Chapter VIII: Appendix: NOTE A. The Authority of the Bayeux Tapestry 563

B. Eadward’s Bequest of the Crown to Harold 576

C. The Election of Harold 597

D. The Coronation of Harold 612

E. The Ancient Coronation Office 622

F. The Date of the Marriage of Harold and Ealdgyth 625

G. The Character of Harold’s Government 627

H. The Coinage of Harold 631

I. The Opposition of Northumberland to Harold’s Accession 632

K. The Political Position of the Lady Eadgyth 635

L. The Affairs of the Abbey of Ely at the time of
Harold’s Accession 636

M. The Comet of 1066 640

N. The Marriage of William and Matilda 645

O. The Children of William and Matilda 658

P. The Revolt of William Busac 662

Q. The Revolt of William of Arques 664

R. The Bequest of Eadward to William and the Oath of
Harold 667

S. The Ælfgyva of the Bayeux Tapestry 696

T. The Breton Campaign of William and Harold 700

U. The Embassies exchanged between William and Harold 701

W. William’s Councils and Negotiations 703

X. The Movements of Tostig after his Banishment 708

Y. Arnold of Ardres 713

Z. The Death of Conan 714

AA. The Operations of the English Fleet in 1066 716

BB. The March of Harold to York 718

CC. The Details of the Battle of Stamfordbridge 720

DD. William’s Ravages in Sussex 728

EE. Names of Englishmen at Senlac 729

FF. The Dates of the Events between the two Great Battles 732

GG. The Messages between Harold and William 733

HH. The English Numbers at Senlac 740

II. The Miraculous Warning given to Harold before the
Battle 742

KK. The Details of the Battle of Senlac 743

LL. Ralph of Norfolk 751

MM. The Burial of Harold 754

NN. Eadgyth Swanneshals 763

OO. The Ætheling Eadgar 766

PP. The Submission at Berkhampstead 767

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.

p. 6, l. 14. For “boy,” here and in one or two other places, it would be safer to say “young.” On Eadgar’s probable age see p. 766.

p. 37, l. 14, for “among all the Kings whose tombs are gathered together” read “among all the tombs of Kings which are gathered together.”

p. 52, p. 24, and p. 53, note 1. I see that, when I wrote this, I had not fully seen my way to the true history of the two East-Anglian Ralphs. The Staller died soon after Eadward’s death, and his son, the future Earl, was banished. See Appendix LL.

p. 55, note 2, for “amplori” read “ampliori.”

p. 118, l. 13. Bishop Hugh had a son named Roger, “Rogerius Hugonis Episcopi filius.” See the Trinity Cartulary at Rouen, pp. 442, 443.

p. 133, note 1, for “sur” read “tur.”

p. 135, l. 2. On Nithard’s birth and his father’s works at Saint Riquier, see also Nithard’s own History, iv. 5.

p. 136, note 4, add “Ord. Vit. 504 A.”

p. 139, note 2, for “armatura” read “armaturæ.”

p. 156, note 3, after “the war” read “took place.”

p. 179, note 2, for “ut pote” read “utpote.”

p. 183, l. 5, for “we presently find” read “we shall presently find,” and l. 13, for “the” read “their.”

p. 190, note 3, for “Fulko” read “Fulco.”

p. 195, last side-note, for “1061” read “1051.”

p. 224, note 1. Guy had two children, Ivo, who was at Senlac (see p. 499, note 4), and Agnes, wife of Robert of Belesme, who succeeded him. It should be noticed that in the Tapestry, pl. 4, he rides on a mule.

p. 227, l. 12. I now feel very little doubt that Harold’s marriage happened after his coronation, at the time of his journey to York.

p. 234, note 1, for “makes” read “puts.”

p. 244, l. 5 from the bottom. I here meant William of Poitiers, who makes no mention of the marriage in his direct account of the oath, though he afterwards takes it for granted in an incidental allusion. See pp. 687, 701.

p. 247, side-note, for “into breach” read “into a breach.”

p. 264, note 1, put a sign of interrogation after “permittere.”

p. 266, l. 7 from bottom. The case of Ralph of Norfolk as a possible exception is to be borne in mind.

p. 276, l. 7, for “looked upon as, wherever” read “looked upon, as wherever.”

p. 312, l. 6 from bottom. On the relations between William and Eustace see p. 748.

p. 343, l. 4, for “Northern King” read “a Northern King.”

p. 363, l. 11, for “smite” read “strike.”

