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.