Dan Snow's History Hit - Harold Godwinson: The Last Anglo-Saxon King

Episode Date: February 20, 2024

Dr Eleanor Janega and Matt Lewis uncover the stories of the protagonists and events that led up to the Battle of Hastings. There’s Harold Godwinson, the Anglo-Saxon Lord who became the king of a people only recently brought together; Harald Hardrada, a legendary Viking warrior seeking to rebuild the North Sea Empire to which he believes himself heir; and William the Conqueror, descended from pagan Vikings, now the Christian Duke of Normandy. The lives of millions of people for centuries to come will be inextricably linked to their actions in that fateful year of 1066.In this first episode, Eleanor finds out more about Harold Godwinson from Professor Levi Roach.This episode was produced by Rob Weinberg.Enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original documentaries that are released weekly and AD-FREE podcasts. Get a subscription for £1 per month for 3 months with code DANSNOW sign up at https://historyhit/subscription/We'd love to hear from you- what do you want to hear an episode on? You can email the podcast at [e-mail] can take part in our listener survey here.

This is History's Heroes. People with purpose, brave ideas, and the courage to stand alone. Including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us when I'm done with you. Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts. Hi everybody, welcome to Dan Snow's History. It is that time of the week when we play one of our sibling podcasts.

We have a whole family of podcasts that Team History hit, and one of our more successful ones is Gone Medieval, where Dr. Eleanor Janneger and Matt Lewis talk all about the Middle Ages. In this particular episode, they're going for the big one. They're uncovering the stories of the events of the people that led up to the Battle of Hastings in a little old year called 1066. It's a fateful year. It's endlessly fascinating. There's a whole season out on Gone Medieval. In the first episode of it, Eleanor finds out more about Harold Godwinson

from the excellent Professor Levi Roach. Enjoy. In the mists of the distant past, three roads lead to a meeting point. A single road leads away from it. At the junction sits a great prize. It offers wealth, power and entry into the history books. Three men drive their horses faster and harder along the three roads,

each determined to claim the prize for himself. There will be a collision and the prize will only be won in blood. From one road comes an Anglo-Saxon lord who has become the king of a people only recently brought together. From another, a Viking warrior of legendary stature seeking to rebuild the North Sea Empire to which he believes himself heir. The third is descended from pagan Vikings, now made Christian Frenchmen. The three warriors are Harold Godwinson,

Harold Hadrada and William the Conqueror. What none of them sees is the weight of the prize they seek. The lives of millions over centuries to come will be inextricably linked to the result of the clash these three men charge headlong into. The prize is England. The year is 1066. England will never be the same again. This is the story of Harold Godwinson.

At a base level, probably the thing that most people know about the Norman conquest is the fact that it was decided at the Battle of Hastings when King Harold was killed by William the Conqueror in 1066. It's an easy historical factoid, a date that rolls off the tongue quickly, and it's probably illustrated in your head, just like mine, with an image from the bayou tapestry of Harold with an arrow stuck in his eye. But just who was Harold Godwinson, other than an ill-fated, short-reigning king? Fundamentally, you don't manage to climb onto the throne of England, however briefly, unless you are somebody vaguely kingshape. Someone that the English can see as a

potential ruler. Someone to rally behind when successive waves of invasion and an all-out battle for the crown breaks out. I'm Dr. Eleanor Yonaga, and today on Gone Medieval from History Hit, I'm joined by Dr. Levi Roach to discuss none other than Harold Godwinson, son of England, skilled courtier, and the last of the old English kings. In order to understand the man himself, we'll consider Edward the Confessor, the king he succeeded, the position of England in the late 11th century, the power and prestige of his father, Godwin, the Earl of Wessex, and how conquest makes kingship a dangerous affair. We'll find that when it comes to ruling, there are no easy answers. And often, when it comes to kingship, the worst thing you can be is a decent person.

