Talk:Harold Godwinson

Whole article needs editing

This article needs an edit or rewrite. Certain aspects are sloppy (including parts I added), and some scope needs to be given to the idea of Anglo Saxons vs Norman, and the Historical context of Harold's very short career and defeat at Hastings.

The problem of sources needs to be addressed more fully - especially with Poitiers, whose veracity is questioned by almost every historian out there. However, Poitiers is a useful source for the invasion preparations: he is the one who gives an account of the storm that upset William's first invasion attempt. I'll attempt a rewrite at some point. It's still a sensitive subject even today - I will go on the premise that he should be referred to as a king, as should William I. This is, though, one of those articles where the debate needs to be fleshed out a little, and some context given to the opposing views, and basic historiography. This is important, especially for kids who may still be being taught (as I was) by the anti-Norman school of thought.User:prolethead

...

And why are you promoting yourself here? ---Michael K. Smith 17:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have removed tonyg6ypk@blueyonder.co.uk chapter from his book because it has no place here.

NPOV

This article is very heavily biased towards the Saxon point of view - I'm making a few edits to balance it a little. Much of the criticism, e.g. of Norman sources is valid, but is written in an overtly hostile manner. Mon Vier 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I'm not sure how to proceed. Much of it - for example, the bits about Harold's mission and William's claim to the throne - are impossible to prove either way but are clearly not written in an encyclopaedic style. I'll leave this for somebody who knows the period better than me to do, and content myself with a few minor cleanups. Mon Vier 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Harold Godwinson

Harold Godwinson is not normally given an ordinal because if he were then Edward the Confessor would have been "Edward III of England" and then Edward I of England (Hammer of the Scots) would have been Edward IV of England... lets not go there. Philip Baird Shearer 01:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Are you sure about that? The regnal name Edward is an unusual case, since ordinal numbering pretty much started anew in England after the Norman conquest, and Edward is the only name to have been used by monarchs both pre- and post-conquest. Pre-conquest, of the Wessex line there were also two Saxon Ethelreds, two Harolds and two Edmunds, and up until a few years ago IIRC they were all routinely given ordinals. Certainly at school we were taught Harold II. The Edwards don't need ordinals because they have all been given distinguishing nicknames, as have the second Ethelred, second Edmund and first Harold, so maybe a case could be made for removing their ordinals, but the nicknameless Ethelred I and Edmund I are both universally known as such. Fosse8 13:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It is normal practice to give ordinal numbers to the Anglo-Saxon kings. This was the case when I took my degree less than a decade ago and remains as such (I still work within History). The numbering was begun again subsequent to the Norman Conquest. Valiant Son 15:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So we're agreed. To add to the confusion, I've also seen the family name spelled Godwineson and Godwinsson. Can the article be moved back to Harold II of England then?

The spelling of names from this period is fraut with problems. In effect we are transliterating from another language. (Although Old English is an antecedent of Modern English the differences are so significant as to make the two languages almost uninteligible from each other - although they share a lot of vocabulary and grammar). The end result is that an approximation is produced for all proper nouns. However, the problem with moving the article back to Harold II of England is that, although technically accurate, many people simply won't think (or know) to look for the article under this name (one of the great long term successes of the Anglo-Norman hegemony was the suppression of the idea that Harold was a legally constituted monarch - he was btw). I would suggest a compromise could be to redirect searches if required. Valiant Son 15:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Might I comment that Godwinson, as a usurper (William of Normandy was the declared heir of Edward Confessor, and Godwinson had sworn holy oaths to uphold Wiliam's rights) hardly deserves to be listed as King, and certainly not to receive a regnal number.

Goodness! Is there a possibly more POV statement than that? In any event, this POV doesn't conform to the histories of the period, which record that kings of England were not made simply by the reigning king declaring a successor, but rather by approval of the witan. ——Preost ^talk contribs 16:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, whether or not Harold was a "usurper" is not relevant to deciding whether he was King or not - he quite clearly was, given that he was crowned as such in Westminster Abbey with the full approval of the witan and other powers in the land, and clearly recognised as at least de facto monarch at the time. If having a rather shaky claim to the throne were grounds for denying historical monarchs the badge of "true" kingship, we'd have to start pruning Wikipedia of quite a few other figures too - just from England, Stephen of Blois, Henry II, Henry IV, Richard III, Henry VII and Jane Grey all spring immediately to mind... 81.110.86.44 01:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

This kind of bias plagues discussion of the subject even today. If Harold was declared king by the Witan, he was king. I made alterations to the "powerful nobleman" section due to its credulous readings of Norman propaganda, specifically that of Poitiers. If Harold had won, the propaganda would have been equally spurious and detrimental to history. A good source for people not familiar with the debate should read Edwin Tetlow's "The Enigma of Hastings," notable for its relative lack of bias in the debate, or indeed The Anglo Saxons, edited by Campbell (even better as an introduction). Let's not dismiss people as usurpers as the previous writer stated, there are many English monarchs who had shaky claims to the throne - including some of the greatest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prolethead (talk • contribs) 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Harold was most certainly not a usurper. Under Anglo-Saxon law, the previous King did not have the power to unilaterally declare his successor. Only the witan had the power to make a man king, and in fact the witan declared Harold king. In fact, it was William the Bastard, as he was then known, who was the usurper and illegally made himself king through conquest.

