Author: * Caedmon Egilsson - 3 Posts on this thread out of 3 Posts sitewide.
Date: Nov 16, 2007 - 13:10

Thread until I get promoted & I have limited time here at the public library terminals, here is an example of my thoughts on this topic. Perhaps it wioll get me "promoted":

The Norman Conquest, Harold Godwinson & the English Succession:‎
Ruminations on 1066 and all that…‎

History buffs are right in thinking this is one of the most fascinating periods in English ‎history, full of interesting, colorful characters and a great, complex story. The real crux ‎of the drama is that Edward the Confessor, raised as a Norman, had different concepts of ‎kingly rights and duties than your average Anglo-Danish noble, Anglo-Saxon thegn or ‎fyrd member. When William "gave arms" to Harold and had him swear on the relics as ‎depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, their understandings of what this entailed were quite ‎possibly very different. Harold was clearly elected in a vacuum. He was the only man ‎available at the time that had the experience of running the whole kingdom. The ‎legitimate royal candidate for the succession, Edgar Atheling, was shunted aside out of ‎expediency, as he was too young. One notes that it was only after Harold's death that they ‎‎"elected" the Atheling. Norman tradition had no such elections: when you follow the ‎subsequent history of Norman successions in England, it becomes apparent that every ‎Norman succession was a kind of coup. So much for the short version.‎

There are a number of intriguing enigmas surrounding the events leading up to Norman ‎Conquest. Harold’s visit to the Norman court depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, but un- ‎mentioned by the English sources, being one of them. Others are referred to by the ‎Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but have no Norman corroboration. One certainly is the real ‎possibility that someone poisoned Edward the Exile in 1057. Great effort was made to get ‎him back from Hungary, as the last male of Alfred the Great’s line, the last legitimate ‎adult Cerdicing. This happened AFTER the1051-52 incident with Eustace of Boulogne at ‎Dover; the exile and restoration of the Godwin faction; and the subsequent exile of the ‎Norman favorites in 1052. Did Edward the Confessor call for Edward the Exile, the son ‎of his deceased half-brother Edmund Ironsides, in a last-ditch attempt to frustrate ‎Harold’s ambitions? In which case why would the Confessor have promised the ‎kingdom to William in 1051 as Norman apologists insist? Or was this decision imposed ‎upon Edward by the “nationalist faction” as an attempt to ward off his promise of the ‎succession to William The Bastard as Edward’s “next of kin”? ‎

Only one version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that the writer does not understand ‎why the atheling Edward the Exile “was unable to meet with Edward his kinsman" upon ‎his arrival in England in 1057. A hint at foul play? Was the death of Edward the Exile ‎more in Harold’s or William’s interest at that time? That depends on what you assume ‎are the appropriate succession rights. If Edward could “legally” bequeath a kingdom as if ‎it were a piece of private property, at will, an adult Cerdicing on hand would NOT have ‎threatened William’s claim. Right? But it would have threatened Harold Godwinson’s ‎usurping plans in if had any in 1057. Another wrinkle was that Count Eustace of ‎Boulogne was married to Edward the Confessor’s sister, Goda. She had two sons by a ‎prior marriage to Dreux Count of Vexin, but Anglo-Saxon law never recognized royal ‎succession through females. Continental custom recognized property inheritance through ‎females, IF they were heiresses. Eustace could have been acting as an agent for William, ‎demanding the control of Dover in surety for Edward’s promise of the succession to ‎William in 1051; or the Confessor was giving his brother-in-law control over strategic ‎access to the continent to strengthen his hand against Earl Godwin’s control over English ‎politics. Or Eustace was fishing in troubled waters. He would have an interest in the ‎succession if Goda were considered an heiress and his stepsons the rightful heirs. There ‎must have been tensions.‎


