Home of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast
Everything you think you know about Vikings is WRONG
You KNOW who the Vikings are – bearded, brutish, spoiling for a fight, and ever ready to raid an Anglo-Saxon monastery near you. Or do you?
The Vikings were bearded, brutish, spoiling for a fight, and ever ready to raid an Anglo-Saxon monastery near you. How true is that, really? It is a stereotype beloved across pop culture – most visibly in TV and film – but it’s also an oversimplified fiction. HistoryExtra’s Kev Lochun braves the ire of a sword-wielding colleague to break down what we get wrong about the Vikings – not least, that they didn’t even exist. Confused? It’s all downhill from the horned helmets. View Green Video on the source website
News stories from the HistoryExtra podcast
Go beyond our Sunday Series podcasts with these curated selections of essential reading from the HistoryExtra and BBC History Magazine archive
Explore the latest video explainers from HistoryExtra
What can we learn from the most universal of all experiences: going to the loo?
What was it like to do your business in a Roman communal toilet? Why was the devil thought to lurk in medieval privies? Did constipation turn Henry VIII into a tyrant? And how did Victorian sewers revolutionise Britain’s cities? In this seven-part mini-series, HistoryExtra’s David Musgrove heads down the u-bend in the company of leading historical experts to see what we can learn from the most universal of all experiences: going to the loo.
Trailblazing and fearless, Nellie Bly broke every rule in Victorian journalism. Bob Nicholson unpacks the life of a woman whose headline-grabbing exploits made her a household name
In the late 19th century, when female reporters were largely confined to newspapers' society pages, Nellie Bly's daring investigations and headline-grabbing exploits made her a household name. From her audacious exposé from inside a New York asylum – after convincing doctors she was insane – to becoming the 'real Phileas Fogg' by racing around the globe, Bly’s adventures captivated the world. Historian Bob Nicholson tells Kev Lochun more about her audacious brand of stunt journalism.
King and Conqueror’s most gruesome death should never have happened and would be “totally out of character”
Historian Tom Licence takes issue with one of King and Conqueror’s most egregious historical liberties
Bringing the Norman Conquest of 1066 to the small screen, King and Conqueror plays fast and loose with real history to tell the story of how Duke William of Normandy became King William I of England. The eight-part drama begins with the coronation of King Edward the Confessor and ends exactly where you think it would, with King Harold Godwinson, the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England, dead on the field at Hastings with an arrow in his eye. That’s a span of more than 20 years – and as such there is a lot of editing of the historical record going on. Some important characters are missing, and not just Edgar Aetheling, the claimant many overlook in the 1066 story. Events happen out of order. And a lot of real historical figures die in times, places and ways that raise eyebrows. But one particular plot point is so shocking, so unexpected, that we put it to medieval historian Tom Licence to get his reaction. And it’s such a massive spoiler that we’ve hidden it after these two images of the show's leads, James Norton as Harold and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as William the Conqueror. Edward the Confessor is portrayed in King and Conqueror as a weak and ineffectual man, touched even – he believes he hears the voice of God whispering to him. If there is anyone whispering in his ear, it is his mother, Emma of Normandy. The real Emma was queen consort to both Aethelred the Unready and Cnut the Great, the only woman to have married two English kings. Two of her sons were also kings, first Harthacnut, and then Edward the Confessor. For her whole life, she had been an able political player. In King and Conqueror, she is vicious and manipulative, a woman who dominates Edward and goads him for his failures. She is the power behind his throne. When Edward finally snaps, he does so totally and utterly. In a moment of red mist worthy of Game of Thrones, he beats his mother to death with his crown. Did Edward the Confessor beat his mother Emma of Normandy to death with this crown? “Beating someone to death with his own crown? I mean, no, I don't think Edward did that, not to his mother.” That’s the view of historian Tom Licence, who was speaking to us while recording an episode of the HistoryExtra podcast on Edward’s life. “We can't be absolutely certain, but that would be totally out of character and wouldn't fit with my understanding of their relationship.” What was Edward’s character? Elsewhere on HistoryExtra, Licence writes that though Edward had a holier-than-thou reputation (he is known as ‘the Confessor’ for a reason) he was a king who was “strong, glorious, feared by his enemies”. “Edward's way of punishing people was to take away their assets or to put them into exile. He hit them in the pocket, not over the head,” says Licence. “He was not that sort of ruler. I could imagine Cnut the Great doing that. I could definitely imagine Aethelred the Unready doing that.” Aethelred the Unready was Edward’s father, and the man behind the St Brice’s Day Massacre of 1002 – the attempted slaughter of all the Danes living within his lands as revenge against the Viking incursions. Cnut was the king who claimed the throne through during the Danish Conquest of 1016, which is why Edward spent his youth in exile in Normandy. What happened to the real Emma of Normandy? There’s no record that the real Emma of Normandy was murdered, by her son or otherwise – but she was removed from the royal court. “Emma had all the cards before Edward becomes king, but there's a very clear turnaround, says Licence. “As soon as Edward gets on the throne, Emma's power is broken. He takes away her wealth, he deposes her favourite bishop, her lands are removed from her and she's sent, pretty much into retirement to Winchester, where she lives out her days.” Watch: The real history behind King and Conqueror View Green Video on the source website Emma died in Winchester of an unknown cause in 1052, almost a decade after she was sent there. “There's a good 10 years where she's doing nothing and has no influence whatsoever,” Licence points out. But there may have been another woman guiding Edward after Emma was removed from court – his wife, who happened to be Harold Godwinson’s sister. “The way I see it, Edith of Wessex, takes over [Emma of Normandy’s mantle]. Emma ceases to appear on the charters. Edith appears, and she is the one who's there at his councils and helping him make his decisions.” It was Edith who commissioned a tract called The Life of King Edward, which is one of the prevailing sources for our view of Edward as a pious ruler. “Edith, whom Edward marries in 1045, is the person who's orchestrating his theatricality,” says Licence. “She embroiders his garments, she commissions goldsmiths to make all the jewels that he wears, and she ensures that when he walks on stage in front of the public … he looks like a saint, like some patriarch from the Old Testament, like someone almost divine.” 