Conquest of England 1066 AD. The battles of Fulford, Stamford and Hastings.

By Garrett Pearson

Prelude

1066 AD Proved a decisive year for Anglo-Saxon England.

King Edward shown on the Bayeux Tapestry

The English King Edward the Confessor died childless on January 5 of that year and failing to nominate an heir created a power vacuum for the throne. The only true claimant was a nephew of Edward’s, Edgar Ætheling. Edgar however, aged only fourteen and residing in Hungary was virtually unknown to the Saxon people and thus devoid of support in England. 

Three forceful claimants sought the crown, Earl Harold Godwinson of England, King Harald Sigurdsson (Hardrada) of Norway and William, Duke of Normandy.  

Each claim was tenuous; Harold’s claim cited a promise given him by Edward on his deathbed. Hardrada’s, based on distant ties to the former Anglo-Danish King Canute, and William by a promise he claimed given to him years earlier by Edward. William also claimed that Harold, whilst a detainee or guest of his in Normandy, had given an oath of fealty to him and promised support in his claim to the English throne. 

Harold was crowned King on January 6 by Bishops Stigand of Canterbury and Ealdred of York with the support of the English Witan, the Saxon assembly of nobles. Harold’s coronation was astonishingly quick, perhaps done before objections could be raised, previous Kings usually taking time to be exposed to their people and Lords.  

Rebellion and invasion

Harold’s estranged and younger brother, Tostig Godwinson, the former Earl of Northumberland and whom Edward exiled before his death, now sought to reclaim his Earldom. After raiding the Isle of Wight and the southeastern coast of England but to no gain and little effect, he looked for greater support against his brother from the other claimants, William and Hardrada. 

Allying himself with Hardrada the pair agreed to meet with their fleets at Tynemouth on the northeast coast of England. Hardrada, abandoning his long and unproductive war against Denmark arrived with three hundred ships and an army of approximately nine thousand men, consisting mainly of Norsemen but supplemented by vassals from Orkney and Shetland and some Scots mercenaries supplied by King Malcolm III. Tostig arrived with twelve ships, and supported by some exiled Saxon retainers and Flemish mercenaries supplied by his brother-in-law, Count Baldwin of Flanders.   

 

Battle of Fulford – September 20

Battle of Fulford - Mathew Paris (Public Domain)

After sacking Scarborough and the northeast coast, Hardrada’s and Tostig’s fleet turned into the river Humber and sailed inland, landing and disembarking at Riccall (Richale) some ten miles south of York (Jorvik). 

Two miles south of York at Fulford, they were confronted by brothers Edwin and Morcar, the respective Earls of Mercia and Northumberland and around five thousand Saxon troops. 

The Earls drew their army up along the north bank of the Germany Beck with Edwin and his Mercians on the right flank by the river Ouse and Morcar and the Northumbrians to the center with marshland to their left. Hardrada’s men were still coming in from Riccall when battle commenced, the Saxons seeking victory before all of Hardrada’s troops arrived. Owing to the high tide on the Ouse, the beck was also in flood forcing the Saxons and Norse to fight across it. With difficult conditions for both armies, Hardrada committed his light troops along the beck hoping they could hold the Saxons until more of his men came up from Riccall. Initially the Saxons enjoyed success, pushing Hardrada’s men back but as the heavy Norse troops arrived and were marched around the riverbank, where the tide had now fallen; they attacked the Saxon right flank driving Edwin and his Mercians off. More Norse pushed around the Saxon left flank, both contingents then turning to attack the rear of the Saxon center, cutting them to pieces. Casualties were heavy on both sides though the power of the northern Saxon army was broken and both Earls managed to escape.

Harald and Tostig marched eight miles east of York to Stamford to await and accept hostages and the surrender of the city, Stamford being chosen as it was a well-known landmark on the boundary of the east and north ridings of Yorkshire.

Battle of Stamford – September 25

With the northern Saxon army destroyed and believing Harold to be in the south watching for William, Hardrada sent half of his troops under his Earl (Jarl) Eysteinn Orri back to their ships at Riccall, the rest relaxing in the meadows by the river Derwent at Stamford.

Harold however, hearing news of the Norse invasion had force-marched north from London, completely surprising the Norse contingent at Stamford. Expecting no trouble, many of the Norse had sent their mail hauberks and shields back to their ships, now, unprepared and with hastily drawn battle lines, they faced the Saxons. The speed of the Saxon arrival suggests that most were mounted but whether they dismounted to fight on foot as traditional or attacked mounted is still a moot point. With Saxon numbers estimated at ten to twelve thousand men, Hardrada dispatched runners back to Orri at Riccall, some fifteen miles away calling for reinforcements.

The Norse were gradually pushed back. Seeking to regroup on more favorable ground, they crossed a narrow bridge whilst a lone warrior with a double-handed axe held it against the Saxons. Buying time for his comrades, he is reputed to have slain between twenty and forty men before finally succumbing to a spear in the groin thrust from beneath the bridgeboards by a Saxon warrior.

During a lull in the fighting, the chroniclers, Snorri Sturluson and Henry of Huntingdon, cite that a warrior approached Tostig and Hardrada offering Tostig his Earldom back. When Tostig asked what terms for Hardrada, the man is said to have replied “Only six feet of English ground or more, as he is taller than other men.” The warrior was reputed to be Harold.

Battle recommenced and Hardrada fell to an arrow through the throat, Tostig was also slain. Jarl Orri and his men arrived in late afternoon having ran the fifteen miles from Riccall. Committing immediately to battle they stalled the Saxon onslaught but succumbing to exhaustion and a foe that sensed victory they were pushed back, Orri being killed in the melee.

Late in the day, Harold offered the remaining Norsemen the chance to leave, never to return, under pain of death. The Norse casualties were so great that only thirty ships were required to take the survivors back to Norway.

Battle of Stamford Bridge & death of Hardrada (unknown artist)

Invasion and the Battle of Hastings 14 October

William’s fleet of some seven hundred ships, a mixture of warships and transports landed at Pevensey Bay on September 28 or 29. He immediately dispatched troops to invest Hastings town and to ravage the surrounding countryside. 

Harold, resting in York when he heard of Williams’s invasion set off south reaching London in four days. At this speed, it is thought he rode ahead with his Huscarls (personal guard) with others to follow on as soon as able.

Harold was urged to wait in London for the men from the north and for more men to come in but being a successful, confident and vigorous commander; he refuted the advice, and marched to meet William. Word was put out for men to assemble by the ‘Hoar apple tree” a well-known landmark, long since lost.

