Published at last

Hello Everyone!

Sons of the Wolf is at last published and is now available to purchase through the publishers, SilverWoods books www.silverwoodbooks.co.uk,  Amazon or Waterstones and the Book Depository.

I am so happy that at last the story of how the Norman Conquest of England affected the ordinary people of the land.

Yours,

Paula

follow me at https://twitter.com/Paulalofting
                     https://www.facebook.com/#!/paula.lofting

The Battle of Hereford: Alfgar of Mercia

The Battle of Hereford: Alfgar of Mercia

Treasonable Earl, unruly son and vengeful protagonist? Or a wronged man fighting for his rights?

Earl Alfgar was the son of Leofric, Earl of Mercia. Leofric was the Earl who is mentioned in the mythical tale of Lady Godiva, the woman who rode naked on a horse to force her husband to lower taxes. As mythical as that tale may have been, there was nothing mythical about the couple and their son. In the past, Leofric has been thought to have been the father of Hereward the Wake, but research from Peter Rex has proved substantially in my view, to be wrong. http://paulalofting-sonsofthewolf.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/investigation-into-true-lineage-of.html
Hereward as documents show, had very similar characteristics to Alfgar and had also suffered exile for misconduct, so one can see where the confusion may have arisen. However, I am pleased to say quite clearly that there is no connection between Alfgar and Hereward.

We first see Alfgar in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle in the year 1051when he was invested with the earldom of East Anglia when its previous earl, Harold Godwinson, had fled into exile with his brother Leofwine after the Dover incident. Alfgar had been sidelined for sometime whilst the two eldest Godwinson brothers and their Danish cousin Beorn had been given earldoms in Hereford and East Anglia and other areas in England. If as his later actions imply, he was  hot-headed, easily roused man, this must have irritated him immensley and perhaps the other Northern earls who were somewhat concerned about the Godwins' 'take-over' from the South.
When the Godwinsons were reconciled with  King Edward, they were restored to their former wealth and positions, therefore Alfgar was compelled to relinquish his earldom and Harold Godwinson was returned to his earldom. One can imagine that Alfgar did not feel gracious about having his office taken away after waiting for so long to recieve an earldom. The chronicles of the time do not bestow upon us great insight into the minds and emotions of the people they report on, however it should not be hard to conjure up images of the crest-fallen Alfgar, informed of his demotion, forming bitter and resentful thoughts within his mind.
But it was not to be too long before Alfgar was handed the Earldom of East Anglia back to him. Harold's father, the mighty Earl Godwin of Wessex, who had seen service with 6 kings throughout his life, finally met his demise after suffering a seizure, possibly a stroke at Easter time in 1053. This meant that Harold was able to step into his shoes thus creating a vacancy for Alfgar to be back in the seat of East Anglia.This meant that with Swegn and his father Godwin dead, the balance was tipping back against the Godwinsons, with Siward still in charge in Northumbria, Leofric in Mercia, the king's nephew, Ralph de Mantes was Earl of Hereford and now Alfgar of Mercia was to become earl again in East Anglia, leaving Harold the only Godwinson with an Earldom, albeit a large one. But the scales were soon to change when when during the Easter Witanemegot in 1055, Alfgar managed to get himself outlawed. According to the Abingdon (C) version of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, he was said to have been innocent of the crime and  the northern (D) chronicle states that he'd hardly committed any crime. The (E) version states that Alfgar was a traitor to his king and his people. Whatever his innocence or guilt, we cannot be sure of the real reasons, he fled to Ireland, gathered up an army of Irish and probably Norse mercenaries, brought them in ships to Gruffydd in Wales, knowing that Gruffydd would have his own beef with the English along the Welsh borders, and together they formed an alliance. Alfgar most likely assisted Gruffydd in killing the King of the Deheubarth, another Gruffydd, and subjugated the people under his own yoke. Then in late Autumn 1055, the alliance invaded the English lands around Hereford, slaughtering Earl Ralph's mounted cavalry and burned and ravaged the burgh of Hereford. He was eventually restored to his Earldom after coming to terms with the King. Gruffydd too escaped punishment for the time being and it is thought that he was given lands around Archenfield.


