see his older brother Robert for the first time in 5 or so years and spills the beans about the switch made in 1025. Now we know that William's reported death made an impression on Robert as Robert has named his bastard son after him ( Yes - that William the Bastard) in 1028. From then on it's all about creating a "paper trail" to graft William into place. 

Again, the invasion of England of 1035 now is about Robert putting his brother on the throne of England in the guise of Edward. 

As to what really happened in 1036 as regards to William (fake Edward) is anybody's guess but it does seem weird that Fake Edward would win his battle but retreat whereas Alfred met one of England's most fearsome warrior Lords. 

Now in 1036 after the demise of both Alfred and Robert only one person remained alive from 1025 when I think the switch was made. Emma. There must have been some reason why Emma was content with the switch and that she was happy to let Alfred be manoeuvred out of existence. 

So now look at my 4 main reasons again with William in place for Edward

          1. Ignorance of the way that a King is selecting in England.    

William wouldn't have the knowledge as a matter of fact and he probably didn't care either. He was merely standing in for Edward and was happy other people did the leg-work. 

        2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married. 

William had taken holy orders and had other tastes so this for him was not a problem. As for Edith, well she probably thought she was lucky that she was married in name only.

        3.  The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.

William might have had a genuine love of healing and be rather good at it in 11th century terms. He knew his herbs and stuck with what he knew best. 

        4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey.

William did give up ruling England and returned to the Scriptures full time as any perfectly reasonable monk would do. 

Let's end the discussion with Duke William's visit in '51. What if, Fake Edward lets it slip that in fact he was  Duke William's uncle? If that was you, wouldn't you expect that you would inherit, as his closest living relative, all that your childless uncle possessed? I think you'd be a bit pissed that your uncle's brother-in-law had stolen what you considered to be rightfully yours. 

Okay, let us focus on the resting place of William at Fecamp because this is anomalous too. Looking at the plan of burial positions within Fecamp Abbey, one comes away with the impression that east of the transepts and crossing was reserved for one time abbots of the Abbey. 

Richard I and Richard II are buried in the South Transept, in the "chapelle Saint-Thomas" and the current resting place of "William" is the western part of the same chapelle. The original location as to where "William" was buried from 1025 to 1717 was just to the south of the chapelle Sainte-Madeleine which is just to the east of the North Transept. 

 The plaque, which identified the occupant to be William refers to him as a "Prince" which probably explain why he was buried to the east of the transepts and crossing. I asked the Benedictine monks in Somerset about this and they replied that perhaps the monks at Fecamp tried to accommodate Richard II's wishes that his son be granted a place of honour within the Abbey. I don't buy this because when Richard II died they wouldn't allow his body to be buried inside. 

Anyway, to end all of this conjecture, we can now carry out a DNA analysis of the bones buried as "William" and  compare them with the bones of Emma found at Winchester Cathedral. They should show that the body buried at Fecamp is either a nephew or son of Emma. 

Edward - Confessor or Con ( Part 3)

Edward - Confessor or Con ( Part 3) 

Now we come to the character of Edward having dealt with his actions. 

Could an insight into the character of Edward be gained from looking at reasons 2,3,4 listed below?

        2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married. 

        3.  The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.

        4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey.

Let's consider reason 2. Now this comes from the hagiography written by St Ælred of Rievaulx and repeated by R.F Jerome Porter in his text of the 17th cent. No real reason is given by Ælred in his hagiography other than Edward wanted to preserve his pious resolve. It is as though Edward had made a vow to God and the one reason I can think of is that Edward had become a monk during his exile and wanted to keep those vows. Now, it would be completely understandable for the sixth son of seven  to consider that the throne would not be within his grasp and it would be prudent to pursue an alternative career. Through the machinations of his mother, Edward gained the throne of England and thus any other person would probably re-examine their goals in life and make the necessary adjustments. So why didn't Edward do just that?

In a previous post I postulated that Edward was gay. This could be another reason why Edward didn't consummate his marriage with Edith. In the English translation of the hagiography by Fr Jerome Bertram, Fr J Bertram starts a new chapter with the Witan advising the King to take a wife to secure the succession. It completely separates the story of the stealing chamberlain from the advice given by the Witan. In R.F Jerome Porter's text there is no separation, so it probably reads like the original. 