It is surmised Harold’s speed was a plan to catch William unawares, William however stole a march on Harold and the two sides came in sight on opposing hills on the early morning of October 14. William on Telham hill with his papal banner, a gift of support from Pope Alexander the second to aid his endeavours against Harold the ‘oath breaker.’ On Caldbec hill, Harold set his banners of the fighting man and the dragon of Wessex, his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine in support. His men formed up on a hammer shaped ridge at the hill front, above a boggy area called Santlache meaning ‘Sandy Stream’ and punned later by the Normans as Senlac, meaning ‘blood lake.’

William moved to the low ground between the hills expecting Harold to come down off Caldbec hill and fight him, Harold sensibly refused.

Battle commenced at 0900hrs with volleys of arrows from the Norman archers. The Saxons, in dense formation raising their shields against the incoming storm suffered little damage, William then dispatched his infantry uphill in an attempt to shatter the Saxon shieldwall. His men were met by a hail of missiles, arrows, clubs, stones and javelins, the Saxons roaring defiance with cries of ‘Ut, ut, ut’ (out, out, out) after a prolonged struggle and no sign of the wall breaking, William sent his mounted knights in support. However, with the wall unbroken the best the knights could do was ride in and away stabbing with their lances else hurl maces and javelins in an attempt to break the wall. 

With the Saxon wall showing no sign of breaking, the Breton contingent on William’s left flank broke and fled back down the hill, some of the cavalry floundering in the soft ground and a cry went up that William was dead. Some Saxons broke ranks and chased the Norman rout, seeing crisis, William threw back his coif and helmet showing himself alive and rode amongst his men trying to stem the panic. Managing to rally his men, the Normans counter attacked and slaughtered the Saxons on the open ground. 

A break in the fighting had both sides reforming, the Saxons adjusting their shrinking shieldwall and the Normans regrouping for another assault. The battle continued into the afternoon with the Normans again making no headway against the Saxon defence. At the height of a full assault on the shieldwall, the Normans again began falling back down the hill as if in disarray, the Saxons, once more sensing victory and against all commands, broke ranks and gave chase. On the low ground, the Normans turned and easily slaughtered the Saxons, who in loose order were easy prey to the mounted knights. 

With the loss of the men in the low ground, the Saxon shieldwall shrunk again. William, seizing the moment committed to a full assault by all his troops, his archers this time causing casualties in the weakened wall. The infantry forced gaps in the Saxon ranks, the knights riding in to widen and split the defences open, Gyrth and Leofwine both slain as the knights forced through. Harold, the last King of the Saxons was killed alongside his Huscarls, they closing about their King and dying to a man around him, such were the bonds of oath and warrior brotherhood.

Death of Harold depicted - ambiguously? - on the Bayeux Tapestry

The battle had raged since 0900hrs in the morning until sunset, about 1700hrs at that time of year making it the longest fought battle on English soil. The fighting had been fierce, William having three horses killed beneath him.

Estimates of combatants vary widely, the main consensus being the sides were roughly even in number and around eight to ten thousand men on each side 

Did Harold die from an arrow in the eye? The Bayeux tapestry portrays such a scene or is Harold depicted twice, shot by the arrow and then ridden down by a Norman knight? No one can say for certain how he died. Harold’s body was so mutilated that his mistress, Edith Swanneshals, was summoned to identify it, doing so by tattoos that only she would have been privy to.

Battle won; the conquest was far from over. William was crowned King of England on Christmas day 1066 but would be occupied up until his death in 1087 AD dealing with Saxon insurrection, Danish invasion and revolt by his own Norman Lords.

~~~~~

Interesting questions and thoughts arise from this short but turbulent period:

If Hardrada had triumphed at Stamford, would he have beaten William and England become predominately Norse?

Were the Norman retreats a planned ruse?

If William had lost, English royalty, culture, language and laws would be completely different.

Military experts conclude that, if the Saxons had not moved from the ridge, the battle outcome had to be a win for Harold or at the very worst a withdrawal of the Normans.

~~~~~~~~~~

Garrett Pearson was born and raised in the northeast of England; he is married with two grown sons. Captivated by the long and turbulent history of his homeland he became a passionate student of English history and ancient military history. He is an author of Historical Fiction, a member of the Historical Novel Society and a guest blogger to English Historical Fiction Authors (EHFA). He specialises in Dark Age England and the Saxon/Viking wars as well as the Second Punic War between Carthage and Rome.

Facebook

Amazon

Twitter

Author’s email is garrettpearsonauthor@gmail.com 

The Most Famous Fact in English History is Not True

By Mark Colenutt

Every country has a famous date. In the US it’s 1776 and the declaration of Independence, the rest of the world knows the day for some reason but can’t remember the year. In France it’s 1789 and the Storming of the Bastille. In Spain it’s 1492, not only the year that the centuries-long Reconquista was finalized, but it was also the discovery of the New World by the Crown of Castile. And in Australia it’s probably 1882 when they beat England at Cricket for the first time, but the less said about that the better.

In the case of England it is 1066, the Norman invasion of England. But why 1066? Why commemorate a defeat? The Spanish don’t ingrain 1588, The Spanish Armada, on the impressionable minds of their students as the most significant year in their history, especially when 1571 and the battle of Lepanto would be a more influential naval battle. The Scots commemorate Bannockburn in 1314, a resounding victory for them, over celebrating 1707 with the Act of Union. The Italians, to be even more specific, all know the date 25th April, 1945, which pays tribute to the liberation of Italy during the Second World War and the overthrow of the fascist regime.

It is true that 1066 was a fundamental shift in the direction of old England. It introduced feudalism and castle building, thus safeguarding the nation against future invasion and making the Norman feat unrepeatable. They introduced cavalry as a new military tactic and ended slavery in England. They also tied the nation fatefully for centuries to royal intrigue and conflict with France. And the French connection gave rise to Norman French being used at court and its influx of Latin gradually transformed the dulcet tones of Olde English, for better or for worse. They even introduced the need for surnames when they commissioned the Doomsday Book.

It was not the first time in the history of southern Britain where a foreign invader had changed the cultural direction of a people and with it their identity. The Romans had achieved this a millennium before, almost to the day, when they suppressed the last-ditch attempt by Boudicca and her allies to end Roman hegemony. At the battle of Watling Street the ancient world confronted the modern with the resulting defeat of the Britons carving their descendants a different character and aesthetic.

So, it is for these reasons that modern England looks back to 1066 as an equally radical shift in cultural identity and political ideology, and not just for the unprecedented cathedral building project that the Normans engaged in. And this is why every child, old enough to remember four digits and suffer detention, has to learn this all-important date. In fact, even the most stubborn student will have internalized this date despite their most dogged efforts not to learn anything at all in their history classes. So forceful is this date in the English classroom that those that choose to snooze the hour away have absorbed it via hypnopædia. In short, there is no escape. One of the most famous history books written in England is even titled 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates, published in 1930, it is a parody of the style of history teaching in English schools at the time and “punctured the more bombastic claims of drum-and-trumpet history.” But 1066 is only one half of the equation.