1066: The battle for England Member exclusive | The year 1066 is the most famous in English history, but there's a lot more to the story than one bloody battle at Hastings. In this four-part series, medievalist Marc Morris talks David Musgrove through the full story of the Norman Conquest. Watch all episodes now What was Edward’s relationship like with his mother? While the real Emma and Edward may not have been at each other’s throats, historian Tom Licence characterises their relationship as being distant and predominantly political. “Today we might think of this in terms of parental neglect or a mother not looking after her son as she should,” says Licence. “And what Edward felt was that all through those years in exile she hadn't done enough to support him, to promote his claim to the throne, to help him come back to England.” What Emma had done instead was marry Cnut – and then had children with him. “He had become king in Edward's place, so you could just imagine how Edward would be feeling, how his mother had maybe betrayed him and allowed her new son to replace him – almost like a cuckoo in the nest.” Nonetheless, Licence doesn’t think that sense of betrayal would manifest into physical violence. He does, however, have a theory as to why Edward was depicted this way in King and Conqueror. “A previous biographer who didn't like Edward very much wrote that he was the sort of man who probably beat his wife. I don't think that's justified, or that we have any warrant for that. “And beating to death Emma, with a crown? No, no. Just, no.” King and Conqueror is streaming on BBC iPlayer now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week Tom Licence was speaking to Emily Briffett on the HistoryExtra podcast. Listen to the full conversation.
Emma of Normandy: not just a two-time queen consort of England
Emma of Normandy was queen consort to two of England’s best known pre-Conquest kings, Æthelred the Unready and Cnut the Great. But she was also a savvy political player who came into her own as queen mother, writes Dr Cat Jarman
Emma of Normandy is best-known as being queen consort to two kings – Æthelred the Unready and Cnut the Great – and the mother of two more, Harthacnut and Edward the Confessor. She was the daughter of Richard I (the Fearless) of Normandy and the Danish-descended Gunnor. She is also a pivotal character in King and Conqueror, the BBC's Norman Conquest drama, which paints Emma as a dominating force over her son King Edward – which leads to a very ahistorical demise – and in Netflix's Vikings: Valhalla, where she is portrayed as a politically-savvy queen wielding quiet power in the English court, often working to subvert the machinations of the ever-grasping Earl Godwin. Who was Emma of Normandy? Emma was one of nine children and most likely born in the AD 980s. A daughter of the Norman dukes, she was the great-granddaughter of the Viking warrior Rollo, the founder of Normandy who hailed from either Norway or Denmark. This made her of Scandinavian ancestry on both sides of the family. She was also the great-aunt of William the Conqueror. In the words of Godfrey, prior of Winchester’s cathedral monastery, writing in the 11th century: “She had kings as sons and kings as husbands; she shone forth in the glory of her progeny of kings; she excelled in virtue even the ranks of her glorious ancestors.” Emma of Normandy's first marriage: Æthelred the Unready In 1002, probably aged in her late teens or early 20s, Emma was sent to England to marry King Æthelred, as his second wife. The marriage was clearly a strategic one, aiming to strengthen an alliance between England and Normandy in light of harrowing attacks on both English and Norman shores by Scandinavian raiders. Æthelred had apparently accused Emma’s brother, Duke Richard II, of harbouring the Vikings and enabling their attacks, and the marriage was designed to ensure his allegiance. Read more | Aethelflaed: who was the warrior queen who crushed the Vikings? Their union was an unusual one, as although several English princesses had been married off to French and German rulers historically, no English king had married a foreign wife for almost 150 years. Upon her arrival in England, Emma was given the name ‘Ælfgifu’. The marriage resulted in three children: two sons, Edward (later known as Edward the Confessor) and Alfred, and a daughter, Godgifu. Few sources say much about Emma’s political activity in these years, and it seems her role was mainly one of being a wife and a mother: the most common description of her at the time was as the conlaterana regis: “she who is at the King’s side”. This first decade of her career was the one in which she was the least powerful, and one source, William of Malmesbury, suggests that she and her husband were never on good terms. The England that Emma found herself at the beginning of the 11th century was one marked by ongoing trouble and threats of Scandinavian attacks. In 1013, this came to a head when the Dane Swein Forkbeard successfully invaded England. Emma and her children were sent into exile in Normandy, later followed by her husband. Swein’s rule of England was to be short as he died the following year, and a messy two years of political disputes ensued even after Æthelred was restored to the throne. Emma of Normandy's second marriage: Cnut the Great In 1016, Æthelred died. More turbulence was to follow, and later that year England fell to Swein Forkbeard’s son, the Danish King Cnut. The following year, he is reported to have asked for Emma to be fetched to be his wife. Emma became queen of England, once again, but this time also of Denmark and Norway. As with her first marriage, this was a strategic one as it cemented Cnut’s role as king of England. Taking the widow of one of his predecessors as his own wife no doubt helped mark his superiority. At the same time, the union might be seen as symbolising friendship and alliance. While it is unclear what Emma herself really thought of it at the beginning, she later stressed that not only did the marriage bring peace but it was an