Episode one
False: Harold saved William’s life.
The future William the Conqueror is invited over to England for Edward the Confessor’s coronation and, on arrival, he and his men are attacked, but saved by Harold Godwinson (who later succeeds Edward to the throne), who does not know who they are. This is all made up: William was not at the coronation (and was a teenager at the time). In the series, this is the beginning of a sequence of parallels and back-and-forths between William and Harold which works well in terms of drama, but doesn’t reflect history. William’s fictional visit does, however, gesture towards the long and complex background between England and Normandy, especially the fact that Edward the Confessor had spent decades of his life in exile in Normandy and probably did feel great affinity with his Norman relatives and friends who had protected him.
False: It was vanishingly rare for two people to have the same name
Many names have been changed, and that grates. Obviously the programme makers think that the audience will get hopelessly confused. The most egregious example here is that Queen Edith (the daughter of Godwin, sister of Harold Godwinson and wife of Edward the Confessor) has become Gunhild (which was the name of her sister). The historical Edith was initially called Gytha (her mother’s name) but was always known as Edith after her marriage and during her queenship. She was never Gunhild.
The series has made another Edith – a fairly shadowy historical figure, who may have been Harold Godwinson’s first wife or long-term mistress – into a major character. Indeed they also change his second wife’s name to Margaret – as she was another Edith.
Episode two
Maybe: Earl Godwin blinded and killed Edward the Confessor’s brother
This may be true. Alfred (here called Aethel) was certainly horrifically blinded and killed after being invited back to England from exile under false pretences. The principal blame is usually ascribed to Harold Harefoot, son of King Cnut and Ælfgifu , but some sources also implicate Godwin (Earl of Wessex, father of Harold Godwinson, and later the father-in-law of Edward the Confessor). Different versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle say different things, so the jury is out.
True-ish: The Godwins were exiled on trumped-up charges
In King and Conqueror, Emma of Normandy (mother of Edward the Confessor) engages in complicated machinations, paying the Earl of Mercia (one of the three most important earldoms along with Wessex and Northumbria) to provoke the Godwins so that ultimately they can all be exiled, as revenge for what happened to Alfred. What actually happened is that there were problems in Dover; Edward ordered Godwin to punish the town’s leaders, but Godwin refused, and Edward seized the disagreement as a pretext to get rid of this too-powerful earl. So the Godwins fled into exile (in 1051). King and Conqueror depicts them all fleeing to Flanders. Some of them did go there, but others – including Harold – went to Dublin. The scene (in the next episode) in which Harold and William meet up in Flanders and sit in baths together talking about how much they love their wives certainly did not happen…
Episode three
False: Godwin made Harold Earl of Wessex over the head of Swein, Harold’s older brother
This did not happen. In King and Conqueror, Godwin relinquishes his title to Harold while he is still alive, bypassing Swein who is violent and unreliable. Historically, Harold did not become Earl of Wessex until 1053, after the death of his father. Swein had died the previous year.
True-ish: Baldwin of Flanders was the lynchpin of Northern Europe
Baldwin, count of Flanders, was a major political player in the eleventh century. In King and Conqueror we see both Norman and English exiles flocking to him, and he dabbles in all kinds of high politics, ending up effectively controlling the throne of France. This is all basically true: he had his finger in all the northern European pies. Emma of Normandy had stayed with him in exile; he had supported her son Alfred; he helped his daughter Matilda’s husband William, and he was indeed regent of France. Some of the Godwins did stay with him in exile and he helped Godwin to return to England with force. There is some serious embellishment of his ambitions at times, especially later in the series when we see him plotting against his daughter, which is not true. (In a different way, it is also puzzling that we see him living in a tent and cooking his own dinner.) But in general, King and Conquerorgets it right in emphasising Flanders’s importance, and Baldwin’s political talents.
Episode four
False: Edward the Confessor beat his mother Emma to death
This is the strangest bit of the whole series. Edward seems to have some kind of psychotic episode and punches his mother to death. This is completely fictional. What actually happened would have made very good drama too, in a more psychological way: a few months after he became king, Edward allied with the earls – including the Godwin family – to exile his mother and take her money and treasure away from her. This was partly in revenge as his mother had never wholeheartedly supported him and had done more for her son by her second husband (Cnut), Harthacnut.
This extraordinary invention is part of the way these characters are imagined in King and Conqueror. Edward is portrayed as a mentally unstable, very weak, religious obsessive, absolutely controlled by his mother – and then suddenly rebelling against this control. He also refuses to have sex with his wife, despite her best efforts. The historical picture does not support this characterisation overall. He and his wife did not have children, but they almost certainly tried. At times in his life, and in his reign, he fought successfully and reigned competently – and he did stand up to his mother. He also went hunting a lot, and seems to have been a vigorous and outdoorsy man, quite different from the character portrayed here.
Emma was an extremely wily and powerful politician for most of her life. She was married to two kings – Aethelred and Cnut – and managed to help two of her sons (Harthacnut and Edward) to be king. She rallied support in Normandy and accumulated great wealth and power. And in her willingness to act strategically, particularly in marrying Cnut who was effectively deposing her own sons, we can see ruthlessness and an eye to the long game.
False: William killed Henry, the king of France
This densely imagined scene, in which William manages to kill his erstwhile ally while hunting and then works with Baldwin to pretend that bandits killed him, is entirely fictional. Part of the alleged motivation – that Henry had killed William’s father – is also fictional. It is true that William and Henry were allies early on, and that Henry then attacked Normandy, so they had a changing and difficult relationship. But this is another one of the made-up murders of this episode.
