Talk:Harold Godwinson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harold Godwinson article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Whole article needs editing

This article needs an edit or rewrite. Certain aspects are sloppy (including parts I added), and some scope needs to be given to the idea of Anglo Saxons vs Norman, and the Historical context of Harold's very short career and defeat at Hastings.

The problem of sources needs to be addressed more fully - especially with Poitiers, whose veracity is questioned by almost every historian out there. However, Poitiers is a useful source for the invasion preparations: he is the one who gives an account of the storm that upset William's first invasion attempt. I'll attempt a rewrite at some point. It's still a sensitive subject even today - I will go on the premise that he should be referred to as a king, as should William I. This is, though, one of those articles where the debate needs to be fleshed out a little, and some context given to the opposing views, and basic historiography. This is important, especially for kids who may still be being taught (as I was) by the anti-Norman school of thought.User:prolethead

[edit] ...

And why are you promoting yourself here? ---Michael K. Smith 17:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have removed tonyg6ypk@blueyonder.co.uk chapter from his book because it has no place here.

[edit] NPOV

This article is very heavily biased towards the Saxon point of view - I'm making a few edits to balance it a little. Much of the criticism, e.g. of Norman sources is valid, but is written in an overtly hostile manner. Mon Vier 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I'm not sure how to proceed. Much of it - for example, the bits about Harold's mission and William's claim to the throne - are impossible to prove either way but are clearly not written in an encyclopaedic style. I'll leave this for somebody who knows the period better than me to do, and content myself with a few minor cleanups. Mon Vier 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Godwinson

Harold Godwinson is not normally given an ordinal because if he were then Edward the Confessor would have been "Edward III of England" and then Edward I of England (Hammer of the Scots) would have been Edward IV of England... lets not go there. Philip Baird Shearer 01:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Are you sure about that? The regnal name Edward is an unusual case, since ordinal numbering pretty much started anew in England after the Norman conquest, and Edward is the only name to have been used by monarchs both pre- and post-conquest. Pre-conquest, of the Wessex line there were also two Saxon Ethelreds, two Harolds and two Edmunds, and up until a few years ago IIRC they were all routinely given ordinals. Certainly at school we were taught Harold II. The Edwards don't need ordinals because they have all been given distinguishing nicknames, as have the second Ethelred, second Edmund and first Harold, so maybe a case could be made for removing their ordinals, but the nicknameless Ethelred I and Edmund I are both universally known as such. Fosse8 13:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is normal practice to give ordinal numbers to the Anglo-Saxon kings. This was the case when I took my degree less than a decade ago and remains as such (I still work within History). The numbering was begun again subsequent to the Norman Conquest. Valiant Son 15:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
So we're agreed. To add to the confusion, I've also seen the family name spelled Godwineson and Godwinsson. Can the article be moved back to Harold II of England then?
The spelling of names from this period is fraut with problems. In effect we are transliterating from another language. (Although Old English is an antecedent of Modern English the differences are so significant as to make the two languages almost uninteligible from each other - although they share a lot of vocabulary and grammar). The end result is that an approximation is produced for all proper nouns. However, the problem with moving the article back to Harold II of England is that, although technically accurate, many people simply won't think (or know) to look for the article under this name (one of the great long term successes of the Anglo-Norman hegemony was the suppression of the idea that Harold was a legally constituted monarch - he was btw). I would suggest a compromise could be to redirect searches if required. Valiant Son 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Might I comment that Godwinson, as a usurper (William of Normandy was the declared heir of Edward Confessor, and Godwinson had sworn holy oaths to uphold Wiliam's rights) hardly deserves to be listed as King, and certainly not to receive a regnal number.
Goodness! Is there a possibly more POV statement than that? In any event, this POV doesn't conform to the histories of the period, which record that kings of England were not made simply by the reigning king declaring a successor, but rather by approval of the witan. ——Preost talk contribs 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, whether or not Harold was a "usurper" is not relevant to deciding whether he was King or not - he quite clearly was, given that he was crowned as such in Westminster Abbey with the full approval of the witan and other powers in the land, and clearly recognised as at least de facto monarch at the time. If having a rather shaky claim to the throne were grounds for denying historical monarchs the badge of "true" kingship, we'd have to start pruning Wikipedia of quite a few other figures too - just from England, Stephen of Blois, Henry II, Henry IV, Richard III, Henry VII and Jane Grey all spring immediately to mind... 81.110.86.44 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
This kind of bias plagues discussion of the subject even today. If Harold was declared king by the Witan, he was king. I made alterations to the "powerful nobleman" section due to its credulous readings of Norman propaganda, specifically that of Poitiers. If Harold had won, the propaganda would have been equally spurious and detrimental to history. A good source for people not familiar with the debate should read Edwin Tetlow's "The Enigma of Hastings," notable for its relative lack of bias in the debate, or indeed The Anglo Saxons, edited by Campbell (even better as an introduction). Let's not dismiss people as usurpers as the previous writer stated, there are many English monarchs who had shaky claims to the throne - including some of the greatest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prolethead (talk • contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Harold was most certainly not a usurper. Under Anglo-Saxon law, the previous King did not have the power to unilaterally declare his successor. Only the witan had the power to make a man king, and in fact the witan declared Harold king. In fact, it was William the Bastard, as he was then known, who was the usurper and illegally made himself king through conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

