In this final examination of this mystery, I do not aim
to prove, necessarily, what the image of Alfgyva and the priest represents, but
to explain my theory, why I believe it is possible and how I came to that conclusion.
We will never know the full truth behind the image and what the artist was
trying to convey, the real message has been lost down the tunnel of time and
has died with those who have long since lived. I imagine that in the same way
one might glance at the front page of a modern newspaper, read the first line
of a headline story and know exactly what the author was referring to, so the
reviewers of the Tapestry would also know about the well-known scandal of the
time. For the people of the 11thc, it
may not have needed any more explanation than the image of Alfgyva and the
priest or - it might be that there was some secret underlying message contained
within the borders of the tapestry that reports something else only known to
certain people. No one can be sure.
So we have
discovered who the lady in question is and to my mind this is indisputable. She
was Aelfgifu of Northampton, handfastened wife of King Cnut of England and it was
J Bard McNulty (1980) who first identified her. She was sent by Cnut to Norway
to govern there with their oldest son Swein, however her heavy handed taxation
and policing did not endear her to the Norwegians and they were ousted after
some years. Poor Swein died in Denmark where they had both escaped to after the
debacle in Norway. Nothing was heard about her after 1040. She became the
subject of a scandal when she was accused of presenting Cnut with two sons that
were actually neither hers nor his. One was rumoured to be the son of a priest and a serving maid and the other was the son of a
workman and perhaps herself or the same servant maid.
Now, regards her connection to the
Bayeux Tapestry, we have established her identity, but what could she possibly
have had to do with the story of Harold’s sojourn in Normandy. As I explained
previously in part 5, J.McNulty Bard (1980)
states in The Lady Aelfgyva in the Bayeux
Tapestry that the scene depicting Aelfgyva and the priest is not what
happens next at William’s court, but what Harold and William are discussing in the previous scene.
In order to reach the point where we can
consider their conversation about the lady in question, we need to discuss the
scene with William and Harold in detail. This is the one before the Aelfgyva
one. William and Harold have just arrived at William’s court from having ridden
from Ponthieu where Harold had been kept, probably for ransom, by the young
Count after washing up on his shore. Somehow, an Englishman, a huscarle of
Harold’s, had escaped and called upon William for his help in releasing his lord
from the clutches of Count Guy. William was the Count’s overlord and demanded
that Guy hand Harold over immediately. Now, William sits on his throne in his
hall with a Norman guard standing behind him with a spear. This man appears to
be pointing at Harold. The viewer can differentiate between the Normans and the
English by their hairstyles. There is no or little disparity with the English
and Norman clothing of the day, but their hair styles are very different with
most Normans wearing their hair short and shaved at the back to just above the
ears. The artist has obviously marked these out to give the viewer a clear idea
between the two races. The Image of Harold is shown with his hair covering his
ears and just above collar length. Curiously, the guard standing directly
behind him as he converses with William, is not shown as a Norman. This man is
also sporting an English style hair cut and a beard. The Normans are generally
shown as being clean shaven. The English either have beards or moustaches. As
we can see, the rest of William’s household guards are looking very Norman-like
in contrast to the one that Harold appears to be indicating to.
Harold had travelled to Normandy with the intention of negotiating the
release of his brother Wulfnoth and his nephew Hakon as stated by Eadmer in his History of Recent Events in England. These two particular
Godwinsons had been taken into Edward’s care as hostages to ensure the good behaviour
of their father Godwin. In 1051, Godwin
found himself in trouble with Edward for his refusal to punish the people of
Dover for their ‘maltreatment’ of the King’s brother-in-law Count Eustace of
Bologne and his men (Barlow 2002) Godwin had rallied his supporters to him to
side with him against the King. At that time, the great nobles of the day were
reluctant to support a civil war and so Godwin had no choice but flee, leaving
his son Wulfnoth and grandson Hakon behind, most likely in the household of his
daughter Queen Edith. It is not exactly clear how Wulfnoth and Hakon, both
young boys at the time, came to find themsleves in Normandy, but it was quite
possible that the Archbishop, Robert Champart took them with him when Godwin
forced his way back to England from exile a year later. Champart had helped to engineer Godwin’s fall
from grace and so he feared for his life and fled back to Normandy where he had
come from. It is believed that he may have brought the boys with him to present
to William as surety for the promise of the crown and perhaps to ensure him a
safe departure from England.
So we have two versions of the
tale of Harold’s journey to Normandy, the English, as told by Eadmer and the
Normans. Eadmer’s version somewhat
different to that of the Norman sources. According to Bridgeford (2004), Eadmer
has Harold travelling to Normandy on a mission to secure the release of his kin
with a stark warning form Edward that this may not be a good idea and that he
will be inviting trouble for himself and ‘the whole kingdom’ if he does indeed
embark on this journey. Eadmer states that
he warns Harold that the Duke is ‘not so simple’ as to give the hostages up. Edward
apparently also states that he wanted no part in this. And yet Harold still went,
frivolously, one might think, considering Edward’s warning about the nature of his
second cousin. This also shows the strength of Harold that the King was unable
to persuade or force him not to go. But frivolous an act it might have been, Harold
must have been disturbed by the plight of his brother and nephew, languishing in
Normandy long after the need for them to be hostages had gone. The original purpose
for their detention had been to ensure Godwin’s good behaviour and he had long been
dead. Harold I am sure wanted only to bring them home.
The Norman sources insist that Harold had been
sent by Edward to confirm the succession upon him (Harriet Harvey Wood 2008). I
prefer Eadmer’s version. He was said to have had access to people who might
have had first hand information about Harold’s intentions when he went to
Normandy. It is a plausible suggestion and upon studying the images of the
tapestry, I have not seen anything that might not support this idea.