There are only two historical facts that every school child knows about England. And those that wish to undermine the subject would go as far as to say they are the only facts you need to know, but that is only if you hold examinations above understanding. The first indispensable fact, as we have already admirably established, is the year 1066. The second is the manner in which the Anglo-Saxon King Harold met his end.

The traditional dragon banner of Wessex

Everyone knows he died with an arrow through the eye at the battle of Hastings. But here comes the shocking admission… it’s not true.

The Normans would have us believe as much, because it fed into their narrative, it was perfect propaganda. Halley’s Comet was sighted shortly after Harold usurped the throne.

The most powerful Thane in the land had, apparently, sworn to support Duke William of Normandy’s rightful claim to the throne but then went back on this holy oath, an oath sworn upon holy relics so the Bayeux Tapestry goes to lengths to illustrate. Such omens were strong currency at the time and still are when the time is right.

So, how did every history department in England come to propagate a false event? Quite easy in fact, but we will need to take a look at prime source material and the scene of Harold’s death during the drawn out battle to explain further. The Latin inscription, called tituli, above Harold in the Bayeux tapestry (which is actually an embroidery) reads: HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST – meaning: Here King Harold is slain. However, there is reason to doubt that this is correct.

In order to shed light on this, we will need to take a closer look, literally. There is indeed a figure right below the name ‘Harold’ with an arrow in his eye and the name above a figure would normally be indicative of that person. But what catches my attention is the falling figure just to his right. It is not the same man. They are clearly two different people, which can be discerned from the differing leg ‘warmers’ that both men are wearing.

Now, comes the history. The first known recounting of the events surrounding Harold’s death comes from the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio - ‘Song of the Battle of Hastings’, which was written just months after the battle. It says that four knights cut him down and there is no mention of the arrow at all. This seems to fit in with the image in the tapestry. The arrow would have been a great lyric, but it isn’t even in the song.

In fact, the first reference to Harold and the arrow was the Italian monk Amatus of Montecassino, some thirty years after the event! That is no eyewitness account and must be approached cautiously, if at all. It makes for a great story, admittedly, but it doesn’t mean there’s a grain of truth to it, especially when the writer is based in some far off land.

Again, when Harold’s wife Edith the Fair had to identify his body, due to it being badly mutilated, there was no mention of the arrow then either.

Another account has William killing Harold, a further account has Harold dying in the morning as fighting began while the Chronicle of Battle Abbey says no one knows how Harold died.

So, while it could be true there is no proof that it is, and just because there is a man with an arrow in his eye in the embroidery, sorry tapestry, is not definitive either. I imagine many men lost their lives with an arrow through the eye during these times. The character in the tapestry could quite easily be one such victim. In fact, the man with the arrow in his eye is not dead but injured, while the figure cut down by the Norman knight is already dead as he falls. It is once again the latter image that fits in with the first account we have of Harold’s death.

One must therefore conclude that we can no longer teach with any certainty that Harold was most surely killed with an arrow to the eye. If we do this we continue doing the Normans’ bidding for them, centuries later, by ensuring the mysticism of a bad omen is proof of God’s will. It will of course lessen the weight of a great story and make it less ingrained upon our collective imagination but we must stay true to the facts.

So, to end we learn anew the advice that haunts all historians, namely ‘check your sources’ and it has a striking precedent here with this well worn history of England. But it does beg the question, while Hollywood continues to powerfully shape our impression of the past like a modern-day Bayeux tapestry, what else are we sure about that probably never happened?

~~~~~~~~~~

Mark Colenutt as lived in Spain for the past 27 years. He has a BA in Medieval History and MA in Imperial and Social History. He teaches history by day and moonlights as a writer in both fiction and non-fiction. He writes the fictional Chester Bentley Mysteries directed at a young readership with co-author Jacqueline Wood, under the pen name MJ Colewood. The series is a collection of epic mysteries surrounding major events in British history. Each story leads to the discovery of one of the most surprising untouched treasures from Britain’s extraordinary and volatile past. Chester Bentley and the Last Treasure of Ancient England puts the reader on the front lines of the Norman invasion and then brings them back to the present as Bentley hunts down the long lost treasure.
Book on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3gs5rCV
Website: www.mjcolewood.com 

The Monarchy~ William the Conqueror

by Debra Brown

Edward the Confessor

A previous post on this blog discussed the "Dark Ages" dynasty, the House of Wessex. Edward the Confessor had once fled to Normandy with his parents. He later put Norman friends in high places in England, and promised that his cousin, William, Duke of Normandy, would succeed him - according to William. Edward, though, changed his decision upon his deathbed, and he now left the throne to Harold Godwinson, who had no blood ties to the succession. William was having none of that, and made plans to invade England. Winds did not permit the duke to sail across when he had first intended to do so, and he left later, but this turned out to be in his favor.

Despite realizing that William was finally on his way, Harold II was forced to pull away from southern England to ward off an attack in the north by even more powerful forces, his own brother Tostig along with the King of Norway. When Harold II was asked by Tostig how much land he was prepared to yield to the King, he replied, "Six feet of ground or as much more as he needs, as he is taller than most men." Harold successfully routed that attack at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. Only three days later, the Normans landed at Pevensey the 28th of September, 1066.

Bayeux Tapestry

Harold headed south, obtained fresh troops in London and set off to meet the advancing Duke. William had but seven thousand men to England's two million. They met six miles north of Hastings. Though Harold II had the upper hand much of the day, when the ten-hour battle ended, he and his brothers lay dead. He was the last monarch of England to be defeated by a foreign invader. William went on to devastate a large circle of land to establish his authority and then swept into London to claim the throne.

 William the Conqueror

The Witanagemot had assembled and elected young Edgar the Ætheling, the grandson and rightful heir of the Confessor, king after the death of Harold Godwinson. Edgar was never crowned, however, and a group of nobles met the invading Duke of Normandy and handed the Crown of England over, as well as young Edgar. William took him in. Edgar lived to attempt the crown, but never gain it. He was still known to be alive in 1126.

The White Tower, built by William

William had some experience from his duchy in Normandy, and set about organizing England his way. He took estates away from English owners, kept much for himself and gave some to his supporters from France. These nobles (who, do not forget, also had interests in France) built castles, following the lead of William with his start on the Tower of London, to protect themselves from the angry English. Over the next 600 years, this trend continued and some 2,000 castles appeared. The French barons divided their land into fiefs and handed them out to vassals who organized men under them, knights, for military service to the king.

Division of English Counties as laid out in William's Doomsday Book. 

This map highlights a southeastern circuit. 

William was an administrative genius, and commissioned a national survey of belongings- his boring Domesday Book records the possessions of all his subjects for taxation purposes. It was said that there was "not an ox, cow or swine that was not set down in the writ". William also took firm action against criminals, even castrating rapists. There was, therefore, less crime in the country under his rule. He also introduced trial by jury. However, he was far from just. He was an avid deer hunter, and he cleared the New Forest of all its buildings and inhabitants to create game reserves for himself. His forests came to cover a third of English land. Poachers were killed or mutilated. When rebellions reared he reacted firmly, even burning the entire villages and their crops. Much of Northern England was devastated, its economy ruined for decades after a rebellion. Thus he kept firm control. He spent much of his time in France, as did his new English knights and English tax money. He was, after all, first and foremost, the Duke of Normandy.

William was the illegitimate son of Norman Duke Robert I and a tanner's daughter. Though he succeeded to his father's duchy, while still a child, he had grown up with the nickname William the Bastard. Perhaps this is why the great conqueror was such a faithful and devoted husband to Matilda of Flanders, by whom he had four sons and five daughters.

The former English ruling class disappeared when William conquered England, and French speech and customs thereafter heavily influenced the English. French fashions, manners, art and architecture made a permanent mark. He build great cathedrals, which were to give the impression that he was, indeed, ordained by God to rule England.

William, a calculating and brutal invader, deemed his eldest son, Robert, too generous and easygoing, and while he left his Norman holdings to him, just before his death he willed the rule of rebellious England to his second son, William Rufus. He then died a day after having been thrown from his horse, who had stepped on hot coals following his capture of the French town of Nantes. His body was looted by those who had been taking care of him, and he was left nearly naked. His body broke in half as it was being forced into a too-small coffin. He was buried in Caen. In time, his body was dug up and parts of it taken, but a thigh-bone remained to be reburied in dignity. Even this bone was disinterred and stolen during the French Revolution. The long-missed thigh-bone was found, however, and confirmed to be authentic in the 1980s, and it was finally laid to rest under a new tombstone.

A future post will discuss the remaining Norman dynasty.

An Editor's Choice from the EHFA Archives, originally published January 26, 2012.