you can be is a decent person. Levi, thank you ever so much for coming along to see us. You're most welcome. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm really excited too, because today we're talking about Harold Godwinson. And I think that everyone kind of relates to him just as a guy who is shot in the eye with an arrow on the tapestry. This is kind of everyone's picture that lives in their head, and we know that he's the King of England. Well, who is he? That's a huge question to start the show off. Yes, as you say, he's remembered if he's remembered as a king as a failure,

or would have been tried really hard but failed at the last hurdle. But of course, when he makes his fateful bid for the kingship, and is almost successful in 1066, indeed for a while is successful, he's long been one of the leading magnates in England. So he's already a hugely important person in the British Isles, but indeed on a wider European stage. He's somebody who has had diplomatic dealings with Duke William of Normandy, who's been to Normandy, who has fought successfully against Welsh kings, who's been involved in the death of a Welsh monarch. So he's actually somebody who is very prominent and indeed is often seen as the kind of power behind the throne for many years before the death of Edward the Confessor, his immediate predecessor, and the kind of events that lead to that famous succession struggle. So would you say part of the way that we think about him is almost shadowed by Edward the Confessor as well? Because I think that everyone

has quite a positive historical view of Edward the Confessor. You know, oh, he's so pious. He's sort of held up as an ideal on a certain stage. But I think historians, we often have a dimmer view of him and say, oh, who's really doing all the work around here, perhaps. Indeed, certainly medieval opinions of Edward are very positive, because of course, he later is culted as a saint, and there's already moves towards this in his lifetime. And so that can rub off badly on Harold, depending upon your perspective, or certainly doesn't allow him to really shine through. But as you say, modern historians, particularly starting in about the 19th century, have often placed more emphasis on Harold as the person actually doing things. And particularly

in the 19th century, they tended to see Edward the Confessor as this kind of weakling who didn't produce an heir, and Harold as this rather more manly individual who a Victorian could identify with as what actually perhaps could or indeed should have been England's lost chance to remain under native rule, if you will. So he certainly has had people fight his corner, but often for kind of very specific reasons and with certain axes to grind. This is kind of one of the interesting things, I think, about this transition between Edward the Confessor and Harold Godwinson. You know, you have two modes of medieval kingship, you could almost say. You know, you have the quite pious, religiously focused one, where to a certain extent,

being very religious and not producing an heir for medieval people, it's like, oh, this is a great guy. He's really living up to what he should be doing from religious standpoints. But at the same time, it's also brilliant to be a well-connected courtier, to be involved in diplomatic circles. These are two very useful ways of meting out power in the medieval period. And there is the kind of modern tendency to want to say, no, you have to be the manly man, and then this is what we like. Yes, exactly. And there's quite rightly been some rehabilitation of Edward. The interesting thing, of course, is there's probably some connection there that Edward does during his reign famously try to separate from his wife, who of course is Harold's sister. And what blocks him is the

Godwinson family and the power behind the throne. So one of the reasons why he can't do what most medieval monarchs, a Henry VIII would do in this situation, get rid of one wife, move on to the next, and so on, is because he doesn't have enough power to overrule all of the native magnates, and his wife is, if you will, a representative of the most powerful bloc at court. So he is in this difficult scenario where his later apologists spin this as being this very good thing. Of course, he stuck with his wife because he didn't want to separate from her. And indeed, they led this chaste life and, in fact, did not have intercourse. Clearly, he did, in fact, try to have heirs with her. It didn't work out.