Alfgar's career after that was very turbulent. He married his daughter to Gruffydd which could not have pleased his father. Gruffydd had been the cause of Leofric's brother some years earlier. This alliance would not have pleased the Godwinsons or the people of Hereford who ahd suffered greatly in the last raid on their burgh. He was in trouble again around 1058 when he and Gruffydd, along with a force of Norsemen, threatened another invasion.

Eventually, Alfgar seems to have disappeared from the chronicles after 1062 and it could be assumed that he died around this time. Without him, Gruffydd's power seems to have weakened as we shall see in the next part where we discuss the life and achievement of Gruffydd ap Llewellyn, Alfgar's partner in crime.

The House of Godwin: Origins, Wulfnoth the Pirate

The Godwins were the most prolificly famous family of the first half of the 11thc. But just who were they? We all know who Harold Godwinson was and to some extent who his father Godwin was. But just where did they spring from? The following is a short introduction to who the father of Godwin was, Wulfnoth, son of an  ealdorman Athlmaer whose lineage can be traced back through the old dynastic line of the Wessex Kings. Yes, Harold was a noble with royal blood. Far more throneworthy than William the Duke of Normandy, who did not have an ounce of Wessex blood in him.

In 1008, King Aethelred ordered that a large fleet of warships from all over the country should be built equating to one from three hundred and ten hides, so 310 ships. Wulfnoth Cild, father of Godwin, was Captain of a fleet that was brought to Sandwich with the rest of the ships from the other parts of England to lie in wait in the defence of this country against the Viking raiders. This time was a great period of intrigue and Eadric Streona was one of the most prominent men at court. He seems to have been a cunning and sly man who took it upon himself to rid the court of any rivals he thought might be in the way of his advancement. Well his brother Beortric might not have been any better for as the Anglo Saxon Chronicle says he accused Wulfnoth of some unknown charges which John of Worcester stated was unjust. These charges, whether unjust or not, may have had something to do with betrayal perhaps and could have been along the lines of Wulfnoth going over to the Danes, though there is no evidence of this, nor is there any evidence that it was Beortric's charge against him. Incensed, Wulfnoth was said to have 'turned away with 20 ships and raided everywhere along the south coast and wrought every kind of harm.'
Beortic chased after him with 80 ships, vowing to get him and bring him back to meet the King's justice but unfortunately for Beortric, his ships were met with a great storm and they were cast ashore only to be burnt by Wulfnoth who meted his own justice out to his enemy.
Hearing of his fleet's misfortune, the King fled back to London and appears to have left the rest of the fleet at Sandwich in confusion as to what they should do. The crews brought the ships back to London and thus the great deterrent against the Danes ended its purpose.
So with the ships gone from Sandwich, the Vikings were able to invade at Harvest time and made their way from Sandwich into Kent and to Canterbury. Wulfnoth was cast out as an outlaw and his property was confiscated.
Later Wulfnoth's father,  an Ealderman called Aethelmaer, defected to the Danish King Swein, most likely followed by his son Wulfnoth. Both of these men died around 1014.

Scene from Sons of the Wolf: Wulfhere's nightmare

                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                     

Wulfhere stands on the crest of the hill and stares in horror at the terrible carnage surrounding him. He surveys the scene with blurred vision. Body parts are scattered indiscriminately. As his eyes clear, he sees that they are set about the bloody slope in congealed masses. His byrnie feels unbearably heavy. Sweat trickles down his skin in rivulets. Instinctively, he clasps his sword, Hildbana, as the perspiration runs from under his sleeve and into his palm. But his hand is soaked and he cannot hold on to it, and the weapon slips down the slope.

The sky is dense with dark clouds. The mist-ridden air is dank with the stench of death and blood. He feels dizzy and wants to gag. Instead he forces himself to breathe, breathe hard, to avoid expelling the bile that rises in his throat.

“Pick up your sword, Lord Wulfhere!” urges a familiar voice.

A terrible throbbing pounds at his temple and he fights his desire to lose consciousness. “I cannot find it…”

“You must!” the voice shouts at him in earnest.