So to recap, I consider Edward to have been gay or a monk or even both. 

Going through the standard texts of Edward ( Barlow and Licence) I can find no evidence from Edward's early life to suggest that Edward was particularly pious. Even the little snippet about Edward being in Ghent in 1016 is based on a parchment said to be written by a monk in the 1030's or 40's. 

Now I'm going to look into a couple of suspicious deaths by poisoning. This side of Edwards character is fascinating. On the one hand, Edward is renowned as a healer and it's through Edward's miraculous healings that he is recognised as a saint. However, the flip side of a healer is a poisoner. I believe that Edward used his skills at least twice on family members. 

The first death I'm linking with Edward occurs in 1041/2 and happens at Lambeth, London. The occasion was a wedding reception where Harthacnut met Edward and Emma for the first(?) time since appointing Edward co-Regent. Marc Morris, in his book "The Norman Conquest" writes that there is an ongoing discussion amongst historians as to whether Harthacnut suffered from an underlying condition with regard to his health but that Harthacnut would have been glad to have died "in his cups". My view is that Harthacnut's health would have been a concern once he had appointed Edward co-regent! 

The second death that I'm linking to Edward is the death of Godwin. Somehow Edward must have been able to practice his dark art because Godwin took three days to die whereas Harthacnut died on the spot. I do not believe that revenge for Alfred's demise was the cause of Godwin's death Although it does seem that Emma stayed the hand of Edward with regards to the poisoning of Godwin. I think the death of Godwin speaks more to the bully boy tactics Godwin employed against the very weak Edward rather than anything else. 

So, rather than having Godwin hacked down or a blade slipped between the ribs, Edward decided to use the female approach and poison his enemy. This to me strengthens the idea that Edward was either  gay, a monk or both. 

Finally, we have Edward's obsession in building Westminster Abbey. The story in Edward's hagiography is that Edward wanted to fulfil his vow to complete a pilgrimage to Rome but the nobles and clergy counselled that Edward defer the pilgrimage. At this Edward agreed and consulted the Pope. The two bishops Edward sent explained the situation to the Pope and the Pope absolved Edward of his vow. The Pope said that in compensation for the absolved vow Edward should raise a monastery or rebuild one destroyed by the Danes and that it should be dedicated to St Peter. 

According to Fr Jerome Bertram's translation of the hagiography of St Ælred of Rievaulx, Edward let his underlings deal with all of State business while he himself studied Scripture and possibly micromanaged the building of Westminster Abbey. By turning his back on dealing with the minutiae of being a King in the 11th cent Edward reveals himself as unfit to rule a great kingdom. 

So, if England is being ruled by a person who thinks of himself as a gay monk was he in fact a "cuckoo in the nest"? The next part details who I think actually sat on the throne ( I can't bring myself to write "ruled") between 1042 and 1066. 

 

Edward - Confessor or Con? (Part 2)

 Edward Confessor or Con? (Part 2)

So let's start with my main reason I consider King Edward a fake. 

Ignorance of the English way of selecting a King

For many hundreds of years since the Norman invasion of 1066 and until recently, the eldest male child  automatically inherited the throne. This method of selecting a King is so baked into folk that most think it was always so - it wasn't. 

For a lot of early kingdoms in the isles of Britain the method of selecting a king relied on a select band voting - yes voting for the man who they thought was going to be best at the job. My own family name "Casey" comes from Ireland where it was part of the Dalcassian tribes from which petty kings were elected. So, the principle of "electing" a King was established on both sides of the Irish Sea. 

A remarkable thing about the Catholic Church is how they elect a new Pope and how it mirrored the practice in Anglo-Saxon England. Since Cardinals and Popes are supposedly celibate there is no individual to claim the throne once it has become vacant hence the election. The Catholic Church reduces the number of candidates by insisting that the new Pope should be elected from the cardinals present. For the Anglo-Saxons, they had a much freer set of criteria, only to consider the maintaining the cohesivity of the realm. 