And then he tries to indeed separate with her, probably with an eye to a future marriage with someone else. But Harold's having none of that, not least since his power and influence at court is dependent, in part, upon having the Queen as a member of his family. And of course, if Edward has any heirs, they then are lined up for the succession, which is fine if they're his sister's children. He's on board for that, but somebody else's children, different family, no, over my dead body, indeed, is very much the line that he, his father, his brothers take on the Assia. So what do we know about his family then? Because he's not just a man out of nowhere. This is a

really smart and well-connected bunch of people. We've got the queen involved there, but at the time your sister gets on the throne, there's been machinations going on from a parental standpoint well before this. So what are we looking at in terms of dynastic representation, I suppose? We're looking at Harold, famously being known as Harold Godwinson, that is the son of Godwin or Godwinna, who is the kind of real dynastic founder. And he is the leading example, if you will, of a group that rises to power in England under the Danish conqueror Canute, who takes over from Æthelred the Unready. If you wish it massively simplified, there's the traditional West Saxon-English royal line, their ruling, it's all

going fairly well. It stops going so well under Æthelred, lots of Viking attacks, eventually the Danes conquer and Canute is now king. And Canute needs to promote new favourites. So he introduces Danes into the ruling elite, but also promotes new favourites from, if you will, the run just below the highest aristocracy, so people who will owe their loyalty to him. And Godwin is of a family probably from Sussex, who we know had in fact fallen out with Æthelred in his later years, was part of a more dissident faction aligned with some of Æthelred's own sons, and so he's a perfect candidate. On the one hand, he's from a traditional English family, so he can give a degree of authority and legitimacy to Canute as a conqueror. He knows the way things work in England. But on the other hand, he owes Canute his position as a truly leading light. And so Godwin ends up being promoted time Canute dies, Godwin is already the most

influential person at court, and that over time tends to increase. There are some blips, he is opposed by certain other groups, but he is a very good and slick operator, and even when Edward the Confessor, who's the son of Æthelred, is of that line who he and his family traditionally opposed, comes back to the throne, it's very much at their toleration and as part of an accommodation with them, which is why Edward marries Godwin's daughters. So he is one of these hugely influential people. They own lands all over England and their power base crucially is in the south, which are the traditional royal heartlands around what we know is called Wessex. So the kind of southwest, also in their case, the southeast around Sussex. These are areas like around Winchester, hugely wealthy and important, but also symbolically significant

centres. What are we looking at when we talk about the Kingdom of England? So, you know, you have really important places like Winchester, you know, you have all of these conglomerations of power, but it's not just, oh, well, here's a bunch of English people being most English, you know, you have rather a lot of immigrants of different types. You have rather a lot of disparate power groups across the kingdom, no? Yes. On the one hand, you have a kingdom that has by this point achieved a fairly high degree of centralisation, is very much a coherent entity. So by 1060, nobody's thinking they can split England naturally in half, anything other than on a temporary basis or something like that. So very much as a kingdom, you either control all of, or you don't control. And geographically, it looks a lot like modern England. However,

it is a very recent creation, as there are all sorts of fissures in it, particularly a major north-south divide, but also something of a middle and south divide. So it's a kingdom that's been founded by a dynasty from the south, and particularly in fact the South to South West in Wessex, so around centres like Winchester but also by later years very prominent around places like London. So these are where these people are based and regularly moving. They're much less present in the Midlands, and once you get up to places like Yorkshire it's much more loose overlordship. So you've got varying degrees of power and control that are focused on the south. And then you also have other immigrant groups. So particularly, you've had a number of Danes and Scandinavians introduced to the ruling elite under Canute.

And that's how Harold, for example, gets his name. Harold is not an English name. It's a Danish name. And it's a name that's given to him because his father has married into a Danish family. And of course, that's's given to him because his father has married into a Danish family. And of course, that's the direction of travel under someone like Knut. So it's actually a time when you want to burnish your Scandinavian or Anglo-Scandinavian credentials. He has a brother called Swain. That again is not an English name. That's the name of Knut's father. So they're very much a family moving in this multilingual world, multicultural world. Crucially, though,

they are part of that block that has been brought in by Cnutin, that is looking towards Scandinavia, naturally, for alliance and for other interests. Whereas the major other group that we get at court under Edward the Confessor, that's relatively new, is when he is coming in, he wants to promote new favourites. He's spent most of his life before he's king in exile in Normandy, which is where his mother was from. And so he is busy introducing Norman magnates wherever he can. There is already some Normans and Frenchmen around in England, but the numbers increase notably under him. And so it's in his interest to get those kinds of individuals that owe him loyalty in as many positions of power and influence as possible, whereas the Godwinsons are typically trying to hold out for elements aligned with Canute and that kind of Anglo-Danish cultural political world.

