Battle of Hastings - Advice Required

 

It's starting to feel a bit lonely in here

I've been researching the Battle of Hastings now for about 9 years. I've managed to get the Forestry Commission to commit in writing to investigate the site ( Ashes Wood) in that time but very recently my wife admitted that she had no confidence in my view on the Battle. 

It seems I'm in a majority of one when it comes to the Battle of Hastings being fought out at Ashes Wood and that I was allowed to do the research as a way to keep me occupied and quiet while keeping house. It seems that I was never expected to come to a conclusion and that I would be stuck in an endless loop of medieval writings. 

So, my question to you, reader, is do I continue to try to persuade folk that my ideas are correct or do I flush my whole research down the plug-hole? Answers in the comment section please. 

By the way, I have made a Youtube video with my darling wife where we discuss my thoughts on the location of the Battle ( link here :-  https://youtu.be/_vjAJ_xk20k). I wanted to make a whole series of vids but you could say my wife is less than enthusiastic about it.

Let me know what you think . 

Regards 

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. 

Battle of Hastings :- Death of Harold - A question of "When" not "Where"

      

                 Death of Harold II - A question of When not Where   

In this blog I will outline my case that it is a matter of "when" Harold Godwinson was killed and not "where" that is the driving force behind the actual "where".

Consensus view

Let's start with the accepted view of the battle of Hastings. According to historians, the battle started at 9 o'clock (Tierce) in the morning and lasted until 6 o'clock in the evening. The time of Harold's death is put at 6 o'clock (Vespers). As the retreating English fled, they were pursued by the Norman knights but put up a rear-guard action which surprised the knights. This resulted in a number of casualties which was notable. 

Additionally, according to most historians, is that the battle was fought in one location and was continuous. 

The upshot of this is that no matter when Harold died, he died at the location of the battle that took place at the Fire Station end of Battle High Street. 

Evidence for the Consensus

1. William of Jumièges writes in his GND that battle was joined in the third hour and continued until late at night. He also states for the record that Harold was struck down during the first assault. 

2. The Bayeux Tapestry and the Carmen state that Harold was killed at Vespers.

3. All four early sources mention some sort of "after - Main-Battle" affair. 

4. A declaration of King William's fury when the monks tried to persuade him to build his Abbey away from the battlefield. 

My view of the Battle

I agree with the time and location of the start of the battle in the morning. 

After about 3 hours, the battle with the Huscarls ends. 

The Normans reformed early afternoon and then attacked the "Main body"

The Normans goad the English into leaving their superior position. 

Harold is injured by an arrow and subsequently killed

Evidence for my view

1. According to William of Jumièges the battle started at 9 in the morning. Also, this tallies with my understanding of the Bayeux Tapestry. 

2. Three sources, the Bayeux Tapestry, William of Poitiers and the Carman agree that the first engagement resulted in all of the English, that took part, being killed

3. Taking from two of the three sources above, the Bayeux Tapestry shows Norman knights attacking unarmoured troops standing behind prepared defences and William of Poitiers refers to the "main body"

4. William of Poitiers and the Carmen tell of the tactics used to shake the English loose from their location. The Bayeux Tapestry only tells of the first attack and how William had to reveal himself to prove that he was still alive. 

Conclusion

If William of Jumièges is to be believed then Harold needs to have died in the morning just as he writes otherwise Harold must have died at another location. 

So, in essence, historians are being selective in what they take to be true. Trying to square William of Jumièges account with the other three early sources must be aim of any future historian. 

Sometimes when we stand on the shoulders of giants we only see a little further in the direction the giants are facing. To truly appreciate the view from the shoulders of giants we should look all around us. 

You tube video - https://youtu.be/_vjAJ_xk20k

Battle of Hastings: Journalistic level of proof of two engagements?

As you know I maintain that there were at main three engagements on 14th October 1066 namely Huscarls v Norman Army, rest of the English Army v Norman Army and the Malfosse incident.  I think I have three independent early sources for this in the BT, the Carmen and Gesta Guillelmi.

The evidence on the Bayeux Tapestry are the scenes 51 and 52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayeux_Tapestry_tituli)

If you compare the relevant cameos from the scenes you will find that the horses are presented in the same orientation ( facing inward). The only difference between the cameos is the state of the Huscarls between the horses. In the former, the Huscarls are presented as being in their "shieldwall" whilst in the later cameo the Huscarls are being "mopped up". Notice also that only Huscarls are being depicted with the exception of a solitary archer - the King is not present. 

Secondly, we have the evidence that comes from the Carmen which is as follows :- 

According to the translation of the Carmen (Tyson, 2014) by Kathleen Tyson we have this:-

Line 341           Ordine post pedites sperat stabilire quirtes

Line 342           Occursu belli set sibi non licuit

Line 343           Haut procul hostiles cuneos nam cernit adesse

Line 344           Et plenium telis irradiare nemu

Which according to Tyson translates to:

He intended to station his lancers behind his infantry

But encountering battle he was not allowed

For he saw the approach of enemy columns not far off

And the woods full of gleaming weapons.

 

 

Also, we have the lines 363 and 364

 

Line 363           Ex inproviso diffudit silva cohorts

Line 364           Et nemoris latebris agmina prosiliunt

 

Translation

Suddenly, a company [of English] emerged from the forest

And the column rushed from wooded cover.

 

The “Carmen” then describes where the King was -

 

Line 365           Mons sylvae vicinus erat • vicinaque vallis •

Line 366           Et non cultus ager asperitate sui

 …

Translation

Nearby was a wooded hill, neighbouring the valley,

Its terrain was rugged and uncultivated. 

 …

Line 373           Ascendit montem rex bellaturus in hostem

Line 374           Nobilibusque viris munit utrumque latus

Line 375           In summon montis vexillum vertice fixit

Line 376           Affigique jubet caetera signa sibi

 

Translation

The King ascended the summit that he might wage war in the midst of his army,
And the nobleman flanked him either side.
At the summit of the hill a streaming banner was planted.
[King Harold] ordered the other battle standards planted by it.

And thirdly we have the Gesta Guillelmi by William of Poitiers (WP)( English translation by Davis and Chibnall only)

16. ... The land of the Danes ( who were allied by blood)also sent copious forces [i.e. Huscarls]. However, not daring to fight with William on equal terms, for they thought him more formidable than the King of the Norwegians, they took their stand on higher ground, on a hill near to the wood through which they had come. At once dismounting from their horses, [end of page 127] ​they lined up on foot in dense formation. Undeterred by the roughness of the ground, the duke with his men climbed slowly up the steep slope. [ my emphasis]

The thing to note here is that only the Huscarls had access to horses so the soldiers that WP is referring to must be Huscarls. WP goes on to say that the Huscarls formed their shieldwall on higher ground that was accessed by going up a slope not that the Huscarls stood on the actual ridge. This now agrees with the Bayeux Tapestry. 

WP goes on to describe the actions taken.

On page 131 we have:- 

19. Emboldened by this, they launched an attack with greater determination on the main body of the army [ my emphasis], which in spite of the heavy losses it had suffered seemed not to have been diminished. 

So, it seems that the first body of men that the Normans met was not part of the main body of the English Army. 

In conclusion, it seems that three of the four early sources for the Battle of Hastings agree that there was a pre-main engagement tussle and that two of them agree that it took place at elevation. 

 You tube video - https://youtu.be/_vjAJ_xk20k