William the Bastard claimed hereditary rights to the throne through descent through Queen Emma as his great aunt. This is nonsense since she was only a consort and this would give the right of accession to princess Diana's or Camilla Parker-Bowles relatives. Quite apart from William's illegitimacy, which was contrary to the Synod of Chelsea which declared that Kings could not be "born in adultery". Athelstan and Harald Harefoot were illegitimate but not conceived in adultery as William was. If Harold was the descendant of the Wessex Kings (vis- Harold- Godwin-Wulfnoth-Aethelmaer se Greata- Aethelweard the Historian- Eadric -Aethelthryth - Aethelhelm- King Ethelred I) he had a better claim than Edward the Confessor, as Alfred's line was junior to Ethelred. It is also recorded that Edward designated Harold his heir on his deathbed. -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold the Saxon?

  • Halló! es:Harold II de Inglaterra mentions "Harold el Sajón". If he was called this way it should be mentioned to be consistent with the articles about other rulers. Best ragrds Gangleri · Th · T 11:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the propnunciation of harold godwinson? my crazy friend lawrence, is pretty nuts.

I think it's HAR-old GOD-WIN-sun (the "sun" pronounced with a soft 'u', almost like an 'e'). Killfest2 (Daniel.Bryant) 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence is now angry.

This is getting a little bit weird...I'm about to delete it. Killfest2 (Daniel.Bryant) 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to prove I'm right. It's obviously GODWINSON, not GODWINESON! Lawrence is a silly billy!

It is GOD-win-son, not GOD-win-e-son. Q.E.D. Okay, thank you. I have now been proved right! Killfest2 (Daniel.Bryant) 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Family tree

I used the Template:Familytree template to redraw the family tree in the article. It was pretty unreadable in the state it was in, so I had to do some research to reconstruct it, mostly using information from other Wikipedia articles. I hope that it is accurate. --  timc  talk   17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of continuity

Is there any reason why Harold Godwinson's page claims that Edgar Ætheling was his successor, but that William the Conqueror's page sites Harold as his immediate predecessor? I am aware of the rather strange circumstances here - obviously Edgar was never actually crowned - but he was King, and Wikipedians need to decide whether or not they actually want him in the English Royal line. Can anyone shed any light on why things are as they currently are? Vincentvivi 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Edgar was not a king. While the Witan did elect him he was never crowned nor sanctified as king. It is accurate to say that Harold was William the Conqueror's predecessor.Valiant Son (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The question depends on what was considered to be the definitive act in the king-making process, the event before which a man was not a king and after which he was. In the case of Anglo-Saxon England, election by the witan seems to have been the key procedure, since it was common for coronation to be long delayed after a king had been chosen and had begun to rule. This contrasts with French kings of this period, who were crowned as a matter of urgency after the previous king's death, so as to establish their position before anyone else could mount a challenge or even preempt them by getting crowned first. Presumably there was no such hurry in England because in the English tradition coronation was essentially a religious and symbolic procedure rather than a strictly legal and constitutional one. This would be analogous to the Roman/Byzantine situation, where coronation was a standard part of making an emperor, but the definitive act was acclamation, and an emperor was considered to reign from the moment of acclamation onwards.
From a later period of English history, "Edward V" is generally acknowledged as having been king, even though he too was never crowned. Obviously the constitutional position in the fifteenth century was different, but it illustrates the fact that coronation is not necessarily to be regarded as definitive.
Zburh (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harald Harefoot was never crowned either. I think Athelweard may have been but died a couple of weeks after (rivals to Athelstan tended to have a short life expectancy) -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wife/Mistress?