Would you say this is kind of like the political position that they see themselves in? You know, they're somewhere between Normans and the Danes. I suppose it's something that we don't think of as a natural block now, but it makes perfect sense in a world where traveling by boat, that's how you get around the fastest. And England is very well positioned in between these very wealthy, very powerful kingdoms, and it's a kind of natural stepping off point. So, I mean, is anyone else kind of paying as much attention to England, I suppose, is my question, as the Normans and Danes are? Or, you know, do we have other kind of factions that are involved?

There are main ones. This is very much a world in which river and boat and sea transport is, if dangerous, still much quicker and easier. So certainly southern England is much more tied into the world of northern France and the Low Countries than it is to northern England in many respects. So it is quite natural that England should attract these interests, and crucially, Knut's conquest shows this is possible. So when someone like William the Future Conqueror is sitting in Normandy wondering whether or not he can or should do this, he and his relatives have seen it done in living memory. They know absolutely. So it's not only the Danes and the Swedes and the Norwegians who are looking over thinking, hey, this has been done before, we know

this. The Normans absolutely know this has been done before, we know this. The Normans absolutely know this, not least since, of course, they are themselves of Scandinavian descent and have connections to Scandinavia of their own. So there is very much that wider awareness. There aren't a large number of groups other than those powers that have the kind of naval capabilities to be considering this. The only other really big group are the Counts of Flanders, who you'd want to consider here, and William the Conqueror,

crucially, is married into their family. So that's how he's got them on side. But there are the other individuals who sometimes are interested in this, or the Counts of Boulogne, who end up aligned with the Conqueror for the conquest, but sometimes later have frosty relations. So other northern French powers are aware of that potential, eyeing it up a bit, but the conqueror for the most part manages to corner that element, get them on his side. When we're also looking at, you know, who's eyeing up England, now we kind of think, oh, this is a natural thing of like, of course, you would wish to conquer England. But what are we kind of looking at in terms of what this offers you, other than just, you know, being able to say,

hi, I'm the king of England. Aren't I quite fancy? You know, is it at the same time as we kind of see in the high medieval period, you know, this is a fantastic place where you can grow wool, or is there sort of more to it than that? There's almost certainly a significant element of that. So the strong trade with philanders into wool production there already exists. It's hard to know the precise scale, ever the difficulty when we move into the early Middle

Ages. We certainly know they're doing it already, but whether or not it's on a comparable scale or how much it's growing thereafter are open questions. What we certainly can say is England is economically wealthy and is very desirable. It's also politically quite centralized and unified, and that also makes it desirable so it is a place you can conquer outright in a way that you can't say wales or scotland or southern italy those kinds of places end up being a kind of early medieval vietnam whereas england can be a blitzkrieg if you will you conquer it defeat the monarch take over that's what knut's already done that's what the conqueror aims to do and succeeds in doing. So there is also that awareness that because of that,

it can be a really good cash cow. You can corner it and then you don't even necessarily have to spend a lot of time there. Canute spends long periods of time away. So absentee rulership has been seen, has been practiced, can be achieved. It's again what the conqueror does once he establishes his rule there. So people are well aware of those kinds of benefits. I think the other crucial element is perhaps more one of authority and ideology. If we're looking at the people lining up to conquer England, they are either not kings, emphatically in the case of someone like William of Normandy, or someone like a Harold Hardrada. Yes, they are monarchs and they claim to kingship, but they're ruling kingdoms that are much smaller, less wealthy, and crucially less well-established on a kind of pan-European stage. So England is one of those kind of great established kingdoms comparable to a France or a Germany.

