Assumption of the throne , in
Småland,
Sweden, mentions "Haralds kunungs", probably meaning King Harold Harefoot. Harold reportedly sought coronation as early as 1035. According to the
Encomium Emmae Reginae, however,
Æthelnoth,
Archbishop of Canterbury, refused to crown Harold Harefoot. Coronation by the Archbishop would be a legal requirement to become a king. Æthelnoth reportedly placed the
sceptre and
crown on the
altar of a temple, possibly that of the
Canterbury Cathedral. Offering to
consecrate Harold without using any of the royal regalia would have been an empty honour. He refused to remove the items from the altar and forbade any other bishop from doing so. The tale goes on that Harold failed to sway Æthelnoth, as both bribes and threats proved ineffectual. The despairing Harold reportedly rejected
Christianity in protest. He refused to attend church services while uncrowned, preoccupying himself with
hunting and trivial matters. The
Encomium stays silent on an event reported by the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other sources. Harold was accepted as monarch in a
Witenagemot held at
Oxford. His chief supporter in the council was
Leofric, Earl of Mercia, while the opposition was led by
Godwin, Earl of Wessex. There is evidence that Ælfgifu of Northampton was attempting to secure her son's position through bribes to the nobles. In 1036,
Gunhilda of Denmark, sister to Harthacnut and half-sister to Harold, married
Henry III, King of Germany. On this occasion Immo, a priest serving at the court of the
Holy Roman Empire, wrote a letter to ,
Bishop of Worms. It included information on the situation in England, with messengers from there reporting that Ælfgifu was gaining the support of the leading aristocrats through pleas and bribery, binding them to herself and Harold by oaths of loyalty. Initially, the
Kingdom of England was divided between the two half-brothers. Harold ruled the areas north of the
River Thames, supported by the local nobility. The southern nobility under Godwin and Emma continued to be ruled in the name of the absent Harthacnut. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports that Godwin and the leading men of Wessex opposed the rule of Harold for "
...as long as they could, but they could not do anything against it." With the north at least on Harold's side, in adherence to the terms of a deal, which Godwin was part of, Emma was settled in
Winchester, with Harthacnut's
huscarls. Harold soon "sent and had taken from her all the best treasures" of Cnut the Great. The situation could not last for long, and Godwin eventually switched sides.
William of Malmesbury asserts that Godwin had been overwhelmed "
in power and in numbers" by Harold. In 1037,
Emma of Normandy fled to
Bruges,
Flanders, and Harold "was everywhere chosen as king". The details behind the event are obscure. The account of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version E, jumps from Harold being a mere regent to Harold being the sole king. Versions C and D do not even make a distinction between the two phases. Ian Howard theorises that the death of Svein Knutsson could have strengthened Harold's position. He went from being the second surviving son of Cnut to being the eldest living, with Harthacnut still absent and unable to press his claim to the throne. Harold himself is somewhat obscure; the historian
Frank Stenton considered it probable that his mother Ælfgifu was "the real ruler of England" for part or all of his reign.
Kelly DeVries points out that during the
High Middle Ages, royal succession in
Northern Europe was determined by military power. The eldest son of a king could have a superior right of inheritance but still lose the throne to a younger brother, or other junior claimant, possessing greater military support. Harold managed to win the throne against the superior claim of Harthacnut in this way. The 11th century provides other similar examples.
Magnus I of Norway (reigned 1035–1047), who wasn't a warlord, had reigned for more than a decade when his uncle
Harald Hardrada (reigned 1047–1066) challenged his rule. With Harald being a famous military leader, his claim would end Magnus' reign early.
Baldwin VI, Count of Flanders (reigned 1067–1070) was effectively succeeded by his brother
Robert I (reigned 1071–1093), rather than his own sons.
Robert Curthose,
Duke of Normandy (reigned 1087–1106) lost the throne of England to his younger brothers
William II (reigned 1087–1100) and
Henry I (reigned 1100–1135). With the
Kingdom of England practically owned by Harold, Harthacnut could not even approach without securing sufficient military strength. His decision to remain in Denmark probably points to him lacking sufficient support, though he would certainly wait for an opportunity to forcefully assert his claim and depose his half-brother. Harold reigned as sole king from 1037 to 1040. There are few surviving documents about events of his reign. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle mostly covers church matters, such as the deaths and appointments of bishops and archbishops. There is, however, a record of a skirmish between the Anglo-Saxons and the Welsh in 1039. The named casualties were Eadwine (Edwin), brother to
Leofric, Earl of Mercia, Thurkil, and Ælfgeat, but there are no other details concerning this event. Also in 1039, there is mention of a great
gale, again with no details.
Return of Ælfred and Edward In 1036,
Ælfred Ætheling, son of Emma by the long-dead
Æthelred, returned to the kingdom from exile in the
Duchy of Normandy with his brother
Edward the Confessor, with some show of arms. Their motivation is uncertain.
William of Poitiers claimed that they had come to claim the English throne for themselves.
