Harold (38 page)

Aethelric, Bishop of Sussex, was deposed by King William at a synod on 24 May 1070 for unstated reasons and unjustly, according to a number of sources. It has been suggested that his deposition resulted from the fact that Archbishop Stigand had consecrated him but Siward, Bishop of Rochester, who was also consecrated by Stigand, retained his bishopric without incident until his death in 1075. If the Bishop of Sussex was the same man as Aethelric the monk of Christ Church, he could have been deposed because of his family relationship to King Harold. Such a purely political deposition would be uncanonical and would explain the letter written to Archbishop Lanfranc by Pope Alexander II complaining that the case against Aethelric was defective and that he should be reinstated and tried canonically. The Pope’s request was ignored, and Aethelric languished in prison in Marlborough instead. Pope Alexander II may have been referring to Aethelric again in a further letter, in which he inquired anxiously about the fate of an imprisoned bishop whose liberation he had ordered. If this interpretation of the real political background to Aethelric’s deposition is correct, it would explain why he was not restored but instead had his deposition confirmed at an English Church council held under William in Winchester at Easter 1076.
³

A more solid link between the two men is provided by the report of a trial on Penenden Heath in Kent, in around 1072 or 1075/6. Aethelric, the former bishop of Sussex, ‘a man of great age and very wise in the law of the land . . . was brought to the trial in a wagon’, to explain ancient legal practice. If this Aethelric was the same man as had been considered mature enough to be proposed as a candidate for the archbishopric in 1050–1, then he would certainly be ‘a great age’ some twenty or so years later. The knowledge of the laws which he was required to explain at Penenden Heath also fits well with Aethelric, described as a ‘man active in secular business’ by the
Vita Eadwardi
in 1050–1. In addition, as the business in dispute at Penenden concerned Canterbury lands appropriated by Odo of Bayeux, Earl of Kent, the presence of Aethelric would be particularly apt and he may have provided evidence of Canterbury’s ownership as well as legal advice.
⁴

It would seem likely from this information that the two men were, in fact, one and the same. Although disappointed in his search for promotion in 1050–1, the monk Aethelric nevertheless bided his time. Subsequently, he was able to persuade King Edward to appoint him Bishop of Sussex, through the influence either of Archbishop Stigand, or of his relative Earl Harold. This area was, after all, the home territory of the family and an entirely suitable position for him, if lacking in the wealth of the archbishopric. He probably served in this position efficiently but without notice in the Chronicles until 1066, but after the conquest his relationship to King Harold became an embarrassment. Perhaps fearing his involvement in an attempt at a family restoration in 1070, King William deposed and imprisoned him. William cloaked his political actions, as always when dealing with the Church, in a religious guise, but in this case a patently thin one, which did not satisfy Pope Alexander in the least.

If accepted, this relationship can also provide an important key to one of the great puzzles surrounding the Norman Conquest. There apparently exists no contemporary English account describing Harold’s visit to Normandy in 1064 or considering the reasons behind it. If Aethelric, the candidate for the archbishopric, is the same person as the later bishop of Sussex then we may have a contemporary source – Eadmer of Canterbury’s later account of Harold’s visit to Normandy. Eadmer himself informs us that he consulted Bishop Aethelric of Sussex when composing his life of St Dunstan. Therefore, it is possible that Aethelric was also the source of Eadmer’s information on Harold’s visit to Normandy. If so then his statement that its purpose was to free family hostages should perhaps carry considerable weight as the information came from a source within the family itself.
⁵

T
he English office of earl originated from that of the
ealdorman
of King Alfred’s time, who was responsible for a single shire. The extent of the authority of these
ealdormen
grew with the expansion of Wessex and with the increasing sophistication of government, and by King Aethelred’s time many
ealdormen
controlled areas which included several shires. This tendency continued under Cnut and Edward when, under Scandinavian influence, these men first began to be called earls.
¹

The earls were the leading men of the kingdom, who enjoyed viceregal powers in local areas in return for providing support to the king. The success or otherwise of their relationship with the king and of their interrelations with each other formed the basis of the politics of King Edward’s reign.

In order to fully understand these relationships, it is important to know the extent of the earldoms held by these men and their relative size and location. Unfortunately, this is an extremely difficult task at this period because of the relative paucity of the records. Table 1, overleaf, summarizes what little firm evidence exists as to the extent and location of the authority of King Edward’s earls, and on the basis of this evidence I have attempted to reconstruct the outlines of the English earldoms. This must remain speculative in many of its details, but nevertheless can shed considerable light on the background to King Edward’s reign. The three great earls inherited by Edward from Cnut, namely Godwine, Leofric and Siward, and their successors will be considered first, and thereafter Edward’s new earls.

In 1042 Earl Siward certainly held authority both in Yorkshire and the rest of Northumbria to the north, as reflected by his role in the invasion of Scotland in 1054. This position is further confirmed by Gospatric’s writ, which refers to Siward’s authority in Cumbria also. It is known that Siward also held authority in Huntingdonshire sometime between 1050 and 1052, but since this county was held by Harold earlier in 1051, it seems likely that he governed this area only after the latter’s exile in 1051. The extent of the later authority of Tosti and Morcar, as recorded below, may imply that Siward also controlled Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire, but although possible, this is not certain. He may have gained Northamptonshire, like Huntingdonshire, only after Harold’s exile in 1051.
²

In 1055 the Chronicle states that Tosti succeeded to Siward’s earldom and it is known that Tosti’s authority encompassed not only Yorkshire and Northumbria, but also Nottinghamshire and Northamptonshire. In addition, the Chronicle account of the rebellion against Tosti’s rule in 1065 speaks of the insurgent Northumbrians and Yorkshiremen being joined by the men of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, surely an indication that Tosti’s earldom extended to these shires. It might be argued that these three shires were part of Edwin’s earldom, but the Chronicle clearly distinguishes them by saying that Edwin came to meet his brother and the men of these shires with the men of
his
earldom, which could not therefore encompass these shires. The
Vita Eadwardi
confirms Tosti’s larger influence when it speaks of ‘many slaughtered in the cities of York and Lincoln’ during the rebellion against his rule. Thereafter, the rebels ravaged Northamptonshire, also held by Tosti, in order to bring home their opposition to his rule.
³

In 1065 Earl Morcar succeeded to Tosti’s authority, his rule extending certainly to Northumbria, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Morcar’s role in the defence of York in 1066 indicates his authority there although Simeon of Durham suggests that he allowed Oswulf to deputize for him in Northumbria itself. Morcar likewise defended Lincolnshire against Tosti’s attack in 1066, though he was assisted in this by his brother, Edwin. Although we cannot be certain, it seems likely that he also controlled Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, though not apparently Northamptonshire, which perhaps fell to Earl Waltheof probably in 1066, when King Harold may have appointed him earl with authority in this area.
⁴

Table 1: The Earldoms of King Edward’s Reign