equal union that she entered into with her own consent. Read more | Cnut’s invasion of England: setting the scene for the Norman conquest Her ancestry may well have affected her feelings. After all, her mother was the daughter of recent Danish settlers in Normandy, and northern origins were a key part of Norman self-identity. Emma likely spoke Danish from childhood and apart from her family connections, she was clearly important to Cnut – not least because of her knowledge of English politics. It seems likely that the partnership between the two grew over time, helped by the fact that they were more or less of the same age. In a document from the New Minster in Winchester, illustrating the monastery’s loyal benefactors, the two are depicted either side of an altar as a double act. This depiction – one of several – emphasises Emma’s political importance. Their marriage lasted until Cnut’s death in 1035. Emma of Normandy's children As well as the two sons and one daughter Emma had with Æthelred, she went on to have two more children with Cnut: Harthacnut and Gunnhild. Cnut also had two sons by his first wife, Ælfgifu (confusingly, the same name that was given to Emma), Swein and Harold Harefoot. At the time of Cnut’s death, Swein had been sent to rule in Norway along with his mother, while Harthacnut was ruling in Denmark. That left Harold as the only of Cnut’s sons still in England. Emma remained at Winchester, where Cnut’s military household was based, and was left in charge of the Royal Treasury and in a position of power. Read more | Norman women: the power behind the thrones Harthacnut was the legitimate heir and should have ascended the English throne, but he could not return from Denmark to claim the crown so Harold ruled in his stead as either regent or co-ruler. Competition for the throne was to continue. Emma’s sons with Æthelred – Edward and Alfred – had been in exile in Normandy and returned to England in 1036. Alfred was soon killed, after being captured and blinded under suspicious circumstances, and Edward may have briefly joined his mother in Winchester before returning again to Normandy. Eventually, Harold was recognised as sole king in 1037. Emma was exiled to Flanders, where she stayed with a distant relative, Count Baldwin and his wife Adela. But her ambitions for herself and her sons remained. Read more | Are women at the heart of the action in the Norman Conquest? Emma of Normandy as England’s queen mother Emma’s career in England can be divided into three distinct parts: the first two relating to her marriages, and the third to this period after Cnut’s death. Now, Emma worked to manoeuvre her sons into kingship, taking an active part in the political sphere as queen mother. When Harold died in 1040, Emma returned from Flanders and Harthacnut finally took the throne. The role as queen mother was clearly an important one, and she was recognised as an authority: she is listed as mater regis in witness lists during these years. Emma may have learnt about queenship from her mother, Gunnor, who was later hailed as the matriarch of the Norman aristocracy, dubbed the ‘mother of the dynasty’ in the 12th century. Harthacnut ruled for only two years, with Emma by his side, until his death in 1042. He was succeeded by his half-brother Edward. But the new king appears to have turned against his mother, arriving in Winchester a few months after his coronation and taking away her treasures of silver and gold, as well as most of the land she owned. Emma was allowed to stay in Winchester and eventually regained her position at court, though without her former status. The precise reasons for this are unclear: Emma was later accused of having been too harsh on Edward; of offering aid to Magnus of Norway for an invasion of England; and even of having had an affair with Ælfwine, the bishop of Winchester. It seems none were true. Edward most likely wanted to reduce her political involvement back to a simple status as the widow of the former kings, leaving him to rule independently. As far as we know, she lived the rest of her life in Winchester. What was Emma of Normandy’s legacy? Our actual information about Emma’s life is sparse, Much of what we know comes from the Encomium Emmae reginae, the Praise of Queen Emma. This narrative was written down in 1041/2 by a monk from St Bertin, in what is now France, and was commissioned by Emma herself. The Encomium, however, is not a straightforward biography, but an account – modified in several later versions – of the role she played in English politics during the reign of Cnut and his successors. A famous illustration shows her seated on a throne, a kneeling character handing the book to her, with her sons Harthacnut and Edward watching from the wings. The Encomium conjures the position she was in at the height of her power, aimed at her sons and written to influence the future. Despite her remarkable political career, her best known legacy is no doubt her Norman link to William the Conqueror, enabling the events of 1066 to run their course. In the words of 12th-century historian Henry of Huntingdon, describing her marriage: “From this union… the Normans were justified according to the law of peoples, in both claiming and gaining possession of England.” How and when did Emma of Normandy die? Emma died of an unknown cause on 6 March 1052. She was buried next to Cnut and Harthacnut in Winchester Cathedral. In 2019, a team from the University of Bristol announced that among the 1,300 bones mixed up in six mortuary chests from Winchester Cathedral were the remains of a woman who matched both the date and age of death of Emma. There are no records of other women of similar status buried there at the time and DNA work is in progress in an attempt to identify the remains more definitively. 1066: The battle for England Member exclusive | The year 1066 is the most famous in English history, but there's a lot more to the story than one bloody battle at Hastings. In this four-part series, medievalist Marc Morris talks David Musgrove through the full story of the Norman Conquest. Watch all episodes now Dr Cat Jarman is an archaeologist, broadcaster and author of River Kings: A New History of the Vikings from Scandinavia to the Silk Roads (HarperCollins, 2021) King and Conqueror is streaming on BBC iPlayer now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
How historically accurate is King and Conqueror? Here’s the real history that should have happened
The BBC’s Norman Conquest drama starring James Norton and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau brings 1066 to the small screen. Here’s what King and Conqueror gets right about the build-up to the battle of Hastings – and where history takes a backseat to the drama