~~~~~~~

Debra Brown is the founder of the English Historical Fiction Authors blog. She is the author of The Companion of Lady Holmeshire, a Jane Austen and Charles Dickens inspired sweet romance and mystery; and co-editor of Castles, Customs and Kings, vols. 1 & 2.

The Crowning of a King 1066... Two Views

By Helen Hollick

On January 5th 1066, King Edward, (later known as the Confessor) lay dying at Westminster, London. He passed peacefully away either late on the 5th or in the early hours of the 6th, and Earl Harold Godwinson of Wessex was crowned King in the newly built Westminster Abbey, on the 6th January. The first English King to be crowned there - and the last.

Why Harold?

Edward had no sons - possibly because he had taken a vow of celibacy (unlikely), or he was impotent, or even homosexual. He never blamed his wife Edyth, Harold's sister, for childlessness (even when he temporarily set her aside in the early 1050's after a massive falling-out with the Godwin family.) 

This crowning was the catalyst that started the events of 1066, and there are two views as to the right or wrong of it.

View One
THE NORMANS

Duke William of Normandy believed that Edward had promised him the Crown.
Born some time between 1003 and 1005, from 1017 until 1041 Edward had been exiled in Normandy. His mother, was Queen Emma - daughter of Richard I of Normandy, his father Aethelred (the Unready). When Emma took the Danish Conqueror of England, Cnut, (more familiarly spelt Canute - and yes, he of 'hold back the tide' fame) as her second husband, her sons, Edward and Alfred had to flee. Obviously Normandy under the protection of Emma's kindred was the safest place.

Edward would have known the young Duke William very well. William was the son of Richard II of Normandy, the result of a liaison with the daughter of a tanner. Richard died when William was eight years old, with no other heir, he became Duke. For more than thirty years Edward languished in Normandy (Alfred dying a most horrible death while trying to reclaim England), only recalled to be crowned King when Cnut and Emma's son died. (There were other possible contenders but Emma saw to it that her son got the Top Prize).

Here was a man indoctrinated with the Norman way of life, his friends were Norman, he knew Norman ways, not English customs.The powerful Godwin family - Harold's father had been given the Earldom of Wessex by Cnut, and various Godwin sons held various Earldoms -  had a major falling out with the King in 1051-2

It is possible, though not recorded, that William came to England during this time when the Godwin's were in exile - a legitimate visit to see his Great Aunt, Emma, who was by then elderly. Did Edward promise the throne to his young friend and kinsmen during this visit? Did Emma, perhaps suggest it to her Great Nephew - after all William was kin, the Godwinsons were not.

But the Godwins fought their way back to even greater power, and virtually ruled England in the King's stead. after 1052.

A few years before 1066 (1063/4?) we know that Harold was at William's Court. What we do not know is why. The Normans claimed it was to offer Edward's assurance that the English Throne would still become William's. To ensure Harold's loyalty to this end, he had to swear an oath on Holy relics to support William when Edward died.

He didn't support him. Quite the opposite in fact.

According to the Normans, the crowning of Harold II took place in unnecessary haste and the holy anointing undertaken by Stigand, the illegally placed Archbishop of Canterbury. (Rome had never approved his appointment) thus making the whole ceremony void.

When William heard of the outrage he immediately set about an invasion to secure his rightful place as King.

We know the rest .

View Two
THE ENGLISH

It was unlikely that Edward would have promised the throne. There were other candidates, and the English Earls - even if not supporting Godwin -would never have accepted a Norman as King (fact proven by the way they welcomed Godwin back from exile in preference to Edward's foreign friends.)

For one thing Edward could still, in 1051/2, possibly have his own sons. For another it was English law for the Witan - the council to elect a king - the most 'Kingworthy' man. Yes, normally this was the eldest son for he would have been 'trained' for the job - but Edward had no sons.

There was one other possible heir: another son of Aethelred (not by Emma) was Edmund Ironside. He died fighting Cnut (hence Cnut became King), and his son, another Edward, and family fled - as it turned out, to Hungary, where  he was later found and invited back to England.  Edward the Exile returned to England in 1057, but died almost immediately. (The stories that he was murdered by Harold, who was escorting him, are nonsense. If Harold was going to do away with him why not a) conveniently 'not find him' or b) kill him en route - why wait until they got back to England?)

The Exile's son, Edgar, then about five years old, grew up at the English court and given the designation 'Ætheling' or throneworthy, (i.e. 'heir'). But he would still have been a youth in 1066, so probably regarded as not capable of ruling or leading an army against William. (One can see a parrallel in later years when Richard III was crowned instead of the two young princes - probably for exactly the same reason).