p. 377, note 1. I ought here to have quoted Orderic’s fuller estimate of William of Poitiers and of Guy of Amiens (503 D); “De cujus [Guillelmi Regis] probitate, et eximiis moribus ac prosperis eventibus et strenuis admirandisque actibus Guillelmus Pictavinus, Lexoviensis Archidiaconus, affluenter tractavit, et librum polito sermone et magni sensûs profunditate præclarum edidit. Ipse siquidem prædicti Regis Capellanus longo tempore exstitit, et ea quæ oculis suis viderit et quibus interfuerit longo relatu vel copioso indubitanter enucleare studuit, quamvis librum usque ad finem Regis adversis casibus impeditus perducere nequiverit. Guido etiam Præsul Ambianensis metricum carmen edidit, quo Maronem et Papinium gesta heroum pangentes imitatus Senlacium bellum descripsit, _Heraldum vituperans et condemnans, Guillermum verò collaudans et magnificans_.” This is at least as true of the Archdeacon as it is of the Bishop.

p. 383, note 1. The charter of Roger of Montgomery is a grant to the Trinity monastery at Rouen. Another grant of the same date to the same monastery I have mentioned, as bearing on another point in the history, in p. 717. In p. 451, on the same cartulary, we find the donation of a companion of William, who seems to have been mortally wounded or worn out in the campaign; “Eâ tempestate quâ Guillelmus, Dux Normannorum egregius, cum classico apparatu ingentique exercitu Anglorum terram expetiit, quidam miles, nomine Osmundus de Bodes, cum aliis illuc profectus, et languore correptus atque ad extrema perductus, pro animæ suæ remedio, dedit Sanctæ Trinitati omnem decimam terræ suæ in alodio,” &c.

p. 384, l. 8 from bottom. On William’s possible precautions with regard to Maine, see p. 683.

p. 428, note 2, for “mere” read “more.”

p. 433, note 1, for “Chronicles” read “Chronicle.”

p. 445, l. 5, dele “threefold.”

p. 458, note, for “adjuventur congruum,” read “adjuventur, congruum.”

p. 466, note 4. On _compater_ see Earle, Parallel Chronicles, p. 318. What a gap between this use of the word and the Sedition of the Ciompi.

p. 467, note. On the origin of Ælfgifu the wife of Ælfgar, see p. 699, and vol. ii. p. 629.

p. 472, l. 12. On placing the inferior troops in the rear, see the tactics of Eadmund at Sherstone, vol. i. p. 424.

p. 474, note 1, for “συμβουλύοις” read “συμβουλεύοις.”

p. 476, note 2. Cf. vol. i. p. 577.

p. 477, l. 14, read, “at the eastern corner of the hill, where the present road from Hastings enters the town of Battle.”

p. 483, l. 1. Cf. the account of the danger of Severus at the battle of Lyons, Dion. lxxv. 6; αὐτὸς τὸν ἵππον ἀποβαλὼν ἐκινδύνευσεν, ὡς δὲ εἶδε φεύγοντας πάντας τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ, τὴν χλαμύδα περιῥῤηξάμενος καὶ τὸ ξίφος σπασάμενος, ἐς τοὺς φεύγοντας εἰςεπήδησεν ὅπως ἢ αἰσχυνθέντες ὑποστρέψωσιν ἢ καὶ αὐτὸς αὐτοῖς συναπόληται. So Ælius Spartianus, Severus, 11; “Ingens periculum equi casu adiit, ita ut mortuus ictu plumbeæ crederetur.”

p. 486, l. i. On the sword, see p. 749.

p. 491, l. 2 from bottom, _dele_ “with a slight inclination of the ground in their favour.”

p. 511, note 1. I accept this implied statement of Florence that the son of Harold and Ealdgyth was named Ulf, rather than the other statement in the “Genealogia Regum West-Saxonum” (Thorpe, i. 276), which gives him the name of his father; “Haroldus ... de Reginâ Aldgithâ, Comitis Ælfgari filiâ, habuit filium Haroldum;” though this passage is a strong confirmation of my conjecture in p. 764 that Harold’s other sons were children of Eadgyth Swanneshals. I cannot help thinking that the statement of William of Malmesbury (iv. 329) that Magnus of Norway in his expedition to Anglesey was accompanied by a “Haroldus, filius Haroldi Regis quondam Angliæ,” is a confusion, arising perhaps from the description in Florence of Magnus himself, as a grandson of Harold Hardrada. No such person appears in the account in Florence or Orderic (768), and the Chronicle simply calls the invaders “utwikingas.”

p. 527, note 2. On the other hand the Legend of Siward (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, ii. 111) expressly denies that Waltheof was at Senlac; “Comes Waldevus non interfuit conflictui quum Dux Willelmus Bastardus Anglos oppressit et devicit.” The conflicting authorities are about equally worthless.

p. 533, last line. On the physical changes along this coast, see Earle, Parallel Chronicles, 315–317.

p. 539, note 1. This legend is doubtless the same as the legend of Birnam Wood coming to Dunsinane.