First, let's look at the events surrounding the time when Æthelred gave up the throne. I'm not sure why it happened but it seems the nobles got tired of Æthelred and wanted Sven Forkbeard to take over. Sven pegged it on the way to London(?) and discussions took place with Æthelred for him to govern yet again. The main emissary from Æthelred was his 11 year old son Edward apparently. So unless Edward had nothing between the ears he should have picked up on which way was up concerning the Witan. Anyway, Æthelred was re-instated.  

Lets move on two years and consider the times surrounding the death of Æthelred. 4 sons outlived Æthelred and they were Edmund (26?) and  Eadwig (23?) from his first marriage and Edward (13?) and Alfred(9?) from his second marriage. Now, Edward and Alfred were safely tucked away in Normandy and were too young to be considered by the Witan as possible candidates for King, which leaves Edmund and Eadwig in the running. 

The Witan decides, for reasons only known to them, that maybe the impulsive and explosive nature of Edmund was unsuited to be King and Eadwig wasn't proven in battle to reunite the Danelaw area of England with the rest, so they chose Canute, who reunited England under one King without major loss of life. 

Edmund, who was favoured by the burghers of London to take over, disputes the Witan decision and starts a civil war with Edward at his side according to the saga of St Olav the Holy of Norway. If this is true then Edward, who is now 13, gets another reality check in dealing with English politics.  

Fast forward to 1034/5. Edward and Alfred make a half hearted attempt to size the throne of England by force. I don't understand the stance taken by the chroniclers as Edward is supposed to have won his battles and retreated back to his "fleet" with booty while Alfred meets with a seasoned warrior, Godwin with tragic results. So, here are the brothers trying to negate the constitutionality of England in sidelining the Witan.

Edward successfully side steps the Witan in 1041/2 when he is declared co-Regent with his half brother  by his half brother. This leads to full kingship when Harthacnut mysteriously drops dead at a wedding reception in 1042. The first king of England not to be selected by the Witan. 

In 1051, according to Duke William of Normandy, during a visit Edward promises the throne to William. Hang on, given that Edward must have known the Witan had the last say in who was going to be King. So why does William think he's going to get the throne?

So, since 1034/5, Edward has side stepped the Witan yet it can be seen that Edward should have known full well that the ultimate power lay in the hands of the nobles. 

Is there any explanation for the turn of events? Well, Emma, his mother, could have been manipulating people behind the scenes ever since her return to court in 1017 and come Hell or high water she was going to have her first born on the throne. Was Edward content then to be a "Mummy's boy" for as long as his mother lived? It certainly kept Godwin alive until his first meeting with Edward after the demise of Emma in 1052.

In part 3, I will look more at the character of the man and his vows. 

Edward - Confessor or Con?

Edward - Confessor or Con? (part 1)

I am strictly a 1066 Battle of Hastings enthusiast but while things are happening in the background with my choice of battlesite I have looked into the life and times of Edward the Confessor. What I found was curious and when looked at as a whole, pointed to some rum goings on. It could be that I'm making 2 plus 2 equal 5 but in Edward's case, I'm sure the answer isn't 4. 

There are 4 main reasons why I think that it is not Edward that is buried in Westminster 

        1. Ignorance of the way that a King is selected in England.    

        2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married. 

        3.  The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.

        4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey. 

There are other things that require addressing too. 

There are two standard texts on the subject of King Edward and these are "Confessor: Last of the Royal Blood" by Tom Licence and "Edward the Confessor" by Frank Barlow. Neither author wants to get involved in Edward's religious life yet this is the place where we see Edward functioning. Admittedly, there is a lot of work to do in winnowing out the truth from the "brown-nosing" but it needs to be done to reveal the character of the man not just a litany of things he did or did not do. And in discovering the character of the man we need to ask some searching questions as to who the man really was. 

I'm going to bring into the mix two further texts. The first one being "Life of St. Edward the Confessor" by St.Ælred of Rievaulx ( translation by Fr Jerome Bertram, FSA) and "The life of St. Edward, King and Confessor" by R.F Jerome Porter.