Under the "Marriages and Children" heading, the article states: "For some twenty years Harold was married mōrē danicō (in the Danish manner) to Ealdgyth Swan-neck (also known as Edith Swanneschals or Edith Swanneck) and had at least six children by her. The marriage was widely accepted by the laity, although Edith was considered Harold's mistress by the clergy. Their children were not treated as illegitimate."

Later it says: "Harold's mistress, Edith Swanneck, was called to identify the body... Harold's illegitimate daughter Gytha of Wessex married Vladimir Monomakh Grand Duke (Velikii Kniaz) of Kievan Rus"

So Wikipedia sides with the Clergy? I think it would be more proper to treat the majority opinion of the time as exactly that, so I'm altering the later sections. -Leng —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.143.73.197 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The biography on Harold Godwinson have been vandalized. Please note the inconsistent, inappropriate post on the bottom of the biography.

Marriage in the "Danish fashion" was perhaps akin to Morganatic marriage and could be polygamous, Cnut having a "Danish wife" (Aelgifu of Northampton) simultaneously to a canonical wife (Emma of Normandy). The status of the children were disputed, with the legitimate son Hardicnut claiming his elder non-legitimate half brother Harald Harefoot had no right to be king and would have fought him had he not died of natural causes. The Archbishop of Canterbury Aethelnoth (Godwin's uncle)refused to crown him. The right of such children to the throne would have been forbidden by the Synod of Chelsea although the Danes took a much more laid-back attitude. -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] harold ii

can we please have this article called harold ii of england? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because he was never styled Harold II of England. Numbering of English kings was a Norman innovation and they didn't bother to number the Anglo-Saxon kings retrospectively).Shsilver 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
See the discussion above. It is normal historical practice to give ordinal numbers to the Anglo-Saxon kings. And to say that it was a Norman innovation is also false if by that you mean that William of Normandy or William Rufus introduced it - they didn't. Sorry, you're just wrong on this one.Valiant Son (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So how were they known before they obtained their monikers? e.g. Edward the Martyr bfore he was "martyred". PEDANT'S CORNER ; Harald Harefoot was spelt differently. Also he was never crowmed since Archbishop Aethelnoth refused to, as he only recognised his legitimate half-brother Hardicnut -Streona. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact Elizabeth I was never known as Elizabeth I until 1952 - 350 years after her death, but we still call her that - Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 13:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading image

Harold's putative demise, shown in the Bayeux Tapestry
Harold's putative demise, shown in the Bayeux Tapestry

This image creates the misleading impression that the figure holding an arrow is labelled "Harold". In fact the embroidered label continues to the left and right, and reads in full HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST, "King Harold was killed". Underneath the complete label is a picture of a mustached Saxon warrior being felled by a mounted Norman knight -- quite possibly intended to illustrate Harold's death. That particular tableau is isolated. The soldier with the arrow is part of a scene with several Saxons facing a Norman cavalry charge (and presumably archers as well). Nothing shows or suggests that that specific figure is Harold. RandomCritic 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleming's ODNB article says:

The Bayeux tapestry shows Harold's death-apparently pierced in the eye by an arrow. Whether he did, indeed, die in this manner (a death associated in the middle ages with perjurers), or was killed by the sword, will never be known.

So, something does suggest that it is Harold, namely the association with perjury. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not a very convincing argument.RandomCritic 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but [Fleming, Robin (2004). Harold II (1022/3?–1066). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved on 2007-10-14.] is a convincing reference. I do know that is not the only opinion on offer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death on the Bayeux Tapestry page. The article could say that it has commonly been assumed that he was killed in this manner, but there is considerable historical debate. Valiant Son (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Harold's death

I have changed the following text at the start: "He was killed at the Battle of Hastings, by an arrow personally fired by Norman Duke William the Conqueror which struck his eye and pierced through to his brain." The circumstances of Harold's death are simply not known (and it is highly unlikely that William himself was firing arrows).