Harold the Saxon?

• Halló! es:Harold II de Inglaterra mentions "Harold el Sajón". If he was called this way it should be mentioned to be consistent with the articles about other rulers. Best ragrds Gangleri · Th · T 11:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the propnunciation of harold godwinson? my crazy friend lawrence, is pretty nuts.

I think it's HAR-old GOD-WIN-sun (the "sun" pronounced with a soft 'u', almost like an 'e'). Killfest2 ^{(Daniel.Bryant)} 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence is now angry.

This is getting a little bit weird...I'm about to delete it. Killfest2 ^{(Daniel.Bryant)} 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to prove I'm right. It's obviously GODWINSON, not GODWINESON! Lawrence is a silly billy!

It is GOD-win-son, not GOD-win-e-son. Q.E.D. Okay, thank you. I have now been proved right! Killfest2 ^{(Daniel.Bryant)} 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Family tree

I used the Template:Familytree template to redraw the family tree in the article. It was pretty unreadable in the state it was in, so I had to do some research to reconstruct it, mostly using information from other Wikipedia articles. I hope that it is accurate. --  timc  talk   17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of continuity

Is there any reason why Harold Godwinson's page claims that Edgar Ætheling was his successor, but that William the Conqueror's page sites Harold as his immediate predecessor? I am aware of the rather strange circumstances here - obviously Edgar was never actually crowned - but he was King, and Wikipedians need to decide whether or not they actually want him in the English Royal line. Can anyone shed any light on why things are as they currently are? Vincentvivi 14:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Edgar was not a king. While the Witan did elect him he was never crowned nor sanctified as king. It is accurate to say that Harold was William the Conqueror's predecessor.Valiant Son (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wife/Mistress?

Under the "Marriages and Children" heading, the article states: "For some twenty years Harold was married mōrē danicō (in the Danish manner) to Ealdgyth Swan-neck (also known as Edith Swanneschals or Edith Swanneck) and had at least six children by her. The marriage was widely accepted by the laity, although Edith was considered Harold's mistress by the clergy. Their children were not treated as illegitimate."

Later it says: "Harold's mistress, Edith Swanneck, was called to identify the body... Harold's illegitimate daughter Gytha of Wessex married Vladimir Monomakh Grand Duke (Velikii Kniaz) of Kievan Rus"

So Wikipedia sides with the Clergy? I think it would be more proper to treat the majority opinion of the time as exactly that, so I'm altering the later sections. -Leng —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.143.73.197 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

The biography on Harold Godwinson have been vandalized. Please note the inconsistent, inappropriate post on the bottom of the biography.

harold ii

can we please have this article called harold ii of england? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, because he was never styled Harold II of England. Numbering of English kings was a Norman innovation and they didn't bother to number the Anglo-Saxon kings retrospectively).Shsilver 17:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion above. It is normal historical practice to give ordinal numbers to the Anglo-Saxon kings. And to say that it was a Norman innovation is also false if by that you mean that William of Normandy or William Rufus introduced it - they didn't. Sorry, you're just wrong on this one.Valiant Son (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Misleading image

Harold's putative demise, shown in the Bayeux Tapestry

This image creates the misleading impression that the figure holding an arrow is labelled "Harold". In fact the embroidered label continues to the left and right, and reads in full HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST, "King Harold was killed". Underneath the complete label is a picture of a mustached Saxon warrior being felled by a mounted Norman knight -- quite possibly intended to illustrate Harold's death. That particular tableau is isolated. The soldier with the arrow is part of a scene with several Saxons facing a Norman cavalry charge (and presumably archers as well). Nothing shows or suggests that that specific figure is Harold. RandomCritic 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fleming's ODNB article says:

The Bayeux tapestry shows Harold's death-apparently pierced in the eye by an arrow. Whether he did, indeed, die in this manner (a death associated in the middle ages with perjurers), or was killed by the sword, will never be known.

So, something does suggest that it is Harold, namely the association with perjury. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very convincing argument.RandomCritic 05:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but [Fleming, Robin (2004). "Harold II (1022/3?–1066)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Retrieved 2007-10-14.] is a convincing reference. I do know that is not the only opinion on offer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on the Bayeux Tapestry page. The article could say that it has commonly been assumed that he was killed in this manner, but there is considerable historical debate. Valiant Son (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Harold's death

I have changed the following text at the start: "He was killed at the Battle of Hastings, by an arrow personally fired by Norman Duke William the Conqueror which struck his eye and pierced through to his brain." The circumstances of Harold's death are simply not known (and it is highly unlikely that William himself was firing arrows).

As Angusmclellan says, Fleming's ODNB article says:

The Bayeux tapestry shows Harold's death-apparently pierced in the eye by an arrow. Whether he did, indeed, die in this manner (a death associated in the middle ages with perjurers), or was killed by the sword, will never be known.

192.93.164.23 (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

House of Wessex

Looking at the family tree available on this site, it seems that Harold could boast an unbroken male line of descent from one of Alfred the Great's older brothers. That would make him a perfectly acceptable member of the House of Wessex, and seems like something worth mentioning in the article. Cranston Lamont (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The family tree doesn't cite any sources and Harold's supposed royal ancestry is not mentioned by Robin Fleming, Ian Walker, Ann Williams, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)