Harold Godwinson's descendants?

As we know, Harold Godwinson- alledged to relate distantly to King Athelred I (older brother of Alfred the Great)- had several sons and daughters by Edith Swanneck, a mysterious English noble lady who was his handfast wife. Two or three of their sons tried to invade England in 1068 only to be bloodily repulsed (ironically) by men who had served their father.

Another child (son?) was in the womb of Harold's official wife, Eadgyth Leofricson, the sister of earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria, at the time of the doomed battle of 'Hastings' on 14th October, 1066. But after the surviving Godwinson family fled abroad to Europe after 1066, what became of them, and their descendants?

We can't know if any of his sons sired issue, but one of Harold's daughters, Gytha, had over 7 or 8 children by her Russian husband, Prince Vladimir of Smolensk. Just one of the lineages through their many issue seems to have gone-

King Harold II Godwinson, father of:
Gytha of Wessex, mother of:
Grand Duke Mstislav I of Kiev, father of:
Euphrosyne, mother of:
King Bela III Arpad of Hungary, father of:
King Andras II of Hungary, father of:
Yolanda (Violante) of Hungary, mother of:
Isabella of Aragon, mother of:
King Philippe IV of France, father of:
Isabella of France, mother of:
King Edward III of England


Via Harold's descendents, the 'English' monarchy thus eventually came full circle?

Atheling Athelstan's will, 1014

Drawn up on June 25th 1014, the will of aethling Athelstan stresses the atheling’s legitimacy to the title of his estates in that he was either given them by the king (his father) or by senior nobles.

There are clues to some tension between him and his father, the king (Ethelred II), in that it makes a direct appeal to the witan and nobles to ensure that the king kept his word.
In other words, he believed that his own father would continue to turn his back on him, even after death.

The beneficiaries were;

• Sigeferth and Morcar, leading thegns from the Danelaw (brothers of Canute's first wife, Aelfgifu of Northampton), whom he must have known well (he had given Sigeferth a mailcoat previously- v.expensive).

• Athelstan’s brother Edmund would later take Siferth’s widow as his wife, disobeying the king.

• Thurbrand the Hold (whom Canute had bidded assassinate Earl Uhtred), another beneficiary, had given Athelstan a horse

• Leofwine, maybe the earldorman of the W.Mercian region of the Hwicce,had given him a fine white horse.

• Ulfkitel Snilling -the hero who had resisted the Vikings successfully many times during Ethelred's dire reign, had once given the atheling a silver-hilted sword.

• We can make out from the Will that Aethelwold, father of Aethelmaer (both slain in the purges of 1005-6), had left a widow when he died and the atheling had cared for her.

• The atheling had taken BYGRAVE from a certain 'Leofmere,' but restored it by his will. It was still in his hands during the Confessor’s reign.

• One notable mention in the will is the son of Sussex thegn Wulfnoth- Godwin. He was ‘restored’ to his father’s estate at Compton by the atheling. His sons would be earls, and one a future king

Those who gained the most from this Will;

The atheling’s brothers Eadwig and Edmund, mostly the latter- a fine sword, trumpet, athelstan’s E.Anglian estates and another sword which had once belonged to King Offa of Mercia.

The E.Anglian connection is significant because it links the atheling with with the patrimony of the descendants of his namesake Athelstan ‘half-king’ who were firmly committed to the Edmund lobby.
By this inheritance, Edmund’s roots would be firmly in the Danelaw and the symbolic gift of the sword is revealing that atheling Athelstan is giving Edmund the nod to rule the kingdom- not Edward (son by Emma).
Even their names Athelstan and Edmund are revealing- they too had had wealthy, powerful ancestors of those exact names, where an Edmund succeeded his brother Athelstan too!

So on his deathbed, the atheling lay dying knowing that the king, his own father, had forsaken him for Edward and Alfred, and so he preferred Edmund to succeed his estates than to half-brother (half-Norman).
He and his full brothers had made alliances with powerful nobles across the country who had a grievance against Ethelred. They had either been sidelined by the king in his governmental purges (engineered by his father's chief advisor, the slimy Edric of Mercia) or had a background on the Edwardian side in the accession crisis of 975.

Sign the Petition! Save the 'Hastings' battlesite...

http://www.englistory.com/t1239-sign-the-petition

"English Heritage begins process to review 1066 battlefield registration
Local resident starts legal action against ESCC to preserve battlefield
Legal action update: 28th January 2013

Today, Michael's solicitor wrote again to ESCC to say that tree works alone are affecting over 6.3 hectares of land and the loss of 589 trees and that these works are subject to conditions that have not yet been discharged.

Things have been developing rapidly in relation to the 2nd Battle of Hastings. Early in the week the national press reported that there was new evidence unfolding about the site of the Battle of Hastings (see Daily Telegraph, 14 January 2013). The following day, a local resident, Michael Bernard, applied to English Heritage for an urgent review of the battlefield site registration of the Battle of Hastings in the light of new evidence about the extent and nature of the site. English Heritage responded by return on 16 January 2013, acknowledged the application and explained that it would start the validation and initial assessment process."