Wulfhere staggers down the hill, recognising the faces of his fallen comrades on the severed heads that he passes by. They speak to him through lips that do not move; words he cannot discern. His feet are slipping in the oozing blood and he feels his heart racing. The voice continues to order him to find his sword. Below him, at the foot of the hill, he sees a morass of jumbled men and spears. His head throbs as he moves toward them, fearing that his sword is lost somewhere amongst the chaos.

Suddenly, he is in the midst of the growling shield wall. The sound of battle deafens him as he is heaved, pushed and stabbed at with spears or axes. The enemy are in front. Snarling wolf-like faces. The points of their spears jab at him. Wooden shields slam into the phalanx, trying to break their way in. Wulfhere is jostled this way and that, as if he is a coracle tossed in a stormy sea. He wants his sword. How can he fight without his sword?

“Where is my sword? Where is Hildbana?”he hears himself shout and, though he knows it is his voice, it feels as if it has come from another.

His head spins. He stares down in an attempt to avoid passing out and sees that his feet are bare and the air is freezing against his naked body. Where is his armour?

Terror grasps at his insides and fear tears through his veins. He is naked. No spear, no sword, no armour to protect him…

“My lord, your sword!” he hears the voice shout again. “Where is your sword?”

He looks up from the ground and stares into faces that are no longer fleshy. Faces of bone. Skeletons wearing dark hoods. He screams...a long, agonising cry that is eventually broken by the familiar voice calling him again.

“My lord! Open your eyes! Can you hear me?”
"I know that voice. Esegar!"

He is pulled by his ankles out of the scrum of the shield wall.

“My lord! ’Tis I, Esegar! Can you hear me?”

Wulfhere lies on the grass, dazed, tries to sit up. His helmet is gone and his head pounds. Around him he hears the screams and roars of the men in the shield wall; the agonising sound of men dying.

“Here, take your sword!”

“You have it?” Wulfhere asks. Relief overwhelms him. He is alive and Esegar has found his sword. He must have passed out.

Esegar’s face flashes above him and Wulfhere feels reassured. Then, almost as quickly as it has appeared, the flesh begins to deteriorate, leaving a mass of hideously rotting flesh, until it is no longer Esegar hovering above him, but the hooded figure of death surrounded by darkness.

Death smiles; a repugnant grim contortion of the jawbone drops open to spill forth evil laughter and, with it, disgusting creatures, bugs, worms and all kinds of ghastly things from hell.

“Your sword is broken, my lord,” the face of death says, rasping and mocking like the voice of an old harridan. A pair of bony hands hold forth his beloved Hildbana, Battle Slayer, the sword that has been handed down to him from his father…it is broken in two.

Wulfhere is lifted to his feet, as if by unseen hands. A scream is rising within him as the world around him spins. The scream pierces through his brain as if his head will break open and scatter its contents in an explosion of agony. Unable to breathe or move, his whole body is paralysed. The noise inside his head grows louder until it reaches a crescendo and, suddenly, he forces his eyes open and breathes in a heavy gasp.