Edgar was briefly declared king after Harold's death in October 1066, but that hope failed against the might of William's army and determination. Edgar's name was absent from any witness lists of Edward's diplomas, and there is no evidence in the Domesday Book that he was a substantial landowner, both possibly indicating his young age.

The next most Kingworthy was Harold - proven as a leader, commander, warlord and administrator. It was also known that William would strongly object - they had to chose a man who was capable (at least in theory) of defeating him.

The coronation was not performed in undue haste - that familiar saying? 'The King is dead; Long live the King!' is there for a reason. Uninterrupted continuity. The Earls, Bishops, important people were gathered at Westminster for the Christmas Court. They had remained longer because the King was dying. They wanted to return to their homes and lands - the next  opportunity for a crowning would have been Easter - so of course the service took place at the earliest possible time. The 6th January.

And Stigand did not crown or anoint Harold - Ealdred, Archbishop of York did. There was no question of his legality.

But what of the claim that Harold had pledged an oath to aid William? It is more likely that Harold went to William hoping to achieve the release of his brother, Wulfnoth, and nephew, Hakon, held hostage by William since that temporary disgrace of Earl Godwin back in 1052. (I'll not go into detail, suffice to say the exile was caused by some Normans stirring trouble in Dover. Godwin refused to take their side, hence his falling out with the King. When Godwin was re-instated the Normans fled and took the two boys with them.)

Harold did return to England with Hakon, but Wulfnoth never saw his freedom again. Harold was probably forced to make that oath of loyalty. If he had not, he and his men would either have been imprisoned or killed - and Saxon honour at this time beheld a Lord to protect his men at whatever personal cost. What was more honourable for Harold? To deny Duke William and see his men slaughtered, or perjure himself to save their lives?

He chose the latter. Good for him.

Harold II Rex

So who do you think was right? Norman or English? 
Feel free to add your view in the comments below. 

Brief bibliography:

The Battle of Hastings Jim Bradbury

The Godwins Frank Barlow

The Life of King Edward the Confessor Frank Barlow

Edward the Confessor Frank Barlow

Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King Ian W. Walker  

Anglo-Saxon England F.M Stenton

Kingship and Government in Pre-conquest England Ann Williams

Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest H.R. Loyn

There is a fuller list available on my website

[This is an Editor's Choice post which was published in its original form on 6 January 2016]

~~~~~~~~~~

Helen Hollick lives on a thirteen-acre farm in Devon, England. Born in London, she wrote pony stories as a teenager, moved to science-fiction and fantasy, and then discovered historical fiction. Published for over twenty years with her Arthurian Trilogy, and the 1066 era, she became a USA Today bestseller with her novel about Queen Emma The Forever Queen (UK title A Hollow Crown.) She also writes the Sea Witch Voyages, pirate-based nautical adventures with a touch of fantasy. She has written a non-fiction about pirates and one about smugglers in fact and fiction which is due to be published in 2019.

Same book - different titles
HAROLD THE KING -UK
I AM THE CHOSEN KING - US

Website: www.helenhollick.net

Newsletter Subscription: http://tinyletter.com/HelenHollick

Main Blog: www.ofhistoryandkings.blogspot.com

Twitter: @HelenHollick

Click here for Helen Hollick on Amazon 

Ælfgyva: The Mystery Woman of the Bayeux Tapestry – Part IV

By Paula Lofting

The woman in the Bayeux Tapestry called Ælfgyva has given commentators and historians alike, food for thought for as long as the Bayeux Tapestry has been studied. As we have seen in the earlier chapters, there have been plenty of Ælfgyvas to choose from, but none quite fits the bill as much as Ælfgifu  of Northampton. We have discounted the Queen Emma/Aelfgifu version, and also that Earl Harold had any daughter or sister of that name. I have also set aside the idea that the lady may have been a child of William’s, offered to Harold as a wife in return for an alliance.

Ælfgifu was a purely English name and Ælfgyva, being the Latinised version, was used instead of its English counterpart, as the text on the BT is written in Latin. Although a possibility, it was not likely that such a name would have been given to a Norman woman, especially the daughter of William, whose daughters were called, Adela, Adeliza, Constance, Agatha and Cecilia, and none were given an English name, as far as we know.

Edward Freeman, writing in 1869, suggests that the woman they are discussing was a lady at the duke’s palace, and the idea that a bride for Harold was discussed, shouldn’t necessarily be discounted. However, it seems unlikely that if such a lady was chosen from one of the duke’s daughters, she would have been portrayed with lewd men underneath her image pointing up her dress. One thing to remember, the name Ælfgyva means noble-gift in Anglo-Saxon, and might have been used to refer to a lady of noble birth, in which case her name might not necessarily be Ælfgyva, but a sort of title.

So, the wording on the Tapestry, could actually be meant to be taken as A Priest and a Noble Lady, in which case she could have easily have been anyone at the court of William’s, but, unfortunately, we will never know.

So, why then does Ælfgifu of Northampton seem the likeliest candidate to match the mysterious lady on the Tapestry? What is it about this Ælfgifu that draws me to believe that she is the one?
There are several versions of the scandal which Ælfgifu of Northampton was involved in, but Florence of Worcester tells us an interesting tale of the first wife of Cnut, the said Ælfgifu of Northampton. According to his writings, she was said to have passed off the bastard child of a priest as Cnut’s son, after failing to provide an heir of her own. This child was called Swein.

Later, Worcester states that she passed off another ‘son’, Harold Harefoot, who was a child of a workman, or a cobbler. Interestingly, if we look once again at the image of Ælfgyva and the priest, we see that in the lower border a naked figure of a man with a rather large member, is mimicking the stance and gesture of the priest. There is also another image of a naked workman.  The priest, who touches her face, is either stroking her cheek, or slapping her. The scene is also iconographic, which means it is supposed to be a representation of what perhaps, William and Harold may have been discussing in the previous scene, as I have already said in Part III. 

Unlike the other scenes in the tapestry, this one is not to be viewed as part of the story but more as alluding to some sexual scandal. Interpreting the face fondling/slapping aspect is a bone of contention, however. At first, I favoured the idea that the priest was slapping her but upon further research I came across an intriguing suggestion submitted by J Bard McNulty in the Lady Ælfgyva in The Bayeux Tapestry (1980).

So, if we accept that the woman referred to in the tapestry must be Aelfgifu of Northampton, we have to ponder upon why on earth Harold and William would be discussing her at this stage of the story. Aelfgifu would have been long dead at the time of this meeting (around the autumn of 1064). But let us not discount her, for she was, like her counterpart and rival, Emma of Normandy, a formidable woman. Unfortunately for her, she was not as tactful or astute as Emma. 

Cnut had most likely married Ælfgifu in the more-danico fashion, commonly known as a handfasting, rather than a marriage that is recognised by the church. We believe this, as he was later able to marry Emma, despite already being tied to Ælfgifu. A handfasted wife was, by law, legitimate, as were any children she had. However, it was customary in those times to wed traditionally for love, or for an alliance that would expediate a man’s cause, then later, marry for political reasons as Harold Godwinson did with Aldith of Mercia, to gain the support of her brothers. Cnut needed support in his early days as ruler, and had married Ælfgifu to claim the loyalty of her father’s supporters whom were opposed to Æthelred; the king had killed her father and blinded her brother. 

Cnut must have initially valued Ælfgifu and her children by him, for he sent her and her eldest son, Swein, to rule Norway as his representatives, and as Swein was a mere child at the time, Ælfgigu was to act as regent. But she was unpopular with the Norwegians, her rule being ruthless and harsh, so, after some years, she and Swein were driven out of Norway, and Magnus the Good, replaced Swein as King of Norway. It would be interesting to know if Cnut’s feelings toward Ælfgifu would have changed after she lost Norway for him. 

             

Cnut

Eventually, Magnus the Good would make a treaty with Cnut’s son by Emma, Harthacnut, and it was this treaty that Tostig may have used to persuade Harald Hardrada to lay claim to the English throne in 1066. Harthacnut and Magnus of Norway were said to have made an oath to each other that should one of them die, the other would inherit all the other’s kingdoms, should the deceased die without issue. Although Magnus claimed his right to England, he never pursued it beyond a threat after Harthacnut died.  

McNulty’s theory concerning this scene, centres around what the two men (Harold and William) might be discussing. William broaches the subject of the English succession with Harold, and they are conferring about the claimants to the throne, one of which was Harald Hardrada. Harold reassures William that he has nothing to worry about, because of the scandal of the sons of Cnut that weren’t really the sons of Cnut.

Sounds plausible? Nope, no, and nada. Confusing? Definitely. 

What had Ælfgifu’s indiscretion got to do with Hardrada’s claim to the throne? After all, she was not mother to Harthacnut who had made the oath with Magnus, and Emma of Normandy, who was the mother of Harthacnut, was not the Ælfgifu depicted in the scandal with the priest and the workman. What a great intrigue this is turning out to be. Just when I think I am there, another ‘but’ pops up! 

And in the immortal words of Sr Walter Scott: 

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

Stay tuned for the next part of the intrigue, PART FIVE