In a decade in which Vikings have been incredibly vogue – how else to explain the small-screen invasion posed by Vikings, Vikings: Valhalla and The Last Kingdom in recent years – it’s surprising that it’s taken this long to get to a dramatisation of the Viking Age’s purported end in 1066. The BBC’s King and Conqueror steps into that breach, taking us back to 11th-century England and the Norman Conquest, to the story told in the Bayeux Tapestry – which you may have heard will be loaned back to the UK from France in 2026. King and Conqueror is the story of how Duke William of Normandy, a man descended from Vikings, won the English throne and became William the Conqueror. But it’s also the story of the rise and fall of Harold Godwinson, the last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England, and a man who had to die for William to succeed. And it’s the story of an unlikely bromance between these two men, underscored by an almost-certainly ahistorical heart-to-heart in a bathtub. Who are the king and conqueror of King and Conqueror? James Norton (Happy Valley) stars as Harold Godwinson and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Game of Thrones) plays his nemesis, William of Normandy, aka the Conqueror. The eight-part drama begins with the coronation of Harold’s predecessor, Edward the Confessor, in 1043, and takes us through to exactly where you’d think it would (and if this is a spoiler, apologies, but you’ve had nearly 1,000 years to catch up): with Harold dead at the battle of Hastings, with an arrow in his eye. Whether Harold really was felled by an arrow is a point of scholarly debate (tied to the Bayeux Tapestry, which confusingly, isn’t even a tapestry) but the show does a nifty job of explaining the arrow away. Also neatly handled in a story dominated by three men are the women behind the Norman Conquest: Matilda of Flanders (William’s wife), Emma of Normandy (Edward’s mother), Edith the Fair (Harold’s wife) and Edith of Wessex (Harold’s sister and Edward’s wife, who is named Gunhild in the show). They are all able political actors in their own right, as they were in real history. Elsewhere, though, King and Conqueror could be seen to fall foul of its own ambition, truncating and conflating people and events to its own ends. The portrayal of poor Harald Hardrada, in particular – the Norwegian king and third claimant to England’s throne – falls into a familiar ‘brutish Viking’ trope. Is King and Conqueror a true story? Yes, a lot of King and Conqueror is a true story – in the sense that Duke William did invade England, Harold was slain on the battlefield at Hastings, and William claimed the throne in his place – but liberties have been taken with the historical record. Not least, if you set aside Harold, almost none of the historical figures who die in King and Conqueror (and it’s a surprising number) meet their end how they are supposed to, when they are supposed to or where they are supposed to. That seems to have been unavoidable as the eight episodes span more than 20 years – there is a lot of history packed in here, and not a lot of time to cover it. Watch this video for the truth behind William and Harold's in-show bromance, or scroll on for the real history behind King and Conqueror – and if you don’t want spoilers, look away now. View Green Video on the source website King and Conqueror: the real history ** This section contains major spoilers for King and Conqueror** King and Conqueror opens in 1043, with the coronation of Edward the Confessor. The real Edward was a monarch popularly described as being a bit weak and feeble, and perhaps more concerned with preparing his soul for life ever after than the daily rigours of kingship. This holier-than-thou reputation may have been the result of reinvention and revisionism – historian Tom Licence describes him instead as “strong, glorious, feared by his enemies”, a king who wielded power in his own right. But it is the feeble Edward we see here, a touched man who hears the whispered word of God and is ruled by his domineering mother, Emma of Normandy. Emma bears the distinction of being the only woman to have been consort to two kings of England: Aethelred the Unready and Cnut the Great. She is also the mother of two more English kings: first Harthacnut from 1040 until 1042, then Edward immediately after. In King and Conquerer, Edward’s court is dominated by two factions – the Normans, led by Emma, and the Godwin family. Here, as in real history, Earl Godwin of Wessex is one of the most powerful men in England. His rise came during the chaos that followed the Danish conquest of England in the early 11th century, when he became an advisor to King Cnut. He forged a familial tie with Cnut by marrying a Danish wife, Gytha, whose brother was a jarl [a Danish chief] married to Cnut’s own sister. And he created another familial tie with Edward the Confessor, arranging for the king to marry his daughter Edith. This brought Godwin to the height of his power – though in real history, almost three years into Edward’s reign. In King and Conqueror Godwin’s daughter is named Gunhild, presumably because Harold also marries an Edith, and the laws of historical drama say you can’t have two people with the same name. Godwin also has more sons than we see on the small screen – Sweyn, Harold and Tostig should have also been joined by Gyrth, Leofwine and Wulfnoth. In real history, that was important to the succession crisis that happened two decades later. But for now, it is 1043, and it is Edward’s coronation. William is present, and he and Harold have met. Neither of these things are true – the earliest existing record of William coming to England says he does so in 1051, and he couldn’t have met Harold on that occasion as Harold was in exile (more on that in a moment). The first confirmed meeting we know is in 1065, when Harold ends up in Normandy, and when he apparently swears on holy relics that he would support William as the next king of England. As King and Conqueror tells it, no sooner does the crown touch Edward’s head than Emma reveals her true intentions, using her son to banish the Godwins from England. They escape to Flanders, ruled by the Machiavellian Count Baldwin, but minus Harold’s wife Edith, who is kidnapped by the Mercians during the escape. William appears here too – he’s been ousted from Normandy by his one-time protector, King Henry I of France, who now seeks to murder William and absorb Normandy into his own lands. It makes sense that he would be here, because his wife is Matilda of Flanders, and Baldwin is her father. Though she probably didn’t moonlight as a torturer, as the show implies. If these events seem