Harold Book

Ian Walker's book about Harold Godwineson pretty much brings us over familiar territory, but with a twist. I find his approach to this complex and sparsely documented era to be both intriguing and a little heavy-handed. On the one hand, he does give all the relevant background to a particular event, but then he usually proceeds to make a firm conclusion as to which story is correct. Once concluded, all future events are predicated on this preconceived notion. I find that his conclusions are usually sound, but that does not necessarily mean that they are true.

For instance, there are several opinions as to whether or not King Edward promised the crown to Duke William. Did he promise the crown because the Normans sheltered him during his exile? "It seems that there are insufficient reasons for Edward to make such a grand gesture as designating William as his heir out of gratitude to him, especially after a period of some ten years during which there appears to have been no contact between them." OK, this makes good sense. Did William visit England in person during 1051? Norman writers fail to mention this when it could have favored their arguments, so it seems unlikely. Did Edward send Robert Archbishop of Canterbury to William with an offer of the crown? No contemporary English sources corroborate this assertion. Ultimately, the author concludes that "It seems far more likely that the designation was the work of Robert himself." It easily corresponds with his frantic exit from London on Earl Godwine's return from exile, hostages in hand. If he went directly to William with Wulfnoth and Hakon, he could represent them as having been offered by Edward to secure William's claim to the throne. Robert's motive? Could it be revenge on Earl Godwine?

I found this argument deliciously convincing, and Walker uses it later on to conclude that Harold Godwineson couldn't have been sent to Normandy in 1064 to confirm Edward's promise of the succession. Even more to the point, on being forced to swear the fatal oath, "Harold had fallen into William's trap but it was a concealed trap that neither he nor anyone in England could have anticipated. The promise of the succession to William had after all probably been invented by Robert of Jumieges himself, and was thus unknown beyond William's immediate circle."

This is a profound concept to me. So no one in England had a clue that William had designs on the throne until 1064. It was the silver lining to Harold's disastrous expedition; the events in Normandy opened his eyes to his rival's ambitions. "As a result, he could be fully prepared to repel William's invasion, which he knew would come." It does follow and it's certainly possible; but overall, the chain of events seem quite circumstantial to me.

Hence, my ambivalent feelings toward this book. I found it to be dry reading, but once I concentrated on it I ended up marking several pages for future reference. I found his arguments stimulating in an academic sort of way, but I think I would have been more convinced had he left his conclusions a bit more open-ended.