~~~~~~~~~~

Paula Lofting is an author and a member of the re-enactment society Regia Anglorum, where she regularly takes part in the Battle of Hastings. Her first novel, Sons of the Wolf, is set in eleventh-century England and tells the story of Wulfhere, a man torn between family and duty. The sequel, The Wolf Banner is available now. Paula is currently working on the third book in the series, Wolf's Bane

Find Paula on her Blog

on her Amazon Author Page

Ælfgyva: The Mystery Woman of the Bayeux Tapestry – Part III

by Paula Lofting

So, to reflect on what we have this far, there were several Ælfgifus or Ælfgyvas which was a popular noble name for women in the 11thc. The name itself means noble gift, and therefore likely to be a high-status name. We have the story of Ælfgifu of Northampton who was involved in some mystery around the paternity and even the maternity of her sons by Cnut, Harold Harefoot and Swein. Then we have the tale of Emma/Ælfgifu, Edward the Confessor’s mother who supposedly committed adultery with the Bishop of Winchester. Were there any other contenders for this woman’s identity?

Yes, it seems to be so. Æthelred the Unready also had a wife called Ælfgifu of York, who was the mother of possibly all of the king's sons apart from the two youngest, Edward and Alfred, who were born to his second wife, Emma of Normandy. Do you feel that headache coming on? (Please let me know if you need to lie down.)  But to complicate things even more, it is possible that there were two wives called, Ælfgifu, as some historians have believed, for there are two named contenders for her father, however, seeing as there is as little evidence for there being two wives as for the one, we may as well discount this fact. And so, seeing as we do not know of any scandal attributed to her, and her existence is as far away from the events of the mid 11thc as the moon, it is not beneficial to think that this lady is being represented on the Tapestry.

So, is there any more Ælfgifus not mentioned as yet? There may be one other. Some historians have, in an effort to solve the riddle, gone for the simpler, but unlikely option, that Harold had a sister called Ælfgyva whom he’d promised to one of Duke William’s barons in return for his own alliance with one of the duke’s daughters. The lurid depiction of this woman called Ælfgyva and the cleric is said to explain a scandal of some sort that would have been common knowledge at the time. There are other stories that run along similar lines, but these also prove very dissatisfying, for they do not answer the riddle of the purpose of their appearance on the tapestry.

Segment of the Bayeux Tapestry, showing William and Harold
arriving at the duke's palace, in a conference with each other,
and the Alfgyva and the monk scene

Here now I think, would be a good time to objectively examine the scene and the ones preceding it. If we go back two scenes, we are looking at four horsemen riding toward a tower-like building with a man in the lookout pointing at the men as they approach. The words in Latin along the top of the tapestry read, Here comes Duke William with Earl Harold to his palace. The next scene has no written explanation but simply shows an image of Duke William sitting on his throne in his great hall, and a man standing behind him whose fore-finger is pointing toward the figure of Harold stood before the duke. Harold’s right hand gesticulates, open palmed the way someone might when he is explaining something. His left-hand points behind him and appears to be almost touching the hand of a bearded guard that is standing a little way from the rest of his companions. Obviously, the bearded man represents someone important to the story of the tapestry. Curiously, this guard has not dressed his hair in the Norman fashion of shaving the back of his head to the crown, as do the other men in the image, Harold being the other exception. The guard also has a beard, which the others do not, having shaven faces. The artist seems to have gone to great lengths to distinguish this man from the others.

Finally, the next segment shows the mysterious Ælfgyva standing in a doorway, presumably to convey a scene in a house, with a priest or monk reaching out to her, his hand touching her face and his other hand firmly on his waist. He looks as if he has taken a step toward her. He could be touching her face endearingly, or he could be slapping her face. It is open to conjecture. We will never know. Additionally, the scene in the border below show some very lewd figures. Underneath Ælfgyva, a naked man with a large appendage appears to be squatting, as though pointing under her skirt. In the scene with Harold and William, another naked, faceless man is bending over a work bench with a hatchet. The meaning of these images are obviously of a sexual nature, but what connection it has to the mystery scene is really not clear, but possibly would have been to those who had lived around the time the Tapestry was crafted, and most likely refers to a known scandal of the time.