If you are monarch of there, you are rubbing shoulders with the absolute top notch. Canute goes to the coronation of Conrad II as Holy Roman Emperor. This is the kind of doors it opens. Whereas if you're King of Denmark, you're going to be treated as a decided step down by monarchs of France, Germany, England. Even if you're highly successful militarily, potentially highly effective politically, you're not quite of that elite club, if you will. So I think it also is offering these individuals membership to a club that otherwise is barred to them. Yeah, so there's kingship and there's kingship, right?

Exactly. It's all well and good if you can call yourself a king, but it doesn't matter, I suppose. But I think also it's really testament. And what you just said sort of alludes to this, and to the fact how well set up England was as a kingdom that you can conquer it. What makes it difficult to conquer Southern Italy or Wales is just sort of, well, to this and to the fact how well set up England was as a kingdom that you can conquer it. What makes it difficult to conquer Southern Italy or Wales is just sort of, well, who is in charge here, right? There's all these tiny little bits and pieces. But what we're looking at, I think, in terms of, you know, you can't call it statecraft because it's not a state, it's a kingdom. But

this is a pretty good bureaucratic regime that kings have going. You know, I always say that, well, if you can topple a government in the Middle Ages, that means that they had it going, right? Like, that means that they had, like, power centralized, right? Exactly. And it's, in fact, as you say, it's probably one of the best parts of Europe to achieve that in, that there are relatively few places you could conquer quite so easily, because England has, on the one hand, the political unification, which has been aided and abetted by geographical features as well as a kind of a lack of political atomization. So fairly low land, rolling hills at worst, no great obstacles to movement really of large forces or things like that. So it really does allow that in a way that Italy, you can do that with

perhaps parts of France or Germany, but not the whole French kingdom, probably not even the whole German kingdom. It would be building blocks of them, individual duchies or principalities would be the closest thing. Someone like the Normandy itself, you could hypothetically conquer outright, but there are relatively few places, particularly on a scale of England and on a level of wealth of England. So I suppose circling right back, we've got an incredibly wealthy, well put together kingdom that people know you can attack and take over. We've got a bunch of people sort of eyeing it up. But we've alluded to this. So Harold Goblinson himself,

he's a very well-connected courtier, brother of the Queen. We know that obviously Edward the Confessor dies without issue. And so here's Harold to kind of step into the void. What makes that possible? You have a power vacuum and here's Harold. What makes him the man for that hour?

The crucial thing with Edward's reign is the question of the succession is burning from the start. He's in his 40s when he becomes monarch. He has no wife and children. He marries. That's urgent and needed. He marries into the most powerful local family that gets him support. He has a child and it's basically all set. Then the Godwinsons are on board.

They have no reason to oppose him, even though he's been historically of a different faction because hey he's their ticket to having their own offspring on the throne everyone's happy the problem is they don't have children and it becomes clear relatively quickly that they won't for obvious reasons then the godwinsons try to block him doing anything else so his next move is to try to get rid of her marry again. Godwinsons won't allow it. It does lead to a rebellion and all sorts of complex politics, but in the end, he's blocked from doing that. So that is the moment at which then the question becomes pressing, what else can he do? So he probably reaches out to Duke William of Normandy. We don't know if any firm promises are made, but almost certainly does reach out in 1052 during

the rebellion of the Godwinson's, and is putting out feelers there, at least, and that's probably where at least the idea is planted for Normandy. What he then seems to fall back on is the idea of bringing over some of his extended kindred. One of his half-brothers, Æthelred the Under-Eddy, has many sons. One of his half-brothers had sons who went over into exile. He has, through that, if you will, and it's his nephew, and his nephew has a son, and they're based in Hungary. So he brings them over. And if they come over and all goes well, that again potentially fixes the problem for him. There's a good dynastic claim, he can probably get people on board. The Godwinsons aren't probably