What tragedy ensues when ambitious men have cause to misunderstand the customs of ‎other societies: Edward the Confessor (reputedly a dyed-in-the-wool celibate, and ‎possibly a known homosexual) was almost assuredly assumed to remain childless. He ‎could certainly have "designated” William as successor to the crown of England in 1051, ‎as recompense to the Norman court for keeping him as befitting his station during his ‎exile. He had been was an exile in Normandy for 28 years, literally his whole adult life, ‎until he was recalled by his half brother King Hartecanute in 1042, who shortly thereafter ‎ALSO mysteriously died, while “standing at his drink” at a wedding. ‎

One thing that sheds light on the intentions of at least one of the players is the fact that ‎William initially promised to "rule" England according to English custom. It was only ‎after the repeated resistances did his Norman apologists take up the notion of the “right” ‎to rule justified by conquest; which conveniently justified the imposition of Norman ‎Lordships and the social down grading and dispossession of the Anglo-Danish thegnery ‎after the fact. Furthermore William’s initial treatment of the Northern Earls Edwin, ‎Morcar & Waltheof, together with Edgar Atheling, the confessor’s grand nephew, was ‎noticeably lenient Can we therefore conclude that William initially saw his designation ‎and succession resting on a kinship claim, as due and just? This would mitigate seeing ‎him as an opportunistic, grasping megalomaniac. But this does not lessen Harold's role as ‎a legitimate patriot. At Hastings William was fighting under the auspices of the papal ‎banner: it was like a crusade. Harold had NO hearing with the pope at all. When the ‎Battle of Hastings was lost and Harold was killed, many Englishmen (and ALL the ‎Normans) must have seen this as GOD'S judgment. ‎

This explains the initial English acquiescence to Williams’s rule. After an aborted ‎attempt to put young Edgar Atheling on the throne, (the appropriate nationalist thing to ‎do), the English leadership got real-politik smart and went over to William. This was not ‎the first time such an event had happened. The Anglo-Saxon thegnery had gone over to ‎Canute, another capable non-Cerdicing, in 1016, after the death of Edward Ironsides, ‎upon the understanding that Canute would give them good government and assure ‎protection against further viking invasions. But Canute ruled by English custom. ‎Likewise William swore to uphold English customs at his coronation. But William ‎subsequently needed to reward his followers with fiefs, according to Norman custom. It ‎was the social dislocation this caused amongst the Anglo-Saxon thegnery that fueled the ‎subsequent revolts. But there were no coordinated efforts and no national leader with the ‎appropriate reputation as a warrior that could lead the resistance movement. The ‎rebellions were always local efforts, with no national coordination spearheaded by a ‎nationally recognized leader. William built castles and held the land Norman style, ‎remaining firmly in place.‎

William the Conqueror was a harsh man, a tireless administrator and shrewd leader, but ‎Harold Godwinson was NO traitor. Given his rapid march to Stanford Bridge, a ‎victorious battle, and the rapid march south again, combined with his prior military ‎record, he was not an insignificant adversary. He also had greatness, given the values of ‎the times. He died in the sincere belief that he was defending his country from the ‎invader. He would have had the least to lose by accepting William's claim, presuming ‎William ruled by English custom. He would have been the second most powerful man ‎in the kingdom, as he was the leader of a family that controlled the most land outside the ‎royal holdings. According to the Norman apologists writing after the fact, he also may ‎have been offered William’s daughter in marriage in return for his support of William’s ‎claim, in 1064. But this of course implies that William was very unsure about the ‎reception his claim would have amongst the English regardless of the Confessor’s ‎disposition of the kingdom. This is a very realistic perspective on William’s part.‎

