Tuesday 22 January 2019

1066 - The Mercian Angle

In 1066, when Edward the Confessor died, Harold Godwineson was declared king. Yet he felt the need to ride north to secure the pledges of the northern nobles, and thought it prudent to forsake his long-term partner and marry the sister of two powerful northern earls. Why?



Let’s go back a bit...

In my last blog post I explored the history of Mercia. Readers of To Be A Queen will recall that in Æthelflæd’s day, Mercia was still a kingdom in its own right, albeit one which was fast running out of kings. Forty years later, the setting for Alvar the Kingmaker, Mercia had become a powerful ealdordom (later known as earldoms.)

And there was a new problem: the Danelaw.

However much Æthelflæd, her father, husband, and brother fought against them, inevitably some of the Danes who came over in their dragon boats stayed, and settled in the north and east. In the 10th century, King Edgar was careful to preserve the rights and traditions of the Danelaw, as well as the erstwhile independence of Mercia.

Edgar’s dealings with the Danelaw can be found in the law code known as IV Edgar, or the Wihtbordesstan Code. It has often been said that Edgar was creating something new with this code, but technically speaking this is a letter to the Danes, showing Edgar eager to respect an autonomy which was already a fact.

It is probable that Edgar became king of England in 959 with the help of a powerful group of magnates who wanted a king who would not encroach on the customary law. Edgar stresses five times that he has every intention of respecting the Danelaw. It is possible that although IV Edgar is a recognition of established fact, Edgar himself created the Danelaw, as there are no earlier references to it. In all probability these privileges were granted by Edgar in 957, in gratitude for the support given him in the north against his brother Eadwig.


King Edgar 

Although Edgar’s reign was notable for being free of invasion (his epithet was ‘The Peaceable’,) it was a time of great change. As well as this identification and recognition of the Danelaw, there began a shift in the power and influence of the nobility. As ealdormen died, their lands were given to neighbouring nobles - Ælfhere (Alvar in the book), already ealdorman of southern Mercia, gained the northern portion when the ealdorman of Chester died - until the earldoms were as big as the old kingdoms. By the time of Edgar IV, there were three principal noblemen, and in the law code he demands that:


'Earl Oslac (Northumbria) and all the host that dwell in his ealdormanry are to give their support that this may be enforced' and that 'Many documents are to be written concerning this, and sent both to ealdorman  Ælfhere (Mercia) and ealdorman  Æthelwine, (East Anglia) and that they are to send them in all directions, that this measure may be known to both the poor and the rich.' [IV Edgar 15. & 15.1]

Royal control was difficult to establish in areas with separatist feeling, and Mercia was another of these areas. Edgar was respectful of these regional differences, as his charters show - a land charter of 969 carefully states the ‘boundary of the Mercians’ - but his successors were not.

Edgar was succeeded by his famously ‘unready' son, Æthelred - who infamously ordered many Danes massacred on St Brice’s day, 1002 - and so there followed a period of Danish rule, most notably by King Cnut. Long-held separatist and nationalist sentiments remained, and now, as Barlow put it,


'The Danish rulers having no attachment to any of the kingdoms, widened the concept of England. Cnut’s plan of reserving no English province for his direct rule and his grant of Wessex to the ‘upstart’ Godwine had weakened the position of any successor who had not his ‘quasi-imperial’ power.'

Æthelred the 'Unready'

How did this situation contribute to the problems faced by Edward the Confessor in his final years?

The three leading earls were Leofric of Mercia, Siward of Northumbria, and Godwine. Of those three, only Leofric came from an old ruling family; he was the son of Leofwine, ealdorman of the Hwicce - whom readers of my novels will know to be one of the core Mercian tribes, originally with their own kings; their centre was Deerhurst and the church there was very important to the Mercians - and he gave, according to Barlow, 'loyal and disinterested service.' (Disinterested here in its original meaning, that of being impartial.)  Siward, meanwhile, with lands bordering Scotland, probably looked more north than south.

The rise of the House of  Godwine was phenomenal. Moving from thegn to king in three generations, it proved the theory of upward social mobility which, in fact, most people found impossible to attain, and which might have been denied in this case also had it not been for the reign of Cnut.


