Earl Godwine--correction
David Greene
A couple gremlins appeared in my posting about Early Godwine. (Mea
maxima....) The following is a corrected version, which I have also
clarified slightly:
I haven't seen--perhaps through inattention--a posted discussion on the
ancestry of Earl Godwine of Wessex, father of King Harold, the last Saxon
king of England. (A descendant of Harold was Isabella of France, wife of
Edward II, and many lines of descent can be traced.) I am not an expert
on pre-Conquest English genealogy, but I will summarize bibliographically
what has been theorized on this question and ask for the latest scholarly
consensus.
In 1913, Alfred Anscombe in _Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society_, 3rd ser, vol. 7, suggested that Godwine was a descendant of
King Aethelred I through Aethelweard the historian, who d. ca. 1002. His
evidence was the descent of land from Aethelweard to Godwine or to
Godwine's children. Anscombe, however, was not able to fill in the two
intervening generations between Aethelweard and Godwine. The missing
generations were provided by Lundie W. Barlow in an article in NEHGR in
1957 (111:30-38), also based on land descent; Moriarty accepted Barlow's
conclusions. The arguments were strengthened by David Kelley in a major
article on Aethelred I's descendants in the Charles Evans Festschrift.
Bierbrier, however, reviewed the Evans Festchrift in the Genealogists'
Magazine and said that Kelley (and by implication Anscombe, Barlow, and
Moriarty) were wrong and that Godwine was a "new man" who had received
his lands en bloc from Cnut. Bierbrier cited several recent studies on
Cnut and Godwine which reach this conclusion, although so far as I can
tell, they provide no contemporary evidence for the source of Godwine's
land.
It is certain that Godwine or his children possessed a number of manors
that had been in the possession of Aethelweard and his ancestors. If
Godwine received the land through inheritance, he was a descendant of the
royal house of Wessex. But if he received it through Danish expropriation
of the Saxon possessors of the land, it provides no evidence for
Godwine's ancestry.
One slight piece of evidence that would support the latter interpretation
is that post-Conquest chroniclers stress Godwine's obscure origin.
Comments?
DAVID GREENE
Gordon Fisher
A small comment, or rather note:
"The son of Wulfnoth, probably a Sussex thegn, Godwin rose to power through
the favour of King Cnut."
--- *The Life of King Edward who rests at Westminster*, attributed to a
monk of Saint-Bertin, 2nd edn, ed & tr & with introduction & notes by Frank
Barlow, Oxford (Clarendon), 1992. Footnote, p 6
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
David Greene
Barlow reports that Godwine's father was thane Wulfnoth of Sussex,
who died before 1015. Wulfnoth held Compton and Halton, two manors that
descended to Godwine and or his children. It may, however, be significant
that these two manors are not among those apparently held by Aethelweard
the historian.
As for my efforts to correct gremlins--I trust everyone enjoyed "Early
Godwine"!
DAVID GREENE
Todd A. Farmerie
David Greene wrote:
>
> Bierbrier, however, reviewed the Evans Festchrift in the Genealogists'
> Magazine and said that Kelley (and by implication Anscombe, Barlow, and
> Moriarty) were wrong and that Godwine was a "new man" who had received
> his lands en bloc from Cnut. Bierbrier cited several recent studies on
> Cnut and Godwine which reach this conclusion, although so far as I can
> tell, they provide no contemporary evidence for the source of Godwine's
> land.
The main argument that is made in response to this "new man" theory is
that there is no good evidence for the kind of en bloc confiscation and
regrant of lands that is seen later with the Normans. However, with the
number of properties which changed hands at this time, it could be no
more than coincidence that the identified lands ended up in Godwin's
hands (along with a whole lot more with no link to the family of
Athelred I).
> It is certain that Godwine or his children possessed a number of manors
> that had been in the possession of Aethelweard and his ancestors. If
> Godwine received the land through inheritance, he was a descendant of the
> royal house of Wessex. But if he received it through Danish expropriation
> of the Saxon possessors of the land, it provides no evidence for
> Godwine's ancestry.
Even if he received it from Cnut, it need not invalidate the descent,
since Cnut could have been returning to his favorite some lands which
had previously been confiscated from rebellious relatives (in Anscombe's
reconstruction, both Godwin's father and grandfather had lands
confiscated for treason, at least in the latter case the treason was in
favor of Cnut, perhaps giving him a reason to restore the lands to the
family).
> One slight piece of evidence that would support the latter interpretation
> is that post-Conquest chroniclers stress Godwine's obscure origin.
I think too much emphasis can easily be given this material. It was in
the interest of the Norman's to portray him as a Johny-come-lately. It
can be a little difficult to distinguish a "new man" from a young man
from a disgraced and de-landed old family, which is a possible
implication of the Anscombe/Barlow/Moriarty/Kelley hypothesis.
> Comments?
That being said, the theory rests on three pieces of data - the land
"descent", the Florence pedigree, and the will of Athelstan). The land
we have discussed. The Florence pedigree has to be doctored to allow
the proposed descent from Aethelweard, and the authenticity of the
pedigree itself has been questioned. The will mentions the individuals
in question in sequence, but states no relationship. Thus none of them,
on their own can be said to support the descent. The only question is
whether the three of them together are better than the sum of their
individual contributions.
taf