There is so little mention of English women in general during this period. The ‎Confessor’s mother Emma must have had much political savvy and have been a hard ‎bargainer. She was the daughter of a Norman duke, wife of two kings of England and ‎mother of two more. Her initial marriage in 1017 to Aethelred the Unready was to seal ‎the Anglo-Norman defensive treaty against the Viking attacks. Emma's subsequent ‎marriage to Danish invader King Canute kept both her Anglo-Saxon sons safe, (albeit in ‎exile with her Norman kin) and the Anglo-Norman anti-viking defense league with ‎Normandy in place. Canute’s marriage to Emma was the perfect solution to a political ‎problem. Emma must have thought so also. She remained a force to contend with until ‎‎1043 when dispossessed by a possibly vindictive Confessor long before her death in ‎‎1052. What could possibly have been his motives? ‎

Although at least one Anglo-Saxon manuscript refers to Emma as “Aelfgyva”, there is no ‎way of knowing if it is she that is referred to in that enigmatic Bayeux Tapestry scene ‎that depicts "where a cleric and Aefgyva " (no verb). The cleric is depicted either ‎slapping a woman, caressing her cheek or pulling aside a wimple to show off a woman’s ‎face. The bawdy editorial on the scene in the boarder below suggests some kind of sexual ‎innuendo. Some scholars contend that this represents Emma conniving with the un-‎canonical, simoniac Bishop Stigand. Norman writer's contend that William offered ‎betrothal of his daughter, “Agatha”, to Harold in 1064 (or 65), during the fatal visit the ‎tapestry depicts, in return for Harold’s support of William’s dynastic ambitions, when ‎Harold "became the duke's man”. We will never know who the “cleric and Aelfgyva” are. ‎But if Emma and Stigand are implied in that scene, their occurrence in the tapestry at that ‎location remains puzzling, whereas a marriage offer of William’s daughter to Harold, ‎accompanied shortly after a scene of Harold becoming (in Norman eyes) "William's man" ‎make's more sense of the Bayeux Tapestry’s narrative. The correct reading of this section ‎of the tapestry will perhaps forever remain enigmatic.‎

Never the less as a result of that visit Harold brought home a nephew, Hakon, one of the ‎two hostages given to William by Edward the Confessor in the 1051-52 “Dover Affair” ‎when Edward successfully manipulated a bid for his political freedom by managing the ‎exile of the Godwins. However William KEPT Harold’s youngest brother Wulfnoth. ‎Clearly William was acting in good will and hedging his bets at the same time. It would ‎be hard to believe that Harold’s usurpation of the throne was NOT unpremeditated if ‎Harold had a hand in the death of Edward the Exile upon the latter’s arrival in England in ‎‎1057. But clearly it was MORE in William’s interest to do away with the aetheling. ‎William’s claim was based on designation by the Confessor and agnatic kinship; an ‎available adult Cerdicing made mince meat of his claim. By 1064 Harold had seemingly ‎too much to lose: he would have been the second man in the kingdom and perhaps son-‎in-law of the next king. Prior to the successful revolt of the northern Earls in 1065 against ‎the rule of Earl Tostig, who was posted to Northumbria in 1055, his family collectively ‎held the most land and clearly the most political clout over all England.‎
‎ ‎
‎ Besides having inherited the leadership of the “nationalist faction”, what could possibly ‎have been Harold Godwinson’s motivations? It MUST have been his experience in ‎Normandy, and his observation of Norman custom and what that possibly entailed, that ‎convinced him to oppose William, shortly upon his return home in 1064. In reflection and ‎after no doubt much discussion with the notables of the kingdom, he realized that the ‎rank and file thegnery was TOTALLY unwilling to have a foreign lord over them. NO ‎king could deed away a kingdom to a foreigner in recompense for keeping him in style ‎while in exile for 28 years. Edward the Confessor was half-Norman by birth, and full ‎Norman by those long years of exile. He must have been more acclimated to Norman ‎custom by force of habit than he was of English traditions. If he DID promise away the ‎throne in 1051, his alienation of the kingdom was “unconstitutional” from the Anglo-‎Saxon point of view. ‎