Cnut

I have some university notes in which I quote one of my lecturers: '1066 lasted a whole year.' I followed it with an exclamation mark, but I know what was intended by this seemingly obvious remark. 1066 was not just a battle near Hastings; events took a turn for the dramatic in January when Edward the Confessor died, and culminated with William’s coronation on Christmas Day.  But there were more people involved than just Harold and Edward, and the turmoil had really begun as far back as 1051.

Eustace of Boulogne arrived at Dover to visit his former brother-in-law (Edward) and Godwine was at the wedding feast of his son Tostig and Judith. There was a violent brawl involving the people of Dover and the visitors from Boulogne. Godwine was ordered to punish the people of Dover and he refused. The result of this stand-off was the exile of Godwine and his family, and Leofric of Mercia’s reward for supporting the king was that his son, Ælfgar, was granted Harold Godwineson’s earldom of East Anglia.

However the northern earls thought Edward went too far by subsequently giving preference to foreigners, thereby tightening his links with Normandy. Thus, in 1052, when Godwine came back, Leofric and Siward remained neutral. London declared for Godwine. His terms were not extortionate and so the neutrality of the northern earls seemed justified, and would explain why Ælfgar, according to Barlow,  ‘quietly surrendered’ the East Anglian earldom back to Harold.

But Godwine’s death in 1053 shifted the balance of power and the Mercian house became stronger. Harold succeeded his father in Wessex, but this meant that Ælfgar got East Anglia back. The Mercian family was now spread right across the midlands.


Death of Earl Siward - Smetham
Then in 1055 Siward of Northumbria died, and his son, Waltheof, being too young to govern, was bypassed for Tostig Godwineson. As Richard Fletcher put it, 'There was no love lost between the house of Leofric and the house of Godwine' and Tostig’s was a surprise appointment; it was the first time a southerner had held the post and he was, in Fletcher’s words, 'A complete stranger.' Now, Mercia was in the middle of a Godwineson sandwich, with Harold below and Tostig above. They needed to look in a different direction for allies. Ælfgar looked westward, allied with Gruffudd of Wales, and was briefly banished before being reinstated.

Two years later, In 1057, Leofric died. Ælfgar succeeded him in Mercia and Harold’s brother Gyrth took the now vacant East Anglia. But although the 'trouble-maker' Ælfgar had control of his father's earldom, the Godwine family was in Wessex, East Anglia and Northumbria. Mercia was isolated.

Hardly surprising then that in 1057, Ælfgar’s daughter, Ealdgyth, was married to Gruffudd. In 1058 Ælfgar was outlawed again for ‘obscure reasons’ and came back with the support of Gruffudd. Kari Maund suggested that the alliance must have begun before 1055 and that’s why he was ousted. Perhaps Ælfgar had not so ‘quietly’ surrendered in 1052 after all. 

In around 1062/3 Ælfgar disappears from the record. He was succeeded by his son, Edwin, who was a second son and seemingly still only a young man. It would seem that Harold took advantage of this and engineered the death of Gruffudd.

By October 1065, the Northumbrians had had enough of Tostig and his southern ways and attempts to impose high taxes, - the Chronicle of John of Worcester adds a story of murder and implicates Tostig's sister, Queen Edith - and they rebelled, electing Edwin of Mercia’s brother, Morcar, in his place. After the Northumbrian rebellion Morcar was very quick to get there, as if he’d been ready and waiting. As Fletcher put it: 'Here at last was a chance to hit out at the hated sons of Godwine.'

The joint northern, Mercian and Welsh forces marched south. Whilst Harold attempted to mediate, Edward demanded war. Harold would not fight the rebels to restore Tostig. Edward submitted, Tostig was outlawed, and Edward seems to have gone into a decline, from which he never recovered. Tostig never forgave Harold.

This, then, was the internal situation in 1066: a build-up of resentment between noble houses, and a brother with a grudge. Harold had worries long before William landed...