Going back to the first segment, the story of the tapestry so far, is that Harold, having sailed to across the sea from Bosham, has been brought to meet William by Guy of Ponthieu. The Count of Ponthieu had captured Harold and his crew after their ship had washed up far off his destination of Normandy. William essentially rescues the English earl from the clutches of his rebellious vassal, who was hoping, perhaps, to ransom the great English earl for a large sum of silver. These two great men, Harold and William are destined to become the fiercest of enemies. At this time, however, they are friends - of a sort - and they ride toward the duke’s palace, probably Rouen, with a following escort. William is carrying the hunting bird that Harold may have bought as a gift for the duke; a sweetener for what he might wish to request of him. William may have thought of doing a spot of hunting on the way to meet his guest. Kings and nobles were often wont to take their hunting animals with them wherever they went and further back in the tapestry, we see Harold embarking the vessel that takes him to Normandy, with his own hunting hounds and birds. One of the most remarkable things about the embroidery is that if you look closely there are plenty of hidden meanings portrayed in the story as it unfolds. One of these, if you look carefully, appears in this scene. Assuming that where the names appear, they are consistently sewn above of the image of the person portrayed, Harold is in the forefront of the riders, and appears to be signalling to the man leaning out of the tower to keep quiet by touching his lips with his fingers. Andrew Bridgeford states in his book, 1066 The Hidden History of the Bayeux Tapestry, that this is one of Harold’s kinsmen that William had kept as hostage since 1052, excitedly waving to him, almost as if he is saying, “Brother, it is me, Wulfnoth! At last you have come for me!”

According to the Canterbury monk Eadmer, in his account (Historia Novorium in Anglia c 1095) of Harold’s mysterious visit to Normandy has the earl embarking on a mission to free his brother Wulfnoth and his nephew Hakon from the duke of Normandy’s clutches. A very different account to that given by the Norman propaganda machine, which has Harold travelling gaily overseas to meet with the duke, after being commissioned by King Edward, offering him his loyalty and promising to use his powers of persuasion with the Witan to have him as their king upon Edward’s death. The younger Godwin boys, were allegedly whisked away as hostages in some scheme possibly cooked up by Robert Champart, Archbishop of Canterbury, an arch enemy of Earl Godwin, sometime in 1052 when the family returned from exile. Champart may have used the hostages as a shield to help him escape without molestation, from Godwin’s revenge. Champart, being Norman, was sympathetic to the Norman cause. He may have schemed to persuade Edward to name Duke William as his heir. When the archbishop's plot went awry, and Godwin returned to favour, the earl was gunning for those who had played a part in his exile, especially the major player, Champart. 

The hostages were taken to the duke on Champart's escape to Normandy, supposedly, as according to Norman Sources, as surety of Edward’s and possibly Godwin’s word (though the latter would have been doubtful) that he would succeed to the throne of England. Even having to flee from England with a charge of treason over his head, did not deter Champart to stir up trouble and continue with his plan to see William as Edward's heir. It's also possible that Edward had secretly given his blessing to Champart to take the boys, hoping that one day the tide would again turn against Godwin, that veritable boil on his bottom.

In the autumn of 1064, at the time when Harold's visit to Normandy was most likely to have taken place, Wulfnoth would have been a man in his late twenties and Hakon, a teenager. The former was Godwin’s youngest son, and Hakon, the son of Godwin’s eldest,  son, Swegn. How they would have fared all those years in Normandy away from their country of birth and family, one might wonder. There are no records of their progress during their stay, however one can perhaps surmise that by the time Harold appears on the scene, they have got used to being hostages, well treated in respect of their nobility and having found positions among the duke’s household. Eadmer’s version of Harold’s trip to Normandy takes a very different slant to that of the Normans, with the main purpose being to negotiate the release of Harold’s kin from the duke’s custody. In the Norman version, we are told that Harold arrived with gifts for William, gifts that it was said were for the duke from Edward, to confirm his promise of the ascendancy. Or were they boons of a different nature? Bribes perhaps for the release of Hakon and Wulfnoth, and not from Edward, but from Harold?

So, the segments of the Bayeux Tapestry that we have seen above can be interpreted in as Harold and William discussing the purpose of his visit, which could be to discuss Edward's wish that William become his heir - or - it can be interpreted as Harold explaining that his visit is to talk about his kinsmen: brother, Wulfnoth, the bearded chap amongst William's household guard, and Hakon, his nephew. Whatever the case, both men, it would seem, had different agendas.... and how does the curious picture of the noble lady and the monk fit into all this? 

We have more to discover in the next Part.

Part I

Part II

References

Bridgeford A, 2004 1066: The Hidden History of the Bayeux Tapestry Fourth Estate; First Edition edition 