Furthermore, if he really "promised" the crown to William in 1051, he actually passed ‎over the head of his last legitimate royal Anglo-Saxon adult relative. In that case clearly ‎Edward was not thinking about the welfare of the Cerdicing dynasty or concerned about ‎English customary law. Therefore it is more likely that the plan to retrieve his nephew ‎Edward the Exile from Hungary was likely forced on him. The successful reinstatement ‎of the Godwins and their faction must have had something to do with the national horror ‎at the news of the Confessor’s designation of William as his successor. Hence Bishop ‎Ealdred’s visit to Germany in 1054 must have had something to do with Edward the ‎Exile’s return in 1057. Did Harold’s appearance on the continent at this time in the ‎company of Guy of Ponthieu attested on a charter at St. Omer in 1056 have anything to ‎do with Edward the Exile’s return ? ‎

If the Norman apologists are accurate about Edward the Confessor’s intended disposition ‎of the succession, they almost necessarily implicate William in the death of the elder ‎Aetheling, Edward the Exile, if he did not die from natural causes. Harold’s position to ‎usurp a crown was hardly likely in 1057: the Northern Earls and thegnery would never ‎have allowed it. In which case, Harold was hedging his bets in Normandy in 1064. This ‎supports the notion that his actions were largely unpremeditated, at least till late 1064, ‎and possibly even later. William was unacceptable to the magnates and thegnery. Harold ‎stepped in as an expediency: the real heir was too young and had no following or ‎confidence in the Kingdom. Harold had been the actual head administrator for years.‎

Apparently, Anglian farmers from Deria could recognize Norse warriors by their speech ‎‎"I know you are a northern man for I recognize it by your tongue"; an incident described ‎in one version of the chronicle. The Danes and English could understand each other ‎haltingly enough not to need interpreters. Culturally, the Danes, who must have quickly ‎taken East Anglian, Mercian and Northumbrian wives, were not as dissimilar to the ‎English as were the French speaking, cavalry based, feudalized Normans, with their ‎tradition of land tenure tied by ritual to military service and vassalage. The Anglo-Danish ‎aristocracy over which Canute presided was manned by a mixed Danish and Anglo-‎Saxon thegnery. Canute had ruled by "English custom" in England because ENGLAND ‎was far wealthier than Denmark, and represented his chief holding. Ruling by "English ‎custom" was the chief means of placating, and therefore, mitigating popular unrest ‎against the rule. Surely HAROLD’S rule would have meant less if any change in custom. ‎Even William had initially (either genuinely, or more likely, disingenuously) promised to ‎rule by English custom. But he HAD to reward his men according to Norman custom, ‎which meant the imposition of fiefs. As noted earlier, it was the social dislocation this ‎caused amongst the rank & file thegnery that fueled the subsequent English revolts.‎

‎ It is no doubt true the Godwins were a ruthless family bent on their own self-‎aggrandizement, but in this they were no different than any of their peers, just more ‎successful. This was the root of all the Northern English opposition to the Godwin ‎family’s hegemony based in the south. Edward's supposed "favoritism" of Harold’s ‎brother Tostig may have had more to do with Edward’s efforts to manipulate and split ‎Godwin family solidarity, which is actually what happened. Harold’s exiled brother ‎Tostig turned traitor and died at Stanford Bridge with Harald Hardraada. Edward the ‎Confessor may have disliked Godwinson predominance at court, and resented having ‎Godwin’s daughter Edith forced on him in marriage in 1045 three years after his ‎succession, but he had little room to maneuver. On two occasions, both at the exile of the ‎Godwin faction, and at their restoration, in 1051-52 the northern and southern English ‎thegns did not want to fight each other. Each time they forced banishment settlements, on ‎both the Godwins, and subsequently, upon the Godwins restoration, on the “Norman ‎favorites”, rather than weaken the kingdom by civil war, making it vulnerable to possible ‎Scandinavian invasion. Their willingness to reinstate the Godwin’s positions as leading ‎magnates could easily have been the result of popular discontent with the Confessor’s ‎designation of William as his successor, as the ASC cryptically tenders without much ‎detail about the purpose of William’s visit in 1051. “Anglo-Danish” or not, Harold was ‎less a foreigner in England, and had actually seen more of it, than either Edward the ‎Confessor or William prior 1066.‎