a bit rushed, it’s because this is contracted history: the real Godwins were exiled, but not until 1051 – nearly a decade into Edward’s reign. Edith, as far as we know, was never taken captive. Some of the family end up in Flanders, but not all. Harold, in particular, heads to Ireland, before the Godwins raise armies and sail back to regain their lands. He is not Earl of Wessex by this point, as he is in the show – his father doesn’t pass on the title until his death in 1053 – and so Harold does not have to betray his elder brother Sweyn to get the earldom. Meanwhile, William did have to face down Henry for control of Normandy, but that conflict dragged from the early 1050s through to Henry’s death in 1060; during a siege, not the dramatic flourish of single combat as is depicted here. Remember: almost no one dies when, where or how they are supposed to. From there we leap forward to Harold’s trip to Normandy, bringing us to the beginning of the Bayeux Tapestry. Now we are in more familiar territory: Harold apparently swearing to uphold William’s claim to the crown over the relics of Bayeux; the succession crisis precipitated by Edward the Confessor’s death in 1066; Harold taking the throne; Tostig’s betrayal; Harald Hardrada’s invasion; and finally the three battles that would define England, culminating at Hastings on 14 October 1066. What happened to Sweyn Godwinson? The real Sweyn Godwinson does die while ostensibly on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but the reasons for that spiritual journey were quite different. King and Conqueror gives Sweyn Godwinson, the eldest son of Earl Godwin and brother of Harold, a much bigger role in Harold’s story than we think he had in real history. A boorish lout, he is shown as quick to anger and rash in action, at one point drawing his sword in the presence of the king to the astonishment of all around him. This is no man fit to rule Wessex, and Godwin passes him over for Harold, mollifying Sweyn with the promise of the earldom of Northumbria. When Harold robs him of that too – giving Northumbria to another brother, Tostig Godwinson – Sweyn becomes a liability, prompting Harold to force Sweyn on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Sweyn escapes, and begins plotting to regain Wessex through force, so Harold has him assassinated. None of that happened as far as we know, but the real Sweyn – who held real power as Earl of Herefordshire – was nonetheless something of liability. In 1046 he abducted an abbess from Leominster, prompting his exile to Flanders in 1047, yet he was back in Englandin 1049, after making a plea to King Edward. That same year, he murdered his cousin, prompting a second exile that was not so easily forgiven. He went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and died in unknown circumstances on his return journey. Whether he was forced to make it as in King and Conqueror, we don’t know, but we do know this all took place before Godwin himself died, so Sweyn was never passed over for the earldom of Wessex. Did King Edward the Confessor kill his mother, Emma of Normandy? There is no evidence that Edward the Confessor beat his mother to death with his crown – in fact, says historian Tom Licence, it would have been completely out of character. “It wouldn't fit my understanding of their relationship,” says Licence, who was speaking on this episode of the HistoryExtra podcast about Edward the Confessor's life. “Edward's way of punishing people was to take away their assets or to put them into exile. He hit them in the pocket, not over the head.” While King and Conqueror portrays Edward as so feeble he cannot do without his mother – until he snaps and does away with her entirely in the middle of the series, and in a manner befitting Game of Thrones – the real Edward simply removed her from any proximity to power. When he became king, he confiscated her assets and sent her into ‘retirement’ in the Winchester countryside. “Edward most likely wanted to reduce her political involvement back to a simple status as the widow of the former kings, leaving him to rule independently,” writes historian and archaeologist Cat Jarman. “As far as we know, she lived the rest of her life in Winchester.” Did Edward invite William of Normandy to be his successor? Edward the Confessor may have offered his distant cousin William of Normandy the throne – but probably not by letter, and probably not when King and Conqueror suggests he does. In the drama, Edward sends William a letter naming the Norman duke as his heir after Harold’s return from exile. This is what prompts Harold to go to Normandy – taking on the role of messenger, he wants to see how William reacts. But if the real Edward did offer William the throne, it would probably have been when he invited William to England in 1051. “There's definitely contact in that crucial period where the Godwins are expelled,” writes historian Marc Morris. “The Norman and the English sources together – and the behaviour of Edward and the Godwins – strongly suggests that Edward did make a promise of the throne to William.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/08/528367-52a7e42-e1756032684874.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Eddie Marsan and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror in BBC drama King and Conqueror" title="Eddie Marsan and Nikolai Coster-Waldau as Edward the Confessor and William the Conqueror. If the real Edward did offer William the crown, it would probably been in 1051, while the Godwins were in exile (Photo via BBC)" /> Historian David Bates argues that, when Edward died 15 years later and Harold was pronounced king, William would have been compelled to press his claim as a matter of personal honour. “Whatever one makes of the actual dispute, I'm quite prepared to believe that he believed he'd been named as Edward's successor,” Bates told us an upcoming episode of the HistoryExtra podcast about the life of William the Conqueror. “He was presumably going around saying ‘I'm going to be the next king of the English’ – it would [have] almost been that he would've lost face if he hadn't tried.” What did Harold really swear to William at Bayeux? No one knows for certain whether Harold gave a solemn oath to uphold William’s claim to the English throne. This is a moment of realpolitik in the show, where William springs the oath on Harold in front of witnesses instead of merely confirming an alliance, to the outrage of both Matilda of Flanders and Edith the Fair , who have conspiring towards peace (real history doesn’t tell us if Matilda and Edith ever met). Harold, displaying his father’s talent for getting out of a tight spot without breaking his word, promises to support the ‘rightful king’. Their eyes are daggers. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/08/528387-54fe149-e1756032935864.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="Nikolai Coster-Waldau, Leo Legrand and James Norton as William the Conqueror, Bishop Ono and Harold Godwinson in BBC Norman Conquest drama King and Conqueror" title="Harold is forced to swear an oath in the presence of witnesses in King and Conqueror; in real history, he similarly may have been compelled to act under duress (Photo via BBC)" /> This moment, on which the Norman Conquest turns, takes place in 1065. Norman and English sources vary on what was said, and even where this meeting took place – it may not have been Bayeux. Even why Harold went to Normandy is up for interpretation: was it as a messenger, or to assert himself? Did he even mean to meet with William? Whatever the case, “he came into William’s hands – as a guest, according to the Normans; as a captive, according to the English,” says Licence on the HistoryExtra podcast. “William then took him campaigning, for diplomatic effect – to show off his new prize and give the impression that Harold was his guest.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/08/GettyImages-1137576337-35e1c05-e1755796581541.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This 19th-century illustration depicts Harold Godwinson swearing fealty to William of Normandy — a moment shown in the Bayeux Tapestry. The oath, allegedly made during Harold’s visit to Normandy, later served as William’s justification for his invasion of England in 1066." title="Harolds Oath Of Fealty To William Of Normandy (" /> Did Harold swear his oath under duress then? One detail that the show doesn’t include is that, since the 1050s, the real William had been holding one of Harold’s brothers (Wulfnoth) and a nephew (Hakon) as hostages. Freeing them may have been the entire reason for Harold’s visit. “Harold probably did promise something to William – otherwise, the duke wouldn’t have let him go (along with one of the hostages). But it’s doubtful that he swore to uphold William’s claim to the throne.” Did Edward the Confessor die in a bathtub? No, Edward the Confessor did not die in a bathtub in the throes of passion while his wife Edith of Wessex tried to foist an heir upon him. They may not have even consummated the marriage. “There's a very strong, traditional argument that Edward never really entertained the idea of having a child with Edith,” historian Marc Morris says on our podcast series 1066: The Battle for England. He points to the fact that when the Godwins were exiled in 1051–2, Edward went so far to imprison Edith in an abbey. Even though she was brought back to court when the Godwins returned to power, in that time he made no plans to remarry. The real Edward died on 5 January 1066, after an illness of a few months. This was barely a week after the consecration of Westminster Abbey, where Harold was crowned king the following day. Why did Harold Godwinson claim the throne of England? It is not because he promised his father on his deathbed in the 1060s, as depicted in King and Conqueror – but it may have something to do with someone else’s last words. “Debate still rages about what happened on Edward’s deathbed,” writes historian Caitlin Ellis. King and Conqueror suggests that Edward said nothing intelligible about the succession and that Harold outright lied to further his own ambitions, but real history is more nuanced. “The Life of King Edward, [a tract] commissioned by his wife and queen Edith … [has Edward] stretching his hand out to Harold and, referring to Edith who was there, declaring ‘I commend this woman and all the kingdom to your protection’,” says Ellis. “But was protection the same as taking the throne for himself?” Whether that is what Edward meant is also debated – there is some evidence that, regardless of any promise he may have made to William in 1051, Edward now favoured the claim of his only blood relative, the boy Edgar Ætheling. Edgar isn’t mentioned at all in King and Conqueror. Harold’s claim rested on him being the most powerful noble in Anglo-Saxon England, and this is where Harold’s many brothers come back into the story. By the late 1050s the Godwins controlled Wessex, Northumbria, East Anglia, Kent, Surrey, and parts of Middlesex and Essex, and he made sure to spread his influence beyond the family too. “He goes to great lengths to build bridges with former enemies to make sure he has across the board political approval,” says Marc Morris on our podcast series 1066: The Battle for England, noting that Harold is merely the brother-in-law of the king. “If you are dynastically secure, if you are the son of the previous king and you've been groomed your whole life to succeed your father, and the political community expects that, then you don't need to go to these lengths. “The thing that shows the weakness of Harold's claim is how much people at the time said everybody wanted him to do it.” 1066: The battle for England Member exclusive | The year 1066 is the most famous in English history, but there's a lot more to the story than one bloody battle at Hastings. In this four-part series, medievalist Marc Morris talks David Musgrove through the full story of the Norman Conquest. Watch all episodes now Why did Tostig Godwinson betray Harold – and did Harold kill him? Tostig had as much reason for betraying Harold in real history as he does in the King and Conqueror, but there’s no evidence that Harold personally killed him at the battle of Stamford Bridge – accidentally or otherwise. Tostig’s time as Earl of Northumbria in the show comes to an end when Harold replaces him with Morcar, the Earl of Mercia. It’s part of the price that Morcar demands for supporting Harold’s claim to be king – the other part being Harold’s marriage to his sister. In real history, Tostig was replaced in 1065, while Edward the Confessor was still alive, and in circumstances that testify to how much power Harold had over the king. Tostig, it turns out, was not a good earl – he taxed heavily, allegedly murdered some nobles, and was generally unjust – and so Northumbria revolted and offered Morcar the earldom. Morcar, you should know, was not already Earl of Mercia. That belonged to his elder brother Edwin, another historical figure missing from King and Conqueror. Edward’s plan was to restore Tostig by force; but Harold overruled him, instead agreeing with the rebels demand to install Morcar. This backfired spectacularly. “The problem was that Harold agreed to a plan in which Tostig gets nothing,” says Morris. “Tostig is gone forever. Perhaps further down the line, Harold thought ‘Well maybe I can