going to love this too much, but they might have no other option and just need to go with it and ensure that they've got as much power as they can. But crucially, he never meets this nephew. Nephew arrives in England and dies before meeting him. He does have a son. That's the good thing. That's one of the good reasons for inviting him. But the son, when Edward finally dies, is only in his teens and has not had much of a chance to establish connections in England. And so the most recent scholarship on Edward the Confessor suggests that he consistently, actually in those later years, is trying to lump for the succession of that group, as it were. It's always been thought that eventually he reconciles himself to Harold Godwinson and throws up his arms in disgust and says, I can't do anything else. But there's some interesting indications that actually he throughout is still trying to get this group on, but he just doesn't live long enough.

So he's already now in his 60s in ill health. And crucially, he dies then at a point when England is already being threatened. William's increasingly looking to it. His own brother is in rebellion, Toste, and is then aligning himself with the Norwegian monarch, Harold Hardrada. All of these things are happening, as it were, and Harold is by far the wealthiest man in England after the king, arguably more powerful and influential already. So he's the obvious candidate, and he's been doing everything he can to ensure that this will indeed be the case. Now, the crucial thing is, if Edward the Confessor was still trying for the succession of his nephew's line and his son, which he probably was, then what Harold does is a coup, really. And that probably is why it opens quite so much to then external interference.

And it also explains the haste. Anglo-Saxon monarchs historically, so in pre-conquest English monarchs, don't normally get themselves crowned right after the previous ones died. They can issue charters, they can rule without being crowned. That all changes with ideas of the Norman conquest, but they have no problem with delaying their coronation six months, a year, nine months, still a nice convenient time, nice weather, we all want to have a party. Harold has himself elected and crowned within a day of Edward's death, possibly even at the same funeral service.

So this is unheard of an undue haste. It's creating a fait accompli. So the crucial thing for him is when Edward dies, Harold's on the spot. He is literally at court. He is the most powerful man at court. He's able to very quickly marshal the forces, get himself elected, get himself crowned. And the idea is this will see any other contenders off. And it works within England. They realise nobody else can stop it, nobody else is as powerful as him, and if it weren't for William and Harold Hardrada, or indeed perhaps only William really, given he defeats Harold Hardrada, he'd get away with it. This is History's Heroes.

People with purpose, brave ideas, and the courage to stand alone. Including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us when I'm done with you. Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts. I love all of these signifiers of kingship. You know, like, what does a king do in order to say, hi, everyone, I'm the king? And this does sort of two things. On the one hand, this man's been crowned, that's the king. But it does look sweaty. Who's getting crowned at a funeral? You know, that's shocking behavior, really. So he does two things. It's

like, yeah, you can absolutely say, well, here, we've had the ceremony. God has seen it. He's seen my hat. You know, here I am. I'm the king. But it certainly belies, I think, a real desperation to actually get this settled. Indeed, and the very fact that it's happening in Westminster is interesting and significant. Edward's rebuilt this, but this is the first time a king has been crowned in Westminster. Traditionally, at least for the West Saxon royal line, where you get crowned is Kingston-upon-Thames. Now, this has probably been disrupted a bit by Danish conquest and other things like that, but Westminster absolutely isn't the place. It isn't a hugely important place till Edward the Confessor's reign, but it is the Confessor's

huge project of his later years that, again, when he knows he's having no heirs, he throws all of his money, effort and interest into his eternal legacy and Westminster. And so Harold is crowned there. It nicely underlines continuity with the previous regime, but it actually is in other ways a break with tradition that again is suggesting this, let's not wait any longer before voices of dissent can be heard. And it's probably actually that moves of Harold's in part that lead to what becomes the traditional central medieval English approach to coronation, which is you absolutely must be crowned before you can be real king and monarch, English approach to coronation, which is you absolutely must be crowned before you can be real king and monarch, because Harold is trying to stake his kingship. He needs every additional