p. 543, note 3. Another provision of the same kind for the Housecarls is found at Dorchester in Dorsetshire, Domesday, 75.

p. 557, last line. Why did William have a new crown made? One would have thought that he would have made a special point of being crowned with the crown which had been worn by Eadward. Was it held to be desecrated by the irregular coronation of Harold?

p. 607, l. 11 from bottom, for “thirteenth” read “twelfth.”

p. 620, l. 11 from bottom, after “takes its place,” add “Harold the First seems to have been crowned at Oxford, Harthacnut at Canterbury; Eadward was crowned at Winchester, perhaps at Canterbury also.”

p. 624, l. 20. See also Depping, Expeditions Maritimes des Normands, i. 216; Pearson, Early and Middle Ages, i. 188. Depping’s speculations are amusing enough, though he does not go quite so deep as Ménard.

p. 641, l. 15. To these German accounts add Annales Wirziburgenses (Pertz, ii. 245), “A. 1066. Cometa videtur; et Anglia a Normannis subjicitur,” and Annales Besuenses (ii. 249), “A. 1066. Stella cometes apparuit, et eo anno Rex Anglorum Haroaldus occiditur.”

p. 660, l. 9 from bottom. See p. 703.

p. 668, l. 4, for “fratuelis” read “fratruelis.”

p. 670, l. 14, for “need” read “accept.”

p. 684, l. 18. It is a charter to Westminster, quoted by Ellis, i. 312.

p. 685, l. 3 from bottom. For another oath taken “supra philacteria reliquiarum,” see Dudo, 126 C.

p. 694, l. 11 from bottom. Yet compare the strange statement of the Encomiast (see vol. i. p. 454) about the Æthelings Eadward and Ælfred being sent into Normandy for education.

p. 709, l. 9. I ought not to have called “Ordericus Angligena” a “foreign writer,” but he wrote in a foreign country, and from a foreign point of view. For all these purposes he counts as a Norman writer.

p. 714, l. 19. “Ernulfus” or “Arnulfus de Hesding” occurs also as a large landowner in Wiltshire, Domesday, 66, 69 _b_, and in other counties.

p. 730, l. 24. I know not whether I ought to have added to my list two other Hampshire Thegns of small estate, Eadnoth and Eadwig, who appear in the same page of Domesday; “Sudberie tenuerunt Ednod et Edui in alodius de Rege E. et post mortem ejus ipsi quoque sunt mortui. Quidam vero proximus eorum Cola redemit terram de Willelmo Comite.” This does not positively show that Eadnoth and Eadwig died at Senlac, but the time of their death and the apparent confiscation of their lands look like it.

p. 731, l. 23. Several curious personal details of Godric will be found in Domesday, 57 _b_, 58, 149.

p. 736, l. 2, for “six” read “twelve.”

p. 738, l. 6, for “in vigiles” read “invigiles.”

p. 745, l. 11. Sir Edward Creasy, in his lately published History of England (i. 208), shows a better understanding of the ground than most modern writers.

p. 748, l. 7 from bottom. One or other of these stories about Eustace, it is hard to see which, seems to be darkly alluded to by William of Malmesbury (iii. 244). After mentioning how William had three horses killed under him (see p. 485, note 2), he adds, “Perstitit tamen magnanimi Ducis et corpus et animus, quamvis familiari susurro a custodibus corporis revocaretur; perstitit, inquam, donec victoriam plenam superveniens nox infunderet.”

p. 750, l. 3 from bottom. Thomas Wikes, in the opening of his history, ingeniously rolls together several accounts, and makes altogether short work of the battle. “In primo conflictu totum pondus prœlii conversum est in Regem, qui coxâ prope nates pene præcisâ, letaliter vulneratus post modicum tempus interiit. Compertâ Regis morte dilapsus est ejus exercitus, fere omnibus qui fugere non poterant interfectis.” This reminds one of a passage of William of Malmesbury, which I ought to have quoted elsewhere. After his description of the battle, which he certainly makes out to have been hard fought enough, he goes on to make his celebrated comparison between the Normans and the English. After speaking of the English love of eating and drinking, he adds (iii. 245), “Sequebantur vitia ebrietatis socia, quæ virorum animos effœminant. Hinc factum est, ut magis temeritate et furore præcipiti quam scientiâ militari Willelmo congressi, uno prœlio, et ipso perfacili, servituti se patriamque pessumdederint.” I believe that some modern writers have inferred from this that the English went drunk into the battle, and have taken this as a text to preach the advantages of temperance.

p. 751, l. 2 from bottom, for “difference” read “differences.”

p. 754, l. 6, for “text” read “notes.”

THE HISTORY

OF THE

NORMAN CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.