reintroduce him, after a period of political exile’, but that wasn't what was agreed, and Tostig is clearly beyond furious about it.” And that fury took him to Norway, and Harald Hardrada. Who was Harald Hardrada and what was his claim to the throne? Reduced to a growling Viking during his limited screentime in King and Conqueror, Harald Hardrada was king of Norway whose English ambitions rest on an inherited claim – but he wasn’t invited by Emma of Normandy. In the show, Emma writes to Harald inviting him to claim the throne; the real Emma couldn’t have done so in 1060s, as she died in 1052, but there is speculation that in the 1040s she may have written to his predecessor (and for a time, co-ruler as King of Norway), Magnus the Good. As Caitlin Ellis explains: “The later Norse sagas claim that Harald’s nephew and erstwhile co-ruler Magnus had made a pact with Harthacnut, King of England and Denmark, as they both lacked male heirs, and when one of them died, the survivor would accede to the other’s thrones in addition to their own. “When Harthacnut died, Magnus indeed acceded to the throne of Denmark for a time, but not that of England, as Edward the Confessor had had himself crowned. Harald may have had a tenuous claim, but in all likelihood, he was simply being opportunistic in 1066.” Did Harold Godwinson have two wives? Yes, Harold Godwinson did have two wives, Edith the Fair and later Ealdgyth of Mercia (Margaret in the show) – though only one was married to him in the eyes of the Church. Edith and Harold were married more danico – in the Danish way – which among the nobility of the time would have been seen as perfectly lawful, though not Christian. That meant he could ecclesiastically take Ealdgyth as a second wife, which he likely did to shore up his allegiances in the Midlands and Northumbria in a post-Tostig England – she was sister to Earls Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria. There is some debate as to whether Harold proposed this marriage as early as 1063, which would have brought him closer to Mercia and the leaders of North Wales in place of Northumbria; all we can be sure of is that they were married by early 1066. In the show, neither this marriage pact nor the earldom are enough to prevent Morcar from betraying Harold at Hastings by refusing to enter the fray, rounding off his broadly despicable portrayal. Whether he was quite this much of a villain is not clear – the sources don’t explicitly say where the real Morcar (or Edwin) were during the battle. Was Harold killed by an arrow from God? Harold Godwinson probably wasn’t killed by an arrow at all – much less one guided by the hand of God. The idea of the arrow – depicted as a crafty bit of post-mortem modification to Harold’s corpse in King and Conqueror – has its roots in the Bayeux Tapestry, though some have suggested that its presence there may be the work of later embroiderers rather than its 11th-century creators. But righteousness does hang heavy over the Normans in history, as it does in the drama. Much is made of the comet seen before the battle of Hastings (true – it’s Halley’s Comet, and it appears in the Bayeux Tapestry) and that William’s half-brother Odo secured the blessing of the Pope (partially true – whatever papal backing the Normans had, Odo likely didn’t have much to do with it). The extent of the Pope's support in real history is unclear. William of Poitiers writes that Pope Alexander II did sponsor the invasion with a papal banner, but on this episode of HistoryExtra podcast, historian Dan Armstrong suggests that a banner may have been granted later, in 1070, when papal envoys came to England to bolster William’s shaky legitimacy, and that Poitiers may have backdated the event to justify the conquest. Arrow or no, we do have some corroboration for an alternative, notes Caitlin Ellis. “The Song of the Battle of Hastings [Carmen de Hastingae Proelio] says instead that Harold was attacked by four knights, including William himself, and that he's basically hacked to pieces.” And so we come to William’s coronation – not immediately after Hastings, but on Christmas Day 1066. View Green Video on the source website King and Conqueror is streaming on BBC iPlayer now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week
How well did Harold Godwinson and William the Conqueror know each other prior to the battle of Hastings?
Their fabled clash at hastings in 1066 changed England and Europe, but how well did Harold and William know each other prior to that fateful day? While King and Conqueror paints them as having something of a bromance, the truth is less clear cut, as historian Tom Licence explains
Everyone loves a good story, and the clash between Harold Godwinson and William the Conqueror on 14 October 1066 has been a starting point for storytellers ever since – not least the creators of new BBC drama King and Conqueror. How did the two men meet? Why did they come to blows, and why did England’s king die at the hands of a foreign invader? Few people knew the answers to those questions, and those who did were not impartial. A backstory was therefore invented, to suit the tastes of William’s supporters. Or is that Harold’s? In fact, there are multiple overlapping backstories, stitched together from legends, guesswork, and propaganda. The historian’s task is to sift through all the stories and pick out what might be of use. When did Harold Godwinson and William the Conqueror first meet? We know that Harold and William met late in Edward the Confessor’s reign, most likely in the summer of 1065. But is this when they first met? In the absence of detailed records, this question is difficult to answer. Harold isn’t mentioned in the chronicles before 1049, well into his twenties, so an early meeting with William can’t be ruled out. And it’s likely that Harold knew who William was. As a son of the Earl of Wessex, he should have known something of the neighbouring princes who, through trade and peacekeeping, had dealings with his father. Normandy was just across the Channel – a neighbour of Wessex in effect. He would have known that the king, Edward the Confessor, had recently lived in Normandy and attended William’s court. But the early 1050s brought trouble for Harold: There was a powerful party of Normans at Edward’s court, vying with Harold’s family to dominate the king’s counsel. Matters came to a head in 1051 – Harold’s family lost, and were driven into exile. In late 1051, William visited Edward in England, but Harold was in Ireland and would not have met him then. At some point, probably in 1052, William also got hold of two of Harold’s close relatives – a brother and a nephew – as hostages. Harold, still in exile, would not have