Quick Facts About Thegns

Thegns in Anglo Saxon times were important nobles of different ranking.They were well equipped for war and would owe military service as part of their role. A law of Cnut's that shows the heriot of thegns of different status is as follows.
Cnut’s Secular Ordinance [II Cnut] (Liebermann 1903, 356-8)
clause 70: If a man departs from this life intestate, be it through his carelessness or be it through sudden death (ðurh færlicne deaþ), then the lord is not to take any more from his [movable] property (æhte) than his due heriot (butan his rihtan heregeate). But the property is to be shared most correctly according to his deliberation (be his dihte) by the wife, the children and near kinsmen – each in accord with the measure (mæðe) that belongs to them.
clause 71: And the heriots are to be determined (beo... gefundene) exactly as is appropriate (mæðlic):
- an earl’s as befits him: that is 8 horses (4 saddled and 4 unsaddled); and 4 helmets (helmas) and 4 bynies (byrnan); and 8 spears and as many shields; and 4 swords (swyrd); and 200 mancuses of gold.
- and then the heriots of the king’s thegns, who are nearest (nyxte) to him: 4 horses (2 saddled and 2 unsaddled); and 2 swords; and 4 spears and as many shields; and a helmet and a byrnie; and 50 mancuses of gold.
- and of the more ordinary thegn (medemra ðegen): a horse and its tack (gerædan); and his weapons or his healsfang in Wessex; and in Mercia £2; and in East Anglia £2.
- and the heriot of a king’s thegn among the Danes, who has his soke (socne): £4
- and if he has a closer relationship (furðor cyððe) to the king: 2 horses (1 saddled, 1 unsaddled); and 1 sword; and 2 spears and 2 shields; and 50 mancuses of gold.
- and for him who has less and is less close: £2.
clause 78: And the man who on a campaign (fyrdunge) falls in front of his lord, whether within the country (lande) or outside it, is to be forgiven his heriot and the heirs are to succeed (fon) to his land and movable property (æhte) and are to divide it very justly (swiðe rihte).
Thanks to Nicholas Brooks of the University of Birmingham: The Staffordshire Hoard and the Mercian Royal Court http://finds.org.uk/staffshoardsymposium/papers/nicholasbrooks
The heriot would most likely have been presented to the king in a ceremonial style manner and after he had declared his loyatly to his sovereign or Lord, it was gifted back to him.
Even some more wealthy or important thegns who had service in the court of the King, could also have under him his own thegns who would have been quite distinguishable for the higher ranking peasantry. The minimum land holding for a thegn would have been 5 hides. One hide was the amount of land that a family would need to live on and was roughly around 120 acres. Essentially by the mid 11thc, many lesser thegns were also farmers, such as Wulfhere, the main character of the Sons of the wolf, who attends court with others on a rota basis. Wulfhere is a man of the Domesday book so was very real. Nothing is known of his true character or his doings in life, his story is my invention. It is an interpretation of how his life might have been.

The Mystery Woman of the Bayeux Tapestry: Part Six

 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.

If you would like to know more about the Bayeux Tapestry and its characters, follow my new blog http://threadstothepast.blogspot.co.uk/ and join me on a journey back to the 11^th Century.

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.

Aelfgyva: The Mystery Woman of The Bayeux Tapestry Part Five

        

            We are getting closer to the end of this discussion, but I have by not finished it by a long shot. For those who have not read any of my earlier posts about this puzzling enigmatic woman, Aelfgyva, whose image is portrayed in the tapestry with a priest, we have been exploring her possible identity in an effort to ascertain who exactly she was. Furthermore, it is my aim to try and shed some light and interpret what or how she came to be sewn into this tragic tale about the story of Harold’s fateful trip to Normandy. After discounting the known candidates except for one, it would appear that the identity of this Aelfgyva is Aelfgifu of Northampton, as she was generally known according to one of the Anglo Saxon chronicles, in the early 11thc when she lived. She was a consort of Cnut, enjoined to him in the more danico tradition. Marrying her in this way meant that Cnut could take another, more politically convenient wife at a later date, as he did when he married Emma of Normandy, whose English name was also a Aelfgifu.

            Aelfgifu of Northampton was the daughter of Aelfhelm, a major ealdorman of Northumbria whose familial origins were from Mercia. His mother was a wealthy woman named Wulfrun and I have not been able to find a source for his father, perhaps his mother was of higher standing. Regardless of her grandfather’s status,   it was obvious that Aelfgifu came from a very important family. Her father was put to death by his enemy Eadric Streona and her younger brothers were blinded. All this was done with the connivance of King Aethelred. Aelfgifu may never have forgotten or forgiven this deed and it quite possibly could have shaped her personality from then on.