Frank Barlow suspected that Emma had invited them, possibly to use them against Harold. If so, it could mean that Emma had abandoned the cause of Harthacnut, probably to strengthen her own position, but that could have inspired Godwin to also abandon the lost cause. The
Encomium Emmae Reginae claims that Harold himself had lured them to England, having sent them a forged letter, supposedly written by Emma. The letter reportedly both decried Harold's behaviour against her and urged her estranged sons to come and protect her. Barlow and other modern historians suspect that this letter was genuine. Ian Howard argued that Emma not being involved in a major political manoeuvre would be "
out of character for her", and the Encomium was probably trying to mask her responsibility for a blunder.
William of Jumièges reports that earlier in 1036, Edward had conducted a successful raid of
Southampton, managing to win a victory against the troops defending the city and then sailing back to Normandy "
richly laden with booty", but the swift retreat confirms William's assessment that Edward would need a larger army to seriously claim the throne. With his bodyguard, according to the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Ælfred intended to visit his mother, Emma, in Winchester, but he may have made this journey for reasons other than a family reunion. As the "murmur was very much in favour of Harold", on the direction of Godwin (now apparently on the side of Harold Harefoot), Ælfred was captured. Godwin had him seized and delivered to an escort of men loyal to Harefoot. He was transported by ship to
Ely, and blinded while on board. He died in Ely soon afterwards from his wounds, his bodyguard being similarly treated. The event would later affect the relationship between Edward and Godwin, the Confessor holding Godwin responsible for the death of his brother. The failed invasion shows that Harold Harefoot, as a son and successor to Cnut, had gained the support of
Anglo-Danish nobility, which violently rejected the claims of Ælfred, Edward, and (by extension) the
Aethelings. The
House of Wessex had lost support among the nobility of the Kingdom. It might also have served as a turning point in the struggle between Harold and Emma that resulted in Emma's exile.
Death Harold died at
Oxford on 17 March 1040, just as Harthacnut was preparing an invasion force of Danes, and was buried at
Westminster Abbey. His body was subsequently exhumed, beheaded, and thrown into a
fen bordering the
Thames when Harthacnut assumed the throne in June 1040. The body was subsequently recovered by fishermen, and resident Danes reportedly had it reburied at their local cemetery in London. The body was eventually buried in a church in the
City of Westminster, which was fittingly named
St. Clement Danes. A contradictory account in the
Knýtlinga saga (13th century) reports Harold buried in the city of Morstr, alongside his half-brother Harthacnut and their father Cnut. While mentioned as a great city in the text, nothing else is known of Morstr. The
Heimskringla by
Snorri Sturluson reports Harold Harefoot to have been buried at
Winchester, again alongside Cnut and Harthacnut. The cause of Harold's death is uncertain. Katherine Holman attributes the death to "a mysterious illness". An
Anglo-Saxon charter attributes the illness to
divine judgement. Harold had reportedly claimed
Sandwich for himself, thereby depriving the monks of
Christchurch. Harold is described as lying ill and in despair at
Oxford. When monks came to him to settle the dispute over Sandwich, he "lay and grew black as they spoke". The context of the event was a dispute between
Christchurch and
St Augustine's Abbey, which took over the local toll in the name of the king. There is little attention paid to the illness of the king. Harriet O'Brien feels this is enough to indicate that Harold died of natural causes, but not to determine the nature of the disease. The Anglo-Saxons themselves would consider him
elf-shot (attacked by
elves), their term for any number of deadly diseases. Michael Evans points out that Harold was only one of several youthful kings of pre-Conquest England to die following short reigns. Others included
Edmund I (reigned 939–946, murdered at age 25),
Eadred (reigned 946–955, died at age 32),
Eadwig (reigned 955–959, died at age 19),
Edmund Ironside (reigned 1016, died at age 26), and Harthacnut (reigned 1040–1042, who would die at age 24). Evans wonders whether the role of king was dangerous in this era, more so than in the period after the Conquest, or whether hereditary diseases were in effect since most of these kings were members of the same lineage, the
House of Wessex. It is unclear why a king would have been buried at Westminster Abbey. The only previous royals reportedly buried there were
Sæberht of Essex and his wife Æthelgoda. Emma Mason speculates that Cnut had built a royal residence in the vicinity of the Abbey, or that Westminster held some significance to the
Danish Kings of England, which would also explain why Harthacnut would not allow a usurper to be buried there. The lack of detail in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies that, for its compilers, the main point of interest was not the burial site, but the exhumation of the body. Harriet O'Brien theorises that the choice of location might simply reflect the political affiliation of the area of Westminster and nearby
London, being a power base for Harold. A detailed account of the exhumation appears in the writings of
John of Worcester (12th century). The group tasked with the mission was reportedly led by
Ælfric Puttoc,
Archbishop of York, and
Godwin, Earl of Wessex. The involvement of such notable men would have had a significance of its own, giving the event an official nature and avoiding secrecy. Emma Mason suspects that this could also serve as a punishment for Godwin, who had served as a chief supporter of Harold, and was now charged with the gruesome task. == Offspring ==