met him then either. But from then on, William was associated with the hostile Norman party at Edward’s court. Exactly how William got hold of Harold’s relatives as hostages is far from clear. They may have been kidnapped by the Normans who fled England when Harold’s family returned in 1052. Or perhaps Edward sent them to William in case Harold’s family sought vengeance upon him for their exile. Either way, in Harold’s mind, William was now a hostile agency, who had something over on him. It's possible that Harold met William in the mid-1050s. Edward’s contemporary biographer reports that Harold travelled in the Frankish lands and studied the tactics and capabilities of Frankish princes. A charter of 1056 shows that Harold was present in Flanders at that time, with its count, Baldwin, and other counts, including Guy of Ponthieu (who appears in the Bayeux Tapestry). Although William doesn’t appear with him in the charter, Harold might have visited other places besides Flanders on his foreign trip. He may at some point have visited Normandy to see the hostages, and from 1053 – after succeeding his father as Earl of Wessex – he’d have had to deal with William in cross-Channel business. But the only meeting we can be sure of occurred late in Edward’s reign, most likely in the summer of 1065, when Harold travelled to the Frankish lands a second time. He came into William’s hands – as a guest, according to the Normans; as a captive, according to the English – and the two men went campaigning in Brittany. Watch: The real history behind King and Conqueror View Green Video on the source website Why did Harold travel to Normandy? The first generation of English writers after the Norman Conquest are totally silent about Harold’s trip, which is telling in itself. It suggests that something happened that was relevant to 1066 and that had to be covered up. Norman sources claim that Edward had sent Harold to offer William the English throne (or to confirm an earlier promise). English sources give various explanations, including an attempt to bargain for the release of the hostages and a fishing expedition blown off course (which is possibly a euphemism for an intelligence-gathering trip).ge The Bayeux Tapestry may imply that Harold wasn’t heading for Normandy, since it shows him landing in the neighbouring county of Ponthieu, whose count begins to escort him north to Beaurain, in the opposite direction. But men from William arrive and pressure Guy into handing Harold over. The one thing that does emerge from a judicious appraisal of this mixed bag of sources is that Harold tried to avoid falling prey to William. William then took him campaigning, for diplomatic effect – to show off his new prize and give the impression that Harold was his guest. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/08/GettyImages-79521138-1c2ba9e-e1756034515518.jpg" width="1500" height="1001" alt="Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry of Harold Godwinson being apprehended as he lands in Ponthieu" title="The Bayeux Tapestry depicts Harold Godwinson being apprehended as he lands in Ponthieu and taken prisoner by Count Guy of Ponthieu (Photo via Getty)" /> When he later made Harold swear oaths of some sort, the set-up was the same. Harold appeared, before onlookers, to swear the oaths willingly but in reality did so under duress. It was a piece of political theatre. Norman and English sources disagree on the content of the oaths and even on where the ceremony took place (Bayeux, Rouen, and Bonneville-sur-Touques all being named by different writers). William’s supporters, defending his invasion after 1066, claimed that Harold had sworn to uphold the Duke’s claim to the English throne and garrison castles for him. Other accounts told of oaths Harold had sworn involving a marital alliance with the Norman ducal house. Harold probably did promise something to William – otherwise, the Duke wouldn’t have let him go (along with one of the hostages). But it’s doubtful that he swore to uphold William’s claim to the throne, which was manufactured in 1066 and justified in hindsight. There’s no evidence in any source from before that date that Edward desired to make William his heir. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2025/08/GettyImages-1137576337-35e1c05-e1755796581541.jpg" width="1500" height="1000" alt="This 19th-century illustration depicts Harold Godwinson swearing fealty to William of Normandy — a moment shown in the Bayeux Tapestry. The oath, allegedly made during Harold’s visit to Normandy, later served as William’s justification for his invasion of England in 1066." title="Harolds Oath Of Fealty To William Of Normandy (" /> By that point, if not long before, Harold and William were rightly very wary of each other, harbouring multiple grudges. From William’s point of view, Harold’s family had thwarted Norman ambitions at Edward’s court and crushed and expelled the Norman faction. From Harold’s perspective, William was a wily opponent who had a hold over his family in the form of the two hostages. Eadmer, an English writer born in 1060, presents William as an extremely dangerous man, which he was. William’s supporters project such qualities onto Harold, portraying him as an arch-deceiver, treacherous in every respect. At the battle of Hastings, there was no neat accidental death by a random arrow. Rather, William’s troop made a beeline for Harold and hacked him to pieces, with one knight cutting off Harold’s genitals as a trophy. The world was too small for two men such as Harold and William to share it. Undoubtedly, there was a lot of additional backstory that we’ll never know. The bitterness of 1066 does suggest that William felt that Harold had betrayed him somehow. Harold, for his part, may have had no other choice, realising that William was a man like himself, who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted. 1066: The battle for England Member exclusive | The year 1066 is the most famous in English history, but there's a lot more to the story than one bloody battle at Hastings. In this four-part series, medievalist Marc Morris talks David Musgrove through the full story of the Norman Conquest. Watch all episodes now Tom Licence is Professor of Medieval History at the University of East Anglia and a Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge. His biography of Harold for Yale English Monarchs is expected to appear in 2026 King and Conqueror is streaming on BBC iPlayer now. For more content like this, check out the best historical movies of all time as chosen by historians and ranked by you, history TV shows and films to stream tonight, and our picks of the new history TV and radio released in the UK this week