Harold rejected a Norman alliance and possibly perjured himself to defend the country ‎from foreign domination. He himself would have lost nothing by cooperating with ‎William. But he had been to Rome, spent time in Normandy and must have had a good ‎idea about continental feudalism (and what that would entail vis-a-vis Anglo-Saxon ‎customary law). The country as a whole had already experienced just such a similar, if ‎smaller, dislocation upon the succession of the Confessor and his patronage of the ‎‎“Norman favorites” that came with him. Perhaps Harold was disingenuous when he ‎‎“became William’s man” in 1064. But in the process he got his nephew, held hostage ‎since 1051, released. If he went to Normandy to confirm the succession to William upon ‎orders from Edward the Confessor, he was in a very tight corner, with an unpalatable ‎task. On the other hand, his becoming “William’s man” would have secured his vast ‎interests in England upon William’s succession. ‎

But he was a worldly man and his vision was potentially very broad: He had been to ‎Rome. He had been privy to both Anglo-Saxon and Norman customs. As noted above he ‎is documented witnessing a charter in St. Omer in 1056. Perhaps his location on the ‎continent at this time had something to do with the return of Edward the Exile in 1057. ‎Harold and William fought together in the Breton campaign in 1064. Both of them had ‎ample time to size each other up. When William invaded, Harold was fighting against a ‎crusade earmarked by a papal banner. The fact that he was killed in the battle, made the ‎English think there must be something in the papal banner, and that GOD’S ‎JUDGEMENT was upon them. But was it because they had not crowned the legitimate ‎candidate? Leading chruchmen and the northern earls flirted with the idea, as Edgar the ‎Aetheling was crowned in London after the death of Harold at Hastings. But after ‎William’s devastating encirclement of a huge swath of countryside surrounding London, ‎all of them, even the legitimate heir, made peace with William and the nation acquiesced ‎to William’s rule, provided he ruled by the customs of King Edward. In December 1066 ‎William was crowned king. ‎

The respect here accorded to Harold Godwinson, to NO discredit of the bismarkian ‎virtues and administrative achievements of iron willed William The Conqueror ( who ‎must been an exceptionally shrewd judge of character), is due no doubt to the almost ‎cinemagraphic drama of the events leading to October 14th, 1066; Harold being cast as a ‎tragic hero dieing to save his country from invasion. THAT is one criterion for great ‎kingship for those times. Just think about it: a worldly man privy to both insular and ‎continental customs, possibly PURPOSELY perjured himself for the sake of a greater ‎cause; willing to fight in defiance of a papal sanctioned crusade. When he was struck ‎down, unless he was killed instantly, he too must have concluded that GOD was on ‎William’s side, and that he, Harold, was going unshrived straight to Hell. From his ‎personal point of view, Harold risked EVERYTHING, including HIS SOUL to keep the ‎country together and sustain customary polity against the disruption of successful foreign ‎succession and importation of foreign favorites and foreign customs. Once he realized the ‎English thegnery would NEVER have William, he had every reason to assume social ‎dislocations in the face of foreign rulership, regardless of any deals he may have struck ‎with William in 1064. As noted, the English had already experienced a bit of Normans ‎and their customs. After the Godwin’s restoration, Ralph the Timid, son of the ‎Confessor’s sister Goda , had built a castle in the West Midlands, and attempted to rule ‎the countryside by Norman custom, using pressed labor to build the castle, enforced by ‎Norman cavalry. In 1052 the Confessor’s Norman favorites were exiled in lieu of a ‎potential disabling civil war, inviting possible Scandinavian invasion, which had ‎happened once before. Given his track record as earl, Harold Godwinson is one of ‎history’s great “might have beens”. It is likely he would have been a sterling king, in ‎light of the times and the innate conservativism of the Anglo-Danish thegnery. ‎