Eadmer c1095 Historia Novorium in Anglia 

Walker I, Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King The History Press; new edition, 2010.

~~~~~~~~~~

Paula Lofting is an author and a member of the re-enactment society Regia Anglorum, where she regularly takes part in the Battle of Hastings. Her first novel, Sons of the Wolf, is set in eleventh-century England and tells the story of Wulfhere, a man torn between family and duty. The sequel, The Wolf Banner is available now. Paula is currently working on the third book in the series, Wolf's Bane

Find Paula on her Blog

on her Amazon Author Page

Conisbrough - The Ups and Downs of a Medieval Castle

By F.G. Dannatt

Conisbrough Castle, the Grade 1 listed building, is an unbelievably beautiful place to visit, sitting on a prominent, steep hilltop that overlooks the picturesque village of Conisbrough in South Yorkshire; a village that itself has a long history and like a lot of the villages in South Yorkshire can be dated back to Doomsday Book. But, it’s the castle itself that really catches the eye and the imagination from people around the world - from being the inspiration to one of the greatest novels, Ivanhoe, to the legend of a ghostly lady wondering the keep, this Medieval Castle has it all and is one of Britain’s treasures.

photo by Rob Bendall via CC Licence

Dating back to the 11th century, the land and surrounding area was originally called ‘Cyningsburh’ which was the Anglo-Saxon word for ‘The King’s Borough’ and was first owned by a Saxon nobleman named Elheim. It was granted to him by Wulfric Spott who was a minister to Edward the Confessor. It then went on to be owned by King Harold II and Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, after King Harold fell at the Battle of Hastings. The area was granted to William the Conqueror’s greatest supporter, William de Warenne – who was to become the 1st Earl of Surrey - along with estates in Sussex and Norfolk

By all accounts William didn’t really do that much with Conisbrough, seeming to prefer his property at Castle Acre in Norfolk and so all that was achieved with Conisbrough was little more than a very basic castle, a wooden motte and bailey which would have been surrounded by palisades made of wood and earthen-works. The castle did stay pretty much untouched for the next three generations, as it passed from father to son and so on, and it wasn’t really until Isabelle de Warenne inherited the castle that changes really started to happen, and after that it stayed within the de Warenne family right up until the 14th century where the last Earl of Surrey, John de Warenne, died without heirs and all de Warenne land, including Conisbrough Castle reverted back to the crown.

During the civil war between King Stephen and his cousin Empress Matilda over who controlled England, the Countess of Conisborough Castle was Lady Isabelle de Warenne, the daughter of the 3rd Earl of Surrey - who had died during his foray into the Crusades.

De Warenne Coat of Arms - image supplied by author
via English Heritage

Isabelle was by far one of the most sought-after women in England at the time; she was ridiculously wealthy with a title that dated back to William the Conqueror with some of the most sought-after properties in the country. Every man in England would have wanted her, but it was King Stephen that managed to align his house with the de Warenne estates. Stephen married Isabelle off to his son William, who most likely thought he had an advantageous arrangement – that is until his father made a deal with Empress Matilda that on Stephen’s death the crown would go to Matilda’s son, Henry of Anjou. William and Isabel seemed to accept what would happen and when Henry succeeded Stephen, William served King Henry II loyally until his own death.

On the death of her husband, and without a child to pass on the title to, Isabelle was once again the powerful and much sought-after heiress and yet again regarded by England and the nobility as a great prize. King Henry II, by all accounts, was desperate to unite his house with the Countess and in 1162 Henry’s youngest brother William was seeking a marriage with her, but his request was refused by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, and William died shortly after – legend has it that he died of a broken heart after losing Isabelle.

King Henry though was not put off by this and he was determined to get the de Warenne estates into royal hands, so he pushed for a marriage between Isabelle and his illegitimate half-brother Hamelin Plantagenet, and in 1164 they were married. It was through Hamelin that Conisbrough Castle became the magnificent castle that it is today.

Hamelin, I think, was a man who was decades ahead of his time - on his marriage to Isabelle he took the very unusual decision to take her name of de Warenne. Even though he would have been the Earl of Surrey on their marriage, he took on her family name as well. For me that speaks a lot about his character, it appears that he could have had a genuine fondness for his wife and in taking her name he was showing her the ultimate respect by honoring her family.

Not just him honoring her family but the marriage by all accounts seems to have been a success, as they went on to have four surviving children: only son and heir William and three daughters Ela, Isabel and Matilda – even though it was rumored that Matilda was Hamelin’s daughter from a previous relationship and one of their daughters – it is believed to be Isabel - was reported to have birthed the illegitimate son, Richard Fitzroy, of her cousin and future King, John. Both Hamelin and Isabelle were very loyal to his brother Henry II.

photo by Rob Bendall via CC Licence

As well as his political work at court, Hamelin was busy having the castle renovated and brought right up to date. During the 1170s/1180s Hamelin had the mighty hexagonal stone keep built which is 28 metres (92 feet) high, the stairs to the keep used to be accessed across a drawbridge. The curtain wall (as it has been called) and the out buildings that lined the wall, which included the great hall and a chamber block which could have been reserved for servants – these were either built along the same time as the keep or added by William after his father’s death - and in 1189 Hamelin and Isabelle founded a chapel lain to be established at the castle. Once Hamelin’s nephew John became king, it is widely known that King John liked to stay at Conisbrough Castle for long periods of time, and cementing it as the de Warennes’ most principal seat.

Over the next few generations life at Conisbrough Castle went along peacefully enough, passing from father to son, that is until the 8th and last Earl of Surrey, John de Warenne - who by all accounts was a bit of a character and John’s exploits changed Conisbrough’s future forever. John married Joan of Bar who was Edward I’s granddaughter, their marriage wasn’t happy – or even amicable. John tried and failed to be granted a divorce, and after this failure Joan decided to leave Conisbrough to live in London under the protection of Edward II, leaving John at Conisbrough to carry on living with his mistress. It was after Joan had left, that Conisbrough was center stage of political rivalry, sieges and a legendary kidnapping. At one point the castle was besieged by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster and taken from John, only for Thomas to rebel against the King and who was defeated and executed.

Conisbrough Castle was then again returned to John in 1326. Unfortunately, John died 20 years later without any heirs and all of the de Warenne lands and estates were reverted to the crown. But in a way the castle was still connected to the de Warenne family, as Edward II handed his fourth son Edmund Langley - who was the godson of John de Warenne - the castle.

When Edmund Langley died in 1402, the castle and the Dukedom were inherited by his elder son, Edward. His second son, Richard of Conisbrough, Earl of Cambridge, was left with nothing as his paternity was constantly in doubt, so with nothing to his name Richard had no choice but to lease a portion of the land from his brother. It was said that he was by far the poorest Earl in the country at the time. It was while living there that Richard was caught in a conspiracy plot to assassinate Henry V, for which he was tried and executed. Only three months later, Edward died at the Battle of Agincourt, and as Edward died without an heir, the castle and all estates were inherited by Richard’s son from his first marriage - Richard, the third Duke of York. After Cambridge’s death his widow and 2nd wife, Maud Clifford, decided to take up permanent residence at Conisbrough up until her death.

Sometime in the 15th century Conisbrough Castle seems to have been abandoned; even with its lofty aristocratic and royal connections it was left to ruin. In 1538 when Henry VIII had his various surveys of castles done around the country, it was noted that Conisbrough had lost its roof, floors and gatehouse and a good potion of the south curtain had collapsed into a ditch (that part of the castle can still be seen today.)

In 1559 the castle was gifted to Elizabeth I, who didn’t seem to want to be burdened with it and passed it to her cousin Henry Carey, Lord Hunsdon.

During the next couple of hundred years the castle passed from one family to another, no one seeming to want to bring it back to its former glory and all the while the castle was getting more and more ruined and dilapidated.

Aerial View - see here for attribution

It wasn’t really until the early 19th century that Conisbrough Castle got the attention that is so deserved. After a trip to Doncaster Sir Walter Scott visited the ruins and he used the location in his best-selling novel Ivanhoe. In the book it called ‘Coningsburgh Castle’. Obviously, this got a lot of people’s attention and people were visiting the castle as a tourist attraction.

In 1950 the castle was taken into state guardianship and in the 1960s The Ministry of Works began extensive repairs on the castle and during 1967-69 the castle underwent important excavations and later in the 1970s brand new stairs were built into the keep.

It wasn’t until the 1990’s that The Ivanhoe Trust took over management of the castle and they re-roofed and re-floored the keep and finally in 2007 this historic building was under direct management by English Heritage.

~~~~~~~~~~

F.G. Dannatt owns a blog site called Walking in History, which can be found at https://walkinginhistoryblog.wordpress.com/