Aelfgyva The Mystery Woman of the Bayeux Tapestry:
Part Four
The woman
in the Bayeux Tapestry called Aelfgyva has given commentators trouble for
centuries. As we have seen in my earlier parts, there have been plenty of
Aelfgyva’s mentioned in the 11thc but none that quite fit the bill as much as
Aelfgifu of Northampton. We have discounted
Emma/Aelfgifu and also that Earl Harold had any daughter or sister of that
name. I have also set aside the idea that she may have been a child of
William’, whom he offered to Harold as a wife in return for an alliance.
Aelfgyva was a purely English name and although it may have been a possibility,
it was not likely to have been given to a Norman woman; it was thought that
Norman’s had no liking for English names. So why then, am I going with Aelfgifu
of Northampton, King cnut’s first wife? What is it about this Aelfgifu that
draws me to believe the woman they are referring to is her?
Aelfgifu
was reported by Florence of Worcester as passing off the bastard child of a
priest as Cnut’s son after failing to provide an heir of her own. This child
was Swein. Later Worcester states that she passed off another ‘son’ Harold
Harefoot who was reputed to have been a child of a mere workman or a shoe
maker. Interestingly, if we look once again at the image of Aefgyva and the
priest, we see that in the lower border a naked figure of a man with a 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 fondling or as some might say slapping her face. The
scene is also iconographic, which means it is supposed to be a representation
of what perhaps, William and Harold may be discussing. Unlike the other scenes
in the tapestry, this one is not to be viewed as part of the story but more as
an illusion of 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 some intriguing
suggestions that were submitted by J Bard McNulty in the Lady Aelfgyva in The
Bayeux Tapestry (1980).
Edward
Freeman (1869) suggests that the woman they are discussing was a woman at the
duke’s palace. I would disagree. As we have explored before, there could not
have possibly been a woman with this name in Normandy at this time.
Then, 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 autumn of 1064). But let us not discount
her, for she was, like her counterpart and rival Emma of Normandy, a formidable
woman. Unfortunately, she was perhaps not as tactful or astute as Emma.
Aelfgifu
was Cnut’s first wife, most likely he married her in the more-danico fashion rather than officially as he was later able to marry
Emma. It was quite customary in those times for nobles to ‘handfast’ themselves
to a woman so they could at a later time marry for political reasons as Harold
Godwinson did with Aldith of Mercia. The Norman propaganda machine was to later
make much of Harold’s relationship with Edith Swanneck, referring to her as his
mistress rather than his wife, but under English law, she was just as entitled
to the same considerations as an official wife was and her children would not
have been viewed as ‘bastards’ or illegitimate and had the same entitlements as
legal offspring would have.
Cnut must
have valued Aelfgifu and her children by him, for he sent her and Swein to rule
Norway for him and as Swein was a mere child at the time, she was to act as
regent. But she was unpopular with the Norwegians, her rule being ruthless and
harsh and so she and Swein were driven out after some years and Olaf’s son Magnus
the Good replaced Swein as King of Norway. One would imagine that Cnut’s
feelings toward Aelfgifu if Northampton would have changed after she lost Norway
for him.
Noble women of the period
Eventually,
Magnus would make a treaty with Cnut’s son by Emma, Harthacnut that would become
the basis for Harald Hardrada’s claim to the English throne in 1066. Harthacnut
and Magnus of Norway made an oath to each other that should one of them die, the
other would inherit their kingdoms should they die without issue. Although Magnus
claimed his right to England, he never pursued it beyond a threat after Harthacnut
died. When Harald Hardrada succeeded to the kingdom after his nephew Magnus
died, he claimed that Magnus’ and Harthacnut’s oath should still stand and
egged on by Tostig, Harold Godwinson’s brother, he planned his fateful invasion
of England.
But if
the stories that had been circulating about Aelfgifu’s deception of Cnut were
to be believed as truthful by the general consensus, the two men, Harold and William,
should they be discussing all claims to the throne, would have both agreed that
Harald’s claim should be dismissed. McNulty’s suggestion is that Harold was
reassuring William that the English had discounted Hardrada’s claim, a decision
that they both agreed about and happily they both ride off to campaign in
Brittany.
Sounds
plausible? No it doesn’t. Because what had Aelfgifu’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 she is definitely not the Aelfgyva depicted in the tapestry.
Just when I think I am there, another ‘but’ pops up!
In the words of the great man Sir Walter Scott, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we
practise to deceive”. More in the next part of this amazing mystery.