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is disquietingly taciturn at points where one would either ‎expect it to affirm or contradict the later Norman apologist’s accounts. All this reticence ‎relates to material otherwise supplied by Norman apologetic versions of events, and all of ‎it concerns the succession issue with two small anomalies. ASC “D”, entry 1058 relates ‎how “Earl Aelfgar was banished but he came back forthwith through Griffith’s help and a ‎naval force came from Norway. It is tedious to relate fully how things went”. Irish and ‎Welsh annals indicate that it was a rather large Scandinavian invasion force lead by ‎Magnus of Norway, son of Harald Hardraada, allied with the exiled Aelfgar of Mercia ‎and the Welsh prince Griffith. Clearly the main concern of the Anglo-Saxon polity was ‎consistently about warding off viking invasion since the 1017 marriage of Emma and ‎Aethelred the Unready. This includes the deal struck between the Kingdom at large and ‎Canute, upon his sucession at the death of Edward Ironsides. The ASC “E” states that ‎Harold 'went out with a naval force against William” and there is mention in Doomsday ‎of “Aethelric” who “went away to a naval battle against King William”. The appropriate ‎inference suggests that when William’s fleet left Dives it wasn't just the bad weather that ‎forced him back, but there was a naval engagement of some kind. Perhaps it was just a ‎skirmish, but enough to require William to retire and regroup. Harold had to march north ‎to fettle his brother Tostig and Harald Hardraada; and, well, the rest is history…‎

Clearly the chronicle’s reticence is not always strategic, but rarely does it contradict ‎Norman versions of events. While this does not lessen the Norman versions from being ‎hindsight apologetic propaganda, we have no reason to discount them wholesale. They ‎may very well be correct, if, like the Chronicle, selective regarding events; but partisan in ‎their interpretations. The Bayeux Tapestry illustrates a case in point. Both English and ‎Norman sources hold that the dying Edward the Confessor bequeathed the care of the ‎kingdom into Harold’s hands. The old man could easily have been delirious, but what he ‎actually said (if he was lucid, perhaps he was purposely being ambiguous) and what he ‎meant by it, remains a mystery. Both Norman and English sources have their own ‎interpretations. If Edward died a mere figurehead, exhausted from his political struggles ‎with the Godwin “nationalist” faction, he just may have resignedly recommended Harold ‎to be king, instead of Edgar the Aetheling, as being the better choice.‎

On the other hand, a stubborn insistence that Harold should hold the kingdom in ‎readiness for the succession of William the Bastard, in light of what he must have known ‎would have been an unpopular decision, would have been the last act of a resentful, ‎peevish, revengeful old man. Perhaps he thought he was having what he presumed to be ‎the last laugh, in the face of Godwinist family ambitions. After all, he held Godwin ‎responsible for the murder of his brother Alfred in 1036 and sent Godwin’s daughter ‎queen Edith off to a nunnery during his brief bid for freedom in 1051: there must have ‎been a grudge factor. The problem here is that we will never know. But we do know that ‎Harold went to Normandy, most likely in 1064, and most likely at the behest of the ‎Confessor. Given the probable nature of the mission, this is hardly the behavior of a ‎scheming, would be king, premeditating the usurpation of a kingdom. Harold may ‎initially have gladly become William’s man, if it secured his interests in England upon ‎William’s succession.‎


During the Victorian Era, nationalist aspirations and the relatively democratic political ‎climate encouraged Englishman to see Harold as a hero, supporting traditional “Anglo-‎Saxons” envisioned as a “free” thegn & yeomanry of bluff, independent-minded, honest, ‎upright Englishman. The Normans were deceptive, duplicitous froggy oppressors of ‎national liberties. Yet at the same time, it was Thomas Carlisle who wrote “What were ‎the English prior to the advent of the Normans?” ‎