ounce of legitimacy and authority. And then, of course, so does the conqueror, because he's just a Norman duke who's come over and beat up the previous king. He's claiming to be the legitimate heir as well. He's a distant relative of him, but realistically, might has made right. And again, he needs and wants every additional buttress for his rule and then thereafter it becomes a tradition and then for monarchs in the future then it's of course you have to be crowned and consecrated before you can be a proper king but hitherto it's been much more of a confirmation of an existing status this is an interesting point as well i think this idea of might making right you know because essentially that's what harold

does right it's like well i, well, I'm the richest. I'm the one who's got all of the men. I'm here right now. Here we go. But that does sort of open the door if you're not English. If we're saying, oh, it's just whoever's got the most men and is here, it settles the question, I suppose, in England, but in a more broad context, it almost opens a door, right?

Exactly. It is something of a gift to anybody else who wants to do it. Harold may well be almost certainly is thinking of, hey, Canute came over and took the kingdom. I, at least in fact, am already here and a part of the previous regime. I have an even better claim. I am loosely related to Canute and that family and that faction. Why not me? But of course, then for Harold Hardrada, why not me? And for William the Conqueror, indeed, why not me? Edward was my relative. He did reach out to me. We did at least have some vague chats, and particularly for William,

where we can see more of the texts that are being produced around his court, mostly a bit later, but we can surmise some of the discussions going on there. It does seem to have been essential to his recruiting strategy. Hey, look, there's the usurper. He's taken my kingdom. And particularly if everybody really does know, and indeed even people in England know, it's been a bit shoddy. It's been a bit dodgy. It absolutely plays into his hands. You know, it's quite interesting because I have some sympathy, I think, for Harold around this, because if you're going to make this play, I don't know what he would have done differently, really. You know, if it was me, I think I probably would have gone in full steam ahead in the same way. But it's just all

these kind of knock-on effects. And all you can know is the context that you're in and kind of roll the dice and hope for the best. Because if he delayed, I think you would have had the same thing, probably, from outside interests. Yeah, it's very hard to know. I think his best other option might have been, and the great historical what-if is, what if he potentially backs Edgar the Atheling? That is the other remaining scion of the legitimate Wessexian dynasty. Does William then try his hand? Quite possibly, but perhaps not. Does Harold Hardrada? That's the imponderables here. His best bet then is to secure himself by being almost first to support Edgar, to then be the power behind the throne for this young teenager. But the risk is, of course, Edgar is going to get older. And what's he going

to do in the longer term? And the first group he's going to want to square off against at some point and reduce their power and influence are going to be the Godwinson. You're right, in terms of personal power and influence, his best bet is to go big and hope for the best. And he goes big, and internally there is no immediate unrest, no immediate strong opposition, whatever uncertainties there may have been. The groups that evade do not immediately gain lots of local support. He defeats Harold Hardrada, and he comes within a whisker of defeating the conqueror. If he wins the Battle of Hastings, or indeed, if he doesn't offer battle, he almost certainly remains king and wins the war. That's a hard one as well, right? Because especially fresh off of defeating Harold Hadrata, of course, you're kind of feeling, well, we're

ready to go. We're ready to rock, you know? And it is understandable from a medieval standpoint, just again, rolling the dice and just going in for military campaigns. He's clearly fairly good at this, but we have the benefit of hindsight, right? You know, we can always like look at all of these sliding doors and say, oh yeah, well, there's your problem. But I think when you're in the midst of it, it's a lot more difficult to kind of make a decision. Yeah. And I think it's easy for us to underestimate the pressures people are under that I think in some ways medieval politics is quite different from modern, but in other ways, not so different. If you're at the top, lots of people are constantly clamoring for your attention and wanting you to do things and fix things. That's your job as king. And again, if you're a new king, you need to be seen to be doing this stuff. And so one of the dangers for him certainly is, if he's just letting William ravage the countryside, he's not exactly doing a great job protecting his people and showing himself to be a truly kingly king, particularly for anybody who might have some doubts as to his royal pedigree, shall we say. So you can see why