As Angusmclellan says, Fleming's ODNB article says:

The Bayeux tapestry shows Harold's death-apparently pierced in the eye by an arrow. Whether he did, indeed, die in this manner (a death associated in the middle ages with perjurers), or was killed by the sword, will never be known.

192.93.164.23 (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Getting your eyes poked out with white-hot pokers seemed to be associated with a distressing large number of things in the Middle Ages, including calling William a bastard to his face. -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] House of Wessex

Looking at the family tree available on this site, it seems that Harold could boast an unbroken male line of descent from one of Alfred the Great's older brothers. That would make him a perfectly acceptable member of the House of Wessex, and seems like something worth mentioning in the article. Cranston Lamont (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The family tree doesn't cite any sources and Harold's supposed royal ancestry is not mentioned by Robin Fleming, Ian Walker, Ann Williams, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

But it is by Anscombe and by Kelley -Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 09:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His names

We are in danger of getting into an edit war. Someone has objected to describing him as "Haraldur Guðinason or Harold II" on the grounds that this is an inappropriate foreign name and a name by which he was never known. What language is the first name, can someone clarify? If it is Old English then it is certainly appropriate. As for the second name, in my view there are problems with numbering the pre-Norman kings of England, we are better referring to him and his predecessor as Harold Harefoot and Harold Godwinson, the names Harold I and Harold II do have a certain currency, and so deserve a mention. It is hardly a legitimate objection that this name was not used in his own time, lots of kings in lots of countries have only been numbered by later historians. PatGallacher (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not the case in England though. Numbering of monarchs is a French custom that was imposed on England after 1066. To give numbers to pre-Norman monarchs leaves us with a very big problem - what about the three Edwards? Incidentally the foregn name is Old Norse, and definitely not Old English (in which his name is spelt Harold Godwinesson). TharkunColl (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Except this -son ending was inherently Scandinavian. Based on the form appearing in the ancient Anglo-Saxon pedigrees, he would be Harold Godwining, or something of the sort. That being said, there was a degree of flux, the Scandianvian control of the kingdom leading to cultural changes, and Harold himself was half-Scandinavian, so the form he would have used is up in the air. In contemporary Anglo-Saxon charters, he is simply "Harold eorl" and later "Harold king". Agricolae (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the first issue. The second issue is more problematic. It is my understanding that numbering English monarchs did not start immediately after 1066, it was only decided a while later to number them from the Norman Conquest. I totally agree that you run into all sorts of problems, particularly with the 3 pre-Conquest Edwards, and you also have the problem of who you regard as the 1st King of England. Most reference works give Egbert, my inclination is to give it to Alfred, but Athelstan has a few supporters. The introduction to biographies should give the different names by which someone has been known which are not clearly spurious. PatGallacher (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Edward the Martyr was not called that until he was dead. - Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also various of the kings of the English ("Rex Anglorum") did not have control over all of what is now England. Egbert the Great was acknowledged as the overlord of the othwer sub kingdoms after 829 and abolished the post of Bretwalda. Alfred only ruled England south of the Danelaw, which was gradually retaken- or taken- during Edward the Elder's reign, completed at the Battle of Brunanburh by Athelstan the Magnificent. Control of the north continued to be disputed under Edmund the Magnificent and a Norse kingdom under Erik Bloodaxe seceded from King Edred who rectified the matter with ruthless efficiency. Edwy the fair divided the kingdom with his brother Edgar the Peaceful and Ethelred the Unready lost it completely. So most of the kings could not claim to be king of the whole of England through all their reigns and Egbert's claim would be as good as any. What they were however was Kings of the English, if not of England. -Streona (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Silver Penny

On the link to the image it cames to awebsite which describes it as a "coin" but there is a further link. The image originates from the National Portrait Gallery which defines it as a "Silver Penny of Harold II designed by Theodoric II in 1066". So Angusmclellan is right in so describing it.--Streona (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)