Now in seemingly less invested times historians can more objectively conjecture that we ‎have due and just suspicions that Eustace of Boulogne’s visit to his brother-in-law ‎Edward and the incident at Dover in 1051 is likely to have had something to do with ‎seeking assurites for William’s succession. But NOBODY knows why the Elder Atheling ‎was brought at great effort to England, but “not allowed to meet with his kinsman ‎Edward”, and immediately died upon his arrival; nor who the “cleric and Aelfgyva” ‎were. We don’t know the cause of Hartecanute death, nor what the dying Confessor ‎actually said on his deathbed. Furthermore there is that curious scene in the Bayeux ‎Tapestry where Edward appears to be admonishing Harold Godwinson upon his return ‎from Normandy. The tapestry’s overall agenda is Norman propaganda, but what is ‎actually being alluded to in that scene? That the Confessor did not approve of Harold ‎becoming “William’s man”? Knowing any of these things would shed much light on the ‎character and motivations of a couple key players, who, along with Harald Hardraadda ‎are both remarkable charismatic characters possessing great military leadership, ‎administrative ability, physical stamina and political acumen.‎ A couple of things are assured however:Assuredly when Harold left Normandy in 1064 after the Breton campaign with ‎William & the oath, William had presumed that he & Harold had struck a deal. ‎According to Norman sources, there was a marriage alliance component. ‎Furthermore as Harold was the first man in the kingdom, & his family owned the bulk ‎of the land after the Confessor, William KNEW he had better chances to press his ‎claim if he had a leading English magnate on his side. Harold, regardless of his ‎reasons for going to Normandy in the first place, got one of his nephews, Hakon ‎sprung from hostagehood. Hence, it is reasonable to assume a deal WAS struck. (or ‎at least William THOUGHT a deal was struck). ‎
However William KEPT Harold's brother Wulfnoth. Clearly William was hedging his ‎bets. Surely, Harold, who had been "sub rex" for years, would have had fleeting ‎thoughts (if nothing else) about having the title (king) as well as the practical power. ‎No doubt ever time there was a disagreement about policy in the witan, any number ‎of leading english magnates would have thought "if I were king, I would do such & ‎such". Harold would have been NO different.‎
But William, however shrewd judge of character, misread his man. Harold negotiated ‎the settlement in the north re: Tostig's "misrule” (if you can call it that: Tostig may ‎just have been riding herd on Northumbrian penchants for autonomy & feuding); ‎Anyway after MUCH protracted debate, Harold acceded to the ousting of his own ‎brother! 2 points: 1) the northerners must have had a case; 2) Harold therefore ‎chose national unity over family solidarity. HE WAS A STATESMAN. Back to ‎Normandy: Willam's "deal" would have left Harold the second man in the Kingdom; ‎but Harold MUST have known the English would NEVER have a foreign lord over ‎them. (They had already kicked Edward's Norman favorites out: this by the way, was ‎all about control over lay & ecclesiastical patronage networks).‎
Harold tactically left Normandy, abandoning his brother Wulfnoth to what he surely ‎must have conceived of at the time as a death sentence if he opposed William's ‎claim, & returned to England. Later events prove that he subsequently chose national ‎unity over kindred solidarity. One might think that this show of lack of kindred ‎feeling is indicative of a scheming, treacherous wanna-be usurper, but he GAVE UP ‎influence in the north by abandoning Tostig & handed it over to a rival dynasty, ‎theoretically DECREASING his personal power ( basically patronage power: except ‎for military prowess, & negotiating skills, that was the only other kind of "political" ‎power at the time)He gave it up for the sake of NATIONAL UNITY; Harold's record is ‎that he only "sold out" his family members at extremis in the face of potential ‎national disunity. ‎
No doubt his trip to Rome & the broadening experience it provided influenced his ‎capacity for more thoughtful statesmanship besides personal aggrandizement. He ‎was on the continent when they negotiated the return of the Elder Aetheling & his ‎family: he must have been in favor of the return of the exile as a viable problem to ‎the succession crisis.‎
But Harold knew his man; by his return from Normandy in 1064, he knew William ‎would NOT stand down. When it came time for William to press his claim, if Harold ‎opposed him, Wulfnoth was a lost cause ANYWAY. Harold made the best of a difficult ‎situation, in favor of National Unity. Once he got back to England after the sojourn in ‎Normandy, knowing William's intentions, there must have been all kinds of talk in ‎high places amongst the thegns & earls about the impending "political" crisis. ‎
It is impossible to think that Harold quite suddenly & spontaneously whipped up ‎support over night in the south to unseat the Cerdicing heir upon the sudden, yet ‎probably NOT unexpected death of Edward. This must have been bandied about , ‎accompanied by heated debate, for MONTHS- at least from his return from ‎Normandy in 1064, & possibly more informally for a few years prior. The Aetheling ‎was shunted aside not only by Harold, but by the whole nation; Or, at least the south ‎‎(which faced the BRUNT of possible invasion). Consequently, Harold immediately & ‎appropriately secured the North through a marriage alliance with the Mercian & ‎Northumbrian earls (traditionally rival houses), abandoning his, probably hand fast, ‎wife Edith Swanneck for the sake of National Unity. He would have lost NOTHING by ‎becoming the second man in the kingdom under William, EXCEPT National Unity. He ‎was already the second man in the Kingdom under Edward .William's deal must have ‎been an unviable option, & Harold KNEW it; OR William's deal was potentially viable, ‎but Harold couldn't bring himself to TRUST William. Neither of these perspectives is ‎mutually exclusive.‎
Trust or not, in any event, the ONLY THING HAROLD COULD BE SURE ABOUT WAS ‎THAT WILLIAM WOULD NOT STAND DOWN.