            Because of her father’s status in the north, Swein of Denmark may have sought an alliance with her kinsmen and father’s followers, taking advantage of the rift Aelfhelm’s death may have caused between them and Aethelred. So she was either loosely married or handfastened to his son Cnut.. This was not an unusual practice, some years later Harold Godwinson was to do the same with his longtime love, Edith Swanneck. Many years later her puts her aside and marries the daughter of Alfgar of Mercia, wife of Gruffydd of Wales in order to enlist the support of her brothers, Edwin and Morcar who were earls of the north. The Normans were to make much of this when their propaganda machine got their claws stuck into Harold. He was promulgated as an adulterer who liked women although he seems to have stayed faithful to Edith Swanneck throughout their time together. They  referred to her as being his mistress, although in legal terms she was considered his ‘wife’ and his children were treated as legitimate. However, perhaps she was not cast aside quite in the manner one would think, for legend alludes to her having been on the battlefield looking for his mutilated body at Senlac.  This may have meant that their relationship was still very much an entity at Harold’s death.

            Handfastened wives perhaps were not necessarily cast off when the man married politically and the evidence is inclined to show that like Harold may have done, Cnut kept his affections for Aelfgifu and did not wholly put her aside for Emma. In fact initially, he may have considered her with great respect, if not affection. She had given birth to two sons, Swein and Harald, named in respect for Cnut’s father and grandfather. When Swein was old enough, Cnut sent Aelfgifu with him as regent to rule for him in Norway around 1030. He may have done this to keep her out of the way of his relationship with Emma, though this is not founded in any source, but one can picture that the two women were serious rivals for Cnut’s affection and that they probably felt threatened by one another. On the other hand, Cnut may have simply been keeping the interests of the Northern thegns alive by continuing to honour her and the alliance with her family.  Emma may have had the upper hand, however, being the recognised queen. And it is natural to think that Emma, an astute woman that she was, would not have agreed to marry Cnut if her children by him would not have had precedence over Aelfgifu’s.

One might have been forgiven for intuitively assuming that the nature of Aelfgifu of Northampton’s character was somewhat harsh when some four years later she and Swein had to flee Norway for her apparent heavy-handed rule. The Norwegians rebelled against her heavy taxation and it seemed, preferred Magnus I as ruler to Cnut’s harridan. Her son, young Swein, was to die in Denmark shortly after.  In the Norwegian Ágrip  Aelfgifu is mentioned by the Skald Sigvatr, a contemporary of her’s:        

Ælfgyfu’s time

long will the young man remember,

when they at home ate ox’s food,

and like the goats, ate rind

 She may have died sometime around 1040. Nothing much was heard of her after this. The story about her deception of Cnut is strangely alluded to in the Anglo Saxon chronicle, Abingdon edition (C) where it is mentioned:  “And Harold, who said that he was the son of Cnut – although it was not true-..” This appears to be referring to the story about Aelfgifu’s sons not being Cnut’s, or indeed not even Aelfgifu’s.  In my search for the truth, I have discovered that the Encomium Emmae Reginae makes the allegation that Harold was really the son of a servant girl smuggled into Aelfgifu’s bed chamber and passed off as Cnut’s son.  John of Worcester elaborates further and tells us that Cnut’s sons by Aelfgifu were not his or hers even. That Aelfgifu, desperate to have a son, ordered that a new born son of a priest’s concubine be presented to Cnut as his own son by her. This was the child called Swein. Harold, he states, was the son of a workman, like the one seen in the border underneath Aelfgyva’s scene in the tapestry (Bridgeford 2002). Bard McNulty (1980) first drew the patrons of the Tapestry to the theory that this was Aelfgifu of Northampton. Bard McNulty also theorizes that William and Harold had a discussion in the previous scene whereby Harold reassures William that the English will not call upon Harald of Norway to become King when Edward dies. I have already rejected this theory because apart from her connection with Norway where Harald Hardrada invades England from in 1066, her connection to Harald Hardrada is neither tenuous nor existent.

            What I do, however agree with is Bard McNulty’s idea that the Aelfgyva scene is  not meant to be read as what is happening after the scene before it, rather that it represents what they were discussing, an issue involving a priest and Aelfgyva. So, if they were not discussing Harald Hardrada, then what were they discussing about Aelfgyva and the priest? And what had it to do with the tapestry and Harold’s time in Normandy?

            Look forward to the final conclusion in Part Six where I will explain what my theory is.