History: What inspired you initially?

I was musing about several things recently, and wondered what my inspirations were regarding history.

It transpired that both Michael Wood's unreleased "In Search of the Dark Ages" 1979-81 BBC documentary series, ie. Offa; Alfred; Athelstan (and five other subjects) and also ITV's 1983-6 drama "Robin of Sherwood" (starring Ray Winstone and Clive Mantle) struck the nail on the head to inspire me!

But why especially, despite me liking history at school anyway? Well, aside from sheer charisma, enthusiasm and stirring graphics & theme music in the former, and gritty re-enactions and warm English humour in genuine woodlands and lavishly re-created sets as the latter, these brilliant shows grabbed me by the short and curlies and 'dragged me in' to the wonderful world of History!

In an age before the all-consuming internet and mass media when even the now-defunct and fiddly VHS was in it's infancy, these shows were surely even back then a revelation? Maybe it was simply that they were just very very good! Perhaps near-perfect?

Bloody Immigrants!

Waves of persistent immigrants hopped off the battered boats and made their way into the nearest towns in the south, initially unchecked at the coast by the residents, merchants and churchmen and aimed to claim whatever they could from their strange new home, the fertile land of Britain.

They looked, acted and sounded different- a major threat to established, age-old societies and customs, aiming to use the best of what their new homeland had to offer, and thus were soon despised by the Britons- who would defend their homes, their kinsfolk and land with violence, if necessary!

None of the new arrivals could have had a wash in a long while, if ever - and none could speak the native tongue, nor perhaps even tried once here? They slowly took over...

Before long there was intense social conflict across the country, and 'they' would overtake the main body of the very country itself by force, a large number killing, looting and raping!

These rapacious, feared and 'bloody' immigrants were... The Angles, Saxons, Frisians and Jutes!

See how the redtop 'media' daily papers work??

The "fleeing" Fyrdsmen?

The fyrdsmen that fatally broke rank from the English shieldwall at Senlac, 14th October 1066, chasing the 'broken' Norman-French-Breton army, weakened the English defence and frittered away a victory for Harold, who was slain that day.

Was it really this simple? Or were they later arrivals who had not been present to hear King Harold's strict orders to hold formation at all costs? And why was it only the right flank who broke the 'shieldwall'?

We know from the sources that more Anglo-Saxons came trickling in from the southern shires throughout the day, as their king had bade them days before. We suspect that the length of the violent battle suggests that the English were not easily overcome, and that the emphasis on the fleeing fyrdsmen may be exaggerated?

The entire front rank (half a mile long if we accept Santlache hill top as the site?) was armed by the king's/earl's 1,500-3,000 huscarls, so anyone breaking through them had to had to either;-

a) Outnumber them heavily enough not to be halted, more so than the left and centre.
b) The Huscarls may have thinned out in that sector, maybe due to a General advance which failed, and the right copped for it for some reason?

We are told of successive Norman 'retreats' (this time deliberate?) but not which part of the English line broke this time?

So, were the men who fatally broke rank due to their over-zealousness, 'late arrivals', or simply indisciplined amateurs whom the huscarls in front of them, couldn't halt?

It's impossible for us today really to get into the mindset and the fighting ethos of medieval man? I accept the battle-fury and 'victory' zealousness, but surely all of the wall would have been noted as 'fleeing' downhill, not just the right flank? And weren't these fyrdsmen hemmed in behind the front rank huscarls?

Anglo-Saxons:- "Lumbering about in pot-bellied equanimity"?

Guiscard, a member of my website (and who runs his own, Norman, message board)started off an interesting thread on his forum, which set me thinking- who uttered the infamous phrase that the Anglo-saxons would have been "Pot-bellied, amiable and drunk" as Michael Wood described in his 'In Search of the Dark Ages' series (1981)?

Some have suggested elsewhere that it was none other than Monty (General), whose disdain for the Anglo-Saxons was exceeded only by his ironic praise of the British fighting man.

But I think it was, inaccurately anyway in my view, uttered by Thomas Carlyle (d.1881), echoing John Milton's "The History of Britain" 1670 (in which he saw no Anglo-Saxon Golden Age, but just another unworthy people like the ancient Britons, who were "Progenitors not to be glori'd in"), saying;-

"A gluttonous race of Jutes and Angles, capable of no great combinations; lumbering about in pot-bellied equanimity; not dreaming of heroic toil and silence and endurance, such as leads to the high places of this Universe, and the golden mountain-tops where dwell the Spirits of the Dawn.

The most weighty adherent of the cataclysmic view was John Horace Round, who published his Feudal England in 1892. He approached the subject with all the apparatus of scholarship, and tackled it with profound learning.

In general, he believed that the Anglo-Saxons contributed little or nothing to Anglo-Norman England"

As I posted on Guiscard's forum;-

"I believe that this quote is way inaccurate historically and evidentially (is that a word?).