Consequently, he would have to fight ‎regardless. If he supported William, he would have to fight the northern Earls; and ‎for what? William's specious claim?!! He had inherited Godwin's nationalist policies. ‎Since he had to fight anyway, National Unity WON OUT over being second in the ‎kingdom under William.‎
Harold wanted the "power" of being King? Hardly. He already was the leading ‎magnate. He knew first hand how feiant Kings could & should be managed. Was it ‎Vanity? Perhaps. But THE decision to "usurp" was largely conditioned by the need for ‎an adult King at the helm with a proven track record. THAT was presumed the only ‎way to meet this crisis. ‎
Subsequent events prove just that fact: After Harold's fall at Hastings, NO ONE could ‎mount successful, nation-wide resistance. There was a vacuum at the top. William's ‎peace meal conquest proceeded apace and churchmen in particular must have ‎thought Harold fell because GOD HAD CHOSEN. They offered him the crown & ‎William garnered more "legitimacy". His peace meal efforts moved forward & they ‎paid off. ‎
The Norman manner of holding down the country was successful, despite the ‎Normans in each motte & bailey being a small minority almost under siege amongst ‎a hostile, sullen, recalcitrant populace. (Ie: The murdum law(s?) were put in place ‎for a reason...). ‎
I have no doubt Harold was a hard shrewd real-politik man. (All the successful ones ‎were) But each time his behavior is questionable or seemingly unsavory from a ‎modern standpoint, it was in a situation in which he chose National Unity over ‎personal, familial affection, & this policy is rather consistent. Compared to William's ‎agenda, however admirably Bismarkian one might admire his statesmanship, ‎HAROLD's statesmanship was far loftier. It’s a shame a chance arrow took him: his ‎track record indicates Harold Godwinson would have made sterling King. It was ‎clearly more self-serving to throw in with William. He did not.‎ Harold was a patriot. William was a self-agranding thug.