So now, what are my
conclusions? I shall keep you no longer in suspense! :
Imagine someone wants to tell you some gossip about your neighbour Joe
Bloggs, something quite scandalous and outrageous. Imagine that person has
already heard it from someone else and perhaps that person has heard it from
some other person. Imagine that somewhere along the line, facts have become
distorted or left out. Perhaps someone has mistaken Joe for a different Joe or
for a John, who looked a lot like Joe? Imagine that by the time the rumour
reaches you,
the whole episode has been mixed
up? Well, this is what I believe has happened in the Bayeux Tapestry with the
Aelfgyva tale. After studying the tapestry, the possible candidates and the possible
links to the story quite thoroughly, I can come up with no other explanation
other than it is a case of mistaken identity where a certain lady’s story has
been wrongly attributed to another. One can imagine it would not have been that
difficult to mistake one person for another when there were so many women with
the same name around at the same time. Especially if you were a Norman, hearing
scandalous tales passed from one person to another like a Chinese whisper. It
was said that the Normans found English names difficult and laughable which may
have compounded the confusion.
So what are the
implications of such a suggestion? This is what I believe could have been what the Bayeux Tapestry was trying to convey. It
is not a hypothesis that can be proven, but merely a suggestion and an
interpretation of what this scene might signify. I am not in any way stating
that I have cracked the mystery, or that I have finally found the answer. I am
however presenting you with a possibility, having been unable to discover any
other indisputable explanation for the woman’s role embroidered into the
legend.
So this is my theory. The woman is definitely
Aelfgyva of Northampton and I believe the priest touching her face is doing so
to signify some sort of collaboration with her.
For some reason, the two men, Harold and William are discussing in the
scene before, the Earl’s reasons for turning up on the Duke’s shores. The scene in which Aelfgyva and the priest are
portrayed is part of their conversation also. But why are they discussing this
woman? It all seems very strange because it has been difficult to tie her into
the story with what we know of her and what we know of the events in 1066.
Andrew
Bridgeford has alluded to the fact that Harold is explaining to William that he
has come to negotiate the release of his brother and nephew, hence the man that
Harold appears to be almost touching with his finger is presented with a beard
in the English style of dress and not the Norman clean shaven manner as all the
others in the scene are apart from Harold. It seems quite reasonable to me to
assert that this bearded fellow is Wulfnoth. But William only understands something
other reason for Harold’s visit. He is convinced that Harold has come to
declare his fealty to him and assure him that when Edward dies, he will support
him as his successor. Why else would he come with such wealth to offer him?
Could William’s mindset have been so focussed on the crown of England that he
cannot not hear the words Harold is trying to say to him? Harold mentions
carefully, very carefully because he knows how ruthless Duke William can be,
that Edward has declared his great nephew Edgar, grandson of Edmund Ironside as
the atheling, someone who is
throne-worthy, therefore he would be considered as a candidate to the throne (William
was never declared atheling as far as
the documentation goes). But William is not daunted by this news. He has already
dismissed Edgar, having heard the scandal of Edmund Ironsides’ mother Aelfgyva,
who it was said, had tricked her husband into believing her sons were his when
they were really the sons of a priest and a workman. He laughs at Harold’s
suggestion that the Witan should prefer a boy over a man such as him, a boy
descended from dubious lineage. Is he not (the Duke) a man who has cheated
death many times and earned the respect of his enemies. Harold tries to put him
straight about Aelfgyva, desperately trying to make him understand that he is mistaken
and that the woman in the scandal he was referring to was not Edmund Ironside’s
mother, but Harold Harefoot’s mother, wife of Cnut. Yes, Aethelred’s wife was
also called Aelfgyva, but there was no such scandal about her and Edgar’s
lineage was of the true line of Wessex.
But
William is still not listening. He interrupts, rebuffs and insists. Harold is
having problems pressing home his point because William has made his mind up.
It is a game that only William can win. Harold, William declares, will support
him in his quest for the English throne, and consider allying himself closely
to him by marrying a daughter of his. William
suggests this proposition in such a way that if Harold should refuse, he may
inflict great insult upon his most congenial host, who has saved him from the
humiliation and torment of being held as Ponthieu’s prisoner.... and in
Harold’s mind, he is thinking that if he wants to leave there alive, he will
have to play the game that William has already won. Perhaps it is then that
Harold realises what a terrible mistake he has made.
I
believe that this is the basis for the artist’s insertion of the scene with
Aelfgyva and the priest. Whether or not my theory is right, the creator wanted
to convey to the viewer that this particular scandal had some link to the
conversation, William and Harold are having. The small, crude images in the
border further enforces the story of Aelfgifu of Northampton’s scandal leaving
me with no doubt that they represent the labourer and priest who were supposed
to have fathered the children said to be Cnut’s sons. I cannot, although I have
tried to, locate any other evidence that would identify a believable rationale
for this scandal to have been placed in the tapestry. If I were a contemporary of it, I may have
been privy to the tittle-tattle and also that perhaps William had wrongly identified
the woman and would not have had to use my imagination to work out the innuendo
of the illustration. But this is my interpretation. Unfortunately I have no way
of knowing I am right, however I do not think this has been a pointless study,
for it has identified the woman and shed some light on some other mysteries of
the tapestry also. I hope that you all have not been disappointed.
I would love to know what
you think.
References
Bridgeford A. (2004) 1066 The Hidden History of The Bayeux Tapestry,
Harper Perennial, London.
Eadmer Eadmer’s History of Recent Events in England
Harvey Wood H, (2008) The Battle of Hastings: The Fall of Anglo Saxon
England, Atlantic Books, Chatham.
McNulty J.B. (1980) The Lady
Aelfgyva in the Bayeux Tapestry, Medieval
Academy of America, vol 55 (4) pp
659-688.