Episode five
Maybe: Harold was tricked into promising, over holy relics, to support William’s claim
This is one of those things we really do not know. According to King and Conqueror, William and Harold meet in Normandy to discuss the succession. William tricks Harold into taking his hand in public, across holy relics, and demands that he agrees to support his claim to the throne when the time comes. Harold gets out of it by promising to support the rightful king. Cunning! Did any of this happen? This is essentially what is depicted in the Bayeux tapestry, which shows Harold swearing solemnly to support William in this way. We only have this story from Norman sources, and this became part of the Norman story: that Harold swore to support William, and that in taking the crown himself he was betraying both his word and God. Obviously, it was in William’s interests to promote this version of events. But we do not know that Harold went to Normandy at all at this time (c.1064). We can be sure that other things that happen during this visit in King and Conqueror – such as Harold and William’s half-naked mud-fight – don’t reflect the historical record…
Episode six
True-ish: Tostig betrayed his brother
In “King and Conqueror”, Tostig, now Earl of Northumbria, turns against his brother, Harold, because he blames him for the death of his wife and child. It is true that Tostig did betray Harold and allied with Harald Hardrada of Norway, but this was for political reasons. Harold defeated Harald Hardrada and Tostig at Stamford Bridge.
Maybe: Harold deceived a lot of people at the time of Edward’s death
Did Edward name Harold as his heir? In King and Conqueror, Harold makes this up. At the time, English sources generally said that Edward had indeed named Harold, and this wasn’t disputed by the Normans. Although others had a better claim, Harold was in many ways the obvious choice. We also see him putting aside his long-term wife, Edith, to marry Margaret, sister of the Earl of Mercia – portrayed here as an outrageous betrayal. There is some truth in this. Harold had had a long relationship with Edith the Fair, with whom he had children, though it is not clear if they were married. He did marry the sister of the new Earl of Northumbria (Morcar) and the Earl of Mercia (Edwin) – though she was, of course, called Edith too.
Episode seven
False: Almost no time passed between Edward the Confessor’s coronation and death
The whole series takes place in a hugely compressed timescale. Children that are born in the early episodes are toddlers at the end. In fact, Edward ruled for over 23 years. There were years of anxiety about the succession. When William left his wife and child in charge of Normandy, his child was not a toddler but a teenager. The Godwins had been firmly established as the dominant family in England for 14 years by the time Edward died: they returned from exile in 1052 and he died in 1066. Their time in exile was a very short blip amidst decades of dominance. Queen Edith (Gunhild in the series) looks like a teenager throughout, but she was a woman of about forty by the time her husband (Edward) died. Matilda (William’s wife) is already pregnant by the time Edward is crowned but in fact William and Matilda were not married until about 10 years later.
True: A blazing comet was seen in the sky before the Battle of Hastings
This one is true. Halley’s comet was seen in April – admittedly the battle was not until October, but the comet was noticed and interpreted as meaning that change was coming. We’ll see it again around 2061 so who knows what that year will hold.
Episode eight
True: William and Odo pretended that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye
The Bayeux Tapestry depicts Harold dying with an arrow in his eye.
We see the arrow being placed in Harold’s eye after his death and Odo (William’s brother and the bishop of Bayeux) loudly declaring that it was God’s arrow and yet another sign of God’s will. This is all broadly true to the spirit of what happened. The idea that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye has become famous because it is depicted in the Bayeux tapestry, but early accounts of the battle do not corroborate this story. In general, the tapestry, although made in England, shows the Norman point of view and was commissioned by Odo. It is a propaganda piece, which is often interested in symbolism and ideology rather than historical fact. This episode does a good job of showing how William and Odo use religion to support William’s claim. It demonstrates how William understood statecraft and the power of images and propaganda. As with the swearing on relics of episode five, these are scenes well-known to many from the Bayeux tapestry, that extraordinary product of the age – coming back to England next year.
“King and Conqueror” is available on iPlayer. Marion Turner is the JRR Tolkien Professor of English literature and language at the University of Oxford.
Postscript by the Clever Boy
I agree with most of what Prof. Turner says but am told that Tostig’s wife rather than dying with their child gave him several -four - children, and, following his death, remarried and bore six more children.
More significantly I do disagree with her in respect of the arrow in King Harold’s eye. Many years ago I saw a feature on the BBC about the inaccuracy of this interpretation of the depiction of the King’s death.
Firstly the inscription indicating his death by its very position refers to the falling armed figure being cut down by the equally armed rider on horseback after the viewer has seen the famous image of the figure with the arrow in his head
Secondly the extremely detailed detailed early nineteenth century engraving of the as yet unrestored tapestry made by the meticulous Charles Stothard indicate that the shaft of the famous arrow was missing but - and it is a very important ‘but’ - Stothard showed the needle holes where it had once been. They indicate the arrow is actually in the standing figure’s forehead, and not his eye socket. Indeed the nineteenth century restorer has had to give a slight bend to the shaft to get it into the figure’s eye.
Apropos the Bayeux Tapestry the creators of this televisual travesty comprised of inaccuracy have ignored the evidence of the embroidery in one other significant area. This is a point missed by Prof. Turner. The Tapestry shows Harold Godwinson and the other leading Anglo-Saxons with long moustaches - possibly even waxed methinks - and Duke William and his companions as clean shaven. So what do the television make up department do? Yes, of course, they make King Harold clean-shaven and give William the Bastard a moustache that would not be out of place in an RAF drama from WWII. Mind you maybe in their view of history perhaps there were bi-planes in the skies over Sussex in 1066..