While the rest of the events of 1066 are well-established, this internal conflict is a scenario with which I played for my story in 1066 Turned Upside Down

The Mercians and their role in the eleventh century, and that of the inhabitants of the Danelaw, are explored in depth in my book Mercia: The Rise and Fall of a Kingdom, by Amberley.




Further reading:
King Edgar and the Danelaw - Niels Lund, Med. Scand. 9
Anglo-Saxon England - FM Stenton
The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216 - Frank Barlow
The Welsh Kings - Kari Maund
Bloodfeud - Richard Fletcher
The Fall of Saxon England - Richard Humble
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles - Ed. N Garmonsway

16 comments:

  1. Brilliant post, Annie. A lot of people blame Tostig for the downfall of AS England in 1066 due to his part in the Northern Battles of that year, but perhaps they need to remember the Northerners caused Tostig to be exiled by ousting him in the first place! Still, I'm not going to lay the blame for the English disaster at Hastings against the whole of the North!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Except Tostig brought it on himself by being a dreadful Earl and the North, rightfully, kicked him out... he then went whining to the King (Edward) who then also kicked him out... :-) Frankly (IMO LOL) Tostig was a spoilt brat!

      Delete
  2. Fascinating article. You have such a wealth of knowledge!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really enjoyed this article, Annie. The era in a nutshell. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Glynn - I know we both agree that it's a fascinating period! :-)

      Delete
  4. Hi Annie great article really enjoyed reading, this is my most loved period of English history.A question I would like to ask is this of the two battles fought on Yorkshire soil in 1066 where would the fyrd have been raised from I live in the West riding in the Staincross Wapentake a number of lesser thegns survived and eventually prospered under the Normans would the whole county have been on a war footing and been required to take part in the battles thanks Darrell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Darrell - I'm glad you enjoyed the post. The actual details of the battles of 1066 are not my area of expertise but the battle of Fulford - sometimes known as Gate Fulford was fought by earls Edwin and Morcar and Morcar's area of jurisdiction covered York and surrounding area so yes, troops would have come from around the local area. With Stamford Bridge it's less clear cut because Harold marched from the south, with troops of his own. How many local men would have been able to fight is less easy to know. Edwin and Morcar were defeated at Fulford with significant losses, so it's doubtful how many local men would have been left fit enough to fight again.

      Delete
    2. 'local' men would have been called up for Gate Fulford (from upper Mercia and Yorkshire). For Stamford bridge it is often (mistakenly) thought that Harold marched north with the fyrds (the 'stand-by' armies) of the south (and then, it is said, they were too tired to fight at Hastings after they had marched back again...which is nonsense). More likely, Harold would have RIDDEN north with his elite force, the huscarls, calling out the MIDLAND fyrds as they marched (e.g modern Essex, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, etc) The SOUTHERN fyrds stayed in the south. There is also substantial evidence that Harold and his main army fought at Stamford Bridge on horseback.

      Delete
  5. Hi Annie, you may find this interesting. For the past number of years I have worked with Prof Chas Jones (Oxford Uni) carry out archaeology to locate the Fulford battlefield site. This is a link to Charles web page - you may find it interesting. Two years ago we found a Saxon Sceax wrapped in a red cloth (shown up after an MRI scan at Cambridge Uni.
    http://www.fulfordbattle.com/index.htm

    Cheers Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chris,
      This is really interesting - thanks so much for sending the link!!

      Delete
  6. Super article Annie - I grew very fond of Edgar and Morcar while writing Harold the King. England, and therefore the 'North' would have been a very different place, I think, if Harold had won at Hastings. I have always felt that he had great respect for these two men - and vice-versa.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Helen! I'm sure that they would have played a huge part in politics had Harold won, although as someone more knowledgeable than me has pointed out, Waltheof, although he was fighting with them post-1066, might just have wanted his father's earldom to go back into his family's i.e. *his* hands :-)

      Delete
  7. What a fascinating post about a fascinating period. I know so little. Okay, I know nothing really, but I want to. I think I should start by reading your and Helen's books!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much! Helen and I might be on slightly different 'sides' when it comes to Harold Godwinson and his family but we are both in agreement about William the Conqueror!! :-)

      Delete