There was a hightly-efficient and complex system of Government and taxation in place long before 1066, which is why William kept the admin fellas in position.

As for the 'pot bellied/drunk', hinting at lazy, such an intricate and well-run society with a proud history of successful military Anglo-Saxon kings does not spring forth from indolent people."

Brunanburh, where was it fought?

Over 41 sites in mainland Britain have been proposed (listed in Hill's Age of Athelstan), ranging from Cornwall to Scotland, 20 in England alone.

Fought in 937ad between King Athelstan's 16,000 Wessex/Mercian army (numbers suggested by A.H.Burne) against an alliance of 18,000 Scots(under King Constantine); 'Britons' of Strathclyde(under King Owain); Irish and Jorvik Norsemen(under King Olaf Guthfrithsson) and most likely also some men from the isles and Northumbrian/Cumbrians.

The location of this colossal bloodbath has never been agreed upon by historians, various sites so far proposed have ranged from possibly 'Burnswark'(S.E of Lockerbie), to Bromborough/bebington on Merseyside. Others have suggested Bridgenorth, the SW of England or the Lancashire coast, which was settled by Norsemen after 902.

However, according to Smurthwaite;-
‘it seems inconceivable that the battle was fought north of the border, particularly if we accept that Olaf landed on the Humber.’
This may rule out any proposed sites more northerly than that river, as why would Olaf march NORTH to link up with his allies(Constantine heading south from 'Scotland' and Owain from Strathclyde)and march back in a southerly direction against Athelstan's advancing army- his northern-most boundary being around the Rotherham region- and where his father had recieved the submission of such foes only years before?). And it known that the allies did not penetrate deeply into Mercia, if at all.

Egil Skallagrimsson- an Icelandic poet/warrior in Athelstan's pay, who fought at the battle- states that the battlefield was described as having been fought on a heath between a large wood and a river, the river must have been on the left of the battlefield from the point of view of Athelstan's army, the wood their right, as it lined up against their foes. Hence the site of the battle should be sought on the east bank of a river that flows north/south or south/north on land belonging to the English.

Michael Wood, in his book 'In Search of England', makes the case for Brinsworth near Rotherham;-

...In the third part of In Search of England, Wood writes about places that illuminate interesting aspects of early England: Tinsley Wood, near Sheffield, which has been claimed as the site of Athelstan's great victory against the Celts in 937; ... . These are the places and events that offer a complementary version of the history that is discussed earlier in the book...


When John Porter in his ‘History of the Fylde of Lancashire’ recorded the find of hundreds of human bones on the River Wyre side at Burnaze between Thornton and Fleetwood, he mentioned that Burnaze was once called 'Brune'. With ancient maps also revealing the ‘Bergerode’ was also in this area.

However, this view does not take into account that when the Scots and 'Britons' fled the battlefield they would require a Roman road going north to take them back to Scotland. Only a lesser known Roman road between Manchester (Manacunium) and Carlisle provided that route.
Whilst the old ‘Bergerode’ between Fleetwood and Thornton would only lead them into the sea. Certainly no commander of Scots and Cumbrian Britons would put the sea between themselves and an escape route if they were compelled to initially arrive at the battle site by land.

In a Royal grant to Worcester, late in his reign (924-39) Athelstan himself refers to ‘Anlaf (Olaf) who tried to deprive me of both life and realm’ in 937.
The fact that the enemy “fell back” before Athelstan’s army prior to actual battle, suggests that they may have withdrawn to a site favourable to battle.

The Rotherham-Sheffield site suggested by Michael Wood, A.H.Burne and others is south of the confluence between the rivers Don and Rother (the latter snakes around White Hill), where there was a huge, strategic old Roman fort (during a “dark age Vietnam” as Wood says) on the top of White Hill near the old Roman road, called Brynesford in the DD Book of 1086.

In Anglo-Saxon times the fort at Templeborough (near Rotherham, a Roman fort built by the IV Gaul Cohort) was called Bruneswald or Brunesfort- the personal name of Brunan Burh, as M.Wood says, and –based upon Egil’s writings- he makes the case for Tinsley Forest (Tinsley is a district in the north-eastern part of Sheffield. Its name derives from the Old English Tingas-Leah, which means ‘Field of Council’. It is mentioned as ‘Tirneslawe’ or ‘Tineslawe’ in the Domesday Book of 1086 when it was in the possession of Roger de Busli.) being a landmark, now gone.

1066: Why did the fyrdsmen break rank from the shield wall?

The fyrdsmen that broke rank from the English shieldwall at Senlac, 14th October 1066- were they later arrivals who had not been present to hear King Harold's strict orders to hold formation at all costs?

We know from the sources that more Anglo-Saxons came trickling in from the southern shires throughout the day, as their king had bade them days before.

So, were the men who fatally broke rank due to their over-zealousness, 'late arrivals', or simply indisciplined amateurs whom the huscarls in front of them, couldn't halt?