he would be tempted to run with those who want him to oppose William in battle. He's just won this massive victory, as you mentioned as well. He's buoyed up. I've just risked a lot and won a lot. Why not again? Another factor may well be his family hailing from Sussex and that some of the lands that William is devastating are quite possibly and probably old family lands. so an additional perhaps emotional desire to protect his own homeland and areas he particularly strongly personally identifies with. But certainly in hindsight that is, I think, the one big mistake he makes in those years. All of the others probably could be successful, but that's the really high risk one where you're wondering, why did you do

this? Because William wants battle, William needs battle, he can't win England without defeating Harold, and it's late in the campaign season. He desperately wants a decisive battle. And normally when you're defending, that's not what you want unless you're very confident you can win it. I suppose I can see his standpoint. I can see, you know, if it's your cousins yelling at you, you know, you have everybody clamoring for your attention, sure, but it's a different thing when it's your actual family. And they're saying, there's French people all over my backyard, you know, like, what are you going to do about this? Yeah, exactly. And he's probably hoping to achieve what he did when he fought Harold Hardrada, which is to get up there so quickly that he caught them off guard. Harold

Hardrada isn't ready for the English to arrive, and they do, and completely wrong foot him. And he's almost certainly hoping he can do the same, because he's marched south really fast himself, gathered fresh forces, and his big gamble is probably that the Conqueror doesn't think he'll get there that quickly. In fact, although the Conqueror wants battle to a certain extent on his own terms, or at least when he's ready for it, and Harold's kind of hoping he can catch him with his trousers down, but he doesn't. So here's a fun one for you. You know, if we're going to talk about the three main claimants here, the two Harold's and William, who would you be backing? Who's your horse? I must admit, Heraldy, to not having a strong emotional attachment to all in the sense that

I'm not sure any were particularly nice human beings. Not many medieval monarchs were, but particularly ones who are actually successful medieval magnates tend not to be very nice individuals for all sorts of reasons. But actually, I must admit, certainly Harold is my guy. You have to lump for one of those three. He knows the English political system. What evidence we have of his rule suggests it's relatively consensual. It's quite successful. He understands how things work. Under William, it's a complete bloodbath. William's impressively successful, but he is an absolute megalomaniac who will stop at nothing to achieve what he wants to achieve. And William cares about William. I'm not sure Harold cares a lot more than his family, but he does care a bit more than about Harold, I think.

So maybe that makes him marginally better. And I think that some hints perhaps are not actually offering battle there of care for his people and things like that. It would be hard to know that without seeing more of his reign and getting a sense of that developing. But there are at least enough hints that he might have been at some level a caring monarch and willing to compromise when required. But there's no doubt he could be hard-edged and a bit of a bastard too. You're such a man after my own heart. I'm always the same. I'm like, well, I hate all kings, but who's going to do the least amount of damage? Of three bad options, Harold was probably the least worst option.

Of course, England got the worst option. That's what I would say. I think William's the worst, worst option. Absolutely. It's like, ugh. William changes England in all sorts of fascinating ways and does things that are obviously hugely important for its future.

But yes, seeing them as any kind of unalloyed good and a kind of old-fashioned Victorian good thing is problematic at best, shall we say. Levi, thank you so much for coming to chat with me about this. It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for having me on. Thanks for listening. And thank you so much to Levi for joining me. This has been Gone Medieval from History Hit. And if you've liked what you've heard, don't forget to rate, review, follow the podcast and tell your friends about it.

As always, Matt will be back on Friday and I'll see you again next Tuesday to do the same. This is History's Heroes. People with purpose, brave ideas, and the courage to stand alone. Including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us when I'm done with you. Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts.