NOTE D. p. 42. The Coronation of Harold

There are three points for discussion with regard to the Coronation of Harold;

First, Was Harold duly consecrated with the usual ecclesiastical rites?

Second, Who was the officiating Prelate at the ceremony?

Third, What was the place of the ceremony?

The evidence on the first point is as decisive as evidence can be. The ecclesiastical consecration of Harold is asserted by all the three Chroniclers. Abingdon and Worcester, with small verbal differences, both say, “Her wearð Harold Eorl eac to Cynge gehalgod.” Peterborough uses another word and gives us the date; “Harold Eorl ... wæs gebletsod to Cynge on Twelftan mæsse dæg.” Florence, in the passage which I have throughout taken as my text, states the same fact, and adds the name of the consecrator. Harold was “ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo Eboracensi honorificè consecratus.” I therefore have not hesitated to describe Harold in the text as consecrated by Ealdred, according to the form of consecration then in use in the English Church.

The writers whom I have already quoted as following the account of Florence with regard to the recommendation and the election, naturally follow him also with regard to the coronation. The coronation is also mentioned as an alternative statement by those writers who mention the recommendation and election as alternative statements. It is somewhat curious that Knighton, whose account is the most confused of all, seems (X Scriptt. 2339) to have no doubt about the coronation; “Nunc Haraldus ab Aldredo Eboracensi Archiepiscopo consecratus est.” This is the one position which he leaves without alternative or self-contradiction. The coronation is of course also asserted by the writer De Inventione (c. 20); “Rex igitur consecratus a Stigando Dorobernensi Archipræsule.” According to his Norwegian admirer (263), Harold was consecrated King and anointed (smeared) with holy chrism; “Hann var vigdr Kongr oc smurdr helgum chrisma.” Snorro also (Johnstone, 192; Laing, iii. 77) asserts that he was duly consecrated, and that on his consecration all the chiefs and people of the land submitted to him (“Haralldr var til konungs tekinn, oc vígdr konungs-vigslo inn xiii í Páls-kirkio. Gengo þá allir höfdingiar til handa hönom, oc allt fólk”).

The Norman writers nearest to the time do not deny an ecclesiastical consecration. Only they affirm that the officiating Prelate was Stigand. “Ordinatus est non sanctâ consecratione Stigandi,” says William of Poitiers (121 Giles); so Orderic in the passage already quoted (see above, p. 603), who even goes further, and says that the ceremony was performed by Stigand without the consent of the other prelates and nobles. William of Jumièges (see above, p. 602) slurs over the whole matter with the words “regnum invasit.” The Tapestry distinctly represents an ecclesiastical consecration, but the Prelate standing by the King on his throne is significantly marked “Stigant Archiep̄s.”

It is only when we get further from the time that we find any distinct denial of an ecclesiastical consecration of some sort. Wace, as we have seen (see above, p. 603), is colourless. Benoît, in the passage already quoted (ib.), distinctly denies any ecclesiastical consecration. So does the author of the French Life; he first asserts (4079–4081) that Harold caused himself to be elected and crowned, because no one dared oppose him;

He presently goes on to say, more at length, that the coronation was done hastily by laymen without any ecclesiastical rite;

The story that Harold put the Crown on his own head probably comes from an expression of William of Malmesbury, in the former of his two accounts (ii. 228; see above, p. 604), “extortâ à principibus fide, diadema arripuit.” For this Roger of Wendover (see above, p. 605) substitutes the words “extortâ fide a majoribus, capiti proprio imposuit diadema.” In this he is followed, as we have seen, by Matthew Paris and Thomas Rudborne, but the latter adds an explanation which I must presently examine more at length. The Hyde writer too tells us (290), “regnum Anglorum ... usurpavit, regiumque diadema sibi imposuit.” So the author of the Annales Regum Angliæ (in the Rishanger volume, p. 427); “Haroldus filius Godwyni die sexto Januarii seipsum apud Westmonasterium coronavit.” The same words occur in Brompton (958) as an alternative. The Ramsey historian also (c. 120, p. 461) speaks to the same effect; “Haraldus ... diademate regni sese temerè insignivit.”

In all these writers the feeling against Harold is manifest, with the seeming exception of Thomas Rudborne. He first of all, as I have said, tells the story in words borrowed from Roger of Wendover, including the self-coronation of Harold, and his description as “vir callidus et astutus.” But, as he gets on, he gradually softens. He is sorry that Harold was guilty of perjury (Ang. Sac. i. 242), because, if he had not been so, he would most likely have defeated William (“utinam Haroldus non perjurus fuisset, et disciplinam Aristotelis quam dedit Alexandro Magno sequutus fuisset; fortè Dei auxilio et non dubium, ut aliquibus videtur, vicisset Willelmum”). He then goes on to explain how it came to pass that Harold was never anointed, and why he put the Crown on his own head (“Iste Haroldus, quamvis semetipsum propriis manibus coronâsset, numquam tamen Rex inunctus erat”). Harold had scruples about being crowned by Stigand, on account of his pluralities (“noluit enim inungi a Stigando Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, quia injustè duos pontificatus, viz. Cantuariensem et Wyntoniensem, detinuit”). He wished to be anointed by Ealdred, but that Primate was very sick at the time. Harold therefore put off his unction till Ealdred’s recovery (“distulit enim recipere regiam inunctionem quousque Aldredus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus sanitati restitueretur, gravi enim infirmitate pro tunc detinebatur”). Unluckily Ealdred never recovered during Harold’s reign, and Harold therefore went without unction altogether (“Archipræsul verò Eboracensis Aldredus ab infirmitate minimè convaluit usque ad mortem seu occisionem Haroldi”). The statement of Florence and his followers or, as Rudborne says, of Ralph of Diss and some others (“quod autem Radulphus de Dyseto Londoniensis Decanus et quidam alii scribunt”), that Harold was consecrated by Ealdred, he explains as meaning that Ealdred simply consented to his consecration, not that he consecrated him in person (“hoc intelligendum est quia Aldredus Archiepiscopus sic consensit consecrationi, non quod egit seu dedit munus consecrationis in actu”). How Ealdred could be said to consent to a consecration which never took place is not very clear. For all this Rudborne refers to “Auctor de Concordantiis Historiarum Angliæ sub literâ H.” In this story I can see only an ingenious, but somewhat unlucky, attempt to reconcile contradictory statements. Still there is something remarkable in the canonical scrupulousness which it attributes to Harold, though the form which it takes is somewhat singular. If canonical disabilities affected one Primate and bodily ailments the other, one does not see why, as in some later cases, Saint Wulfstan or any other Bishop in the land might not have officiated by lawful commission.

Putting aside then the misstatements and misconceptions of other writers as well as the ingenious explanations of Thomas Rudborne, I do not hesitate to say that the ecclesiastical consecration, as asserted by the contemporary writers on both sides, must be admitted as an undoubted fact. The only question open to reasonable doubt is whether Ealdred or Stigand was the consecrator. The Chroniclers, writing at the time, before any controversy had arisen, did not mention the celebrant. Florence, after misstatements had arisen, thought it right to put on record that the celebrant was Ealdred. He is followed by the best later compilers, among whom Thomas Stubbs (X Scriptt. 1702) should specially be mentioned, for he writes as the historian of the Primates of York, and, though he adopts the words of Florence, he doubtless represents the independent tradition of the church of York. The only strictly English writer who represents Harold as crowned by Stigand is the Waltham writer De Inventione. The compilers, from Roger of Wendover onwards, seem to have been more taken with the notion of Harold’s putting the Crown on his own head. Perhaps they did not fully understand the point of the question between Ealdred and Stigand.

On the other hand, William of Poitiers and Orderic distinctly assert that Harold was crowned by Stigand (see above, pp. 602, 603); but they do it in rhetorical passages, in which they go on to enlarge on Stigand’s schismatical position. Their evident object is to represent Harold’s coronation as uncanonical and invalid. The representation in the Tapestry is singular. It does not show Stigand in the act of crowning or anointing Harold. Harold is already crowned and seated on his throne, and Stigand stands by, seemingly addressing the people. The Tapestry always seems to me the most honest and trustworthy of all Norman accounts; otherwise I could almost believe that there is here an attempt to insinuate that Stigand was the celebrant without directly asserting it.

The question is simply this, Is this Norman statement to be accepted in opposition to the statement of Florence, evidently meant in answer to it? The statement, very brief and casual, of the one Waltham writer, cannot be thought to add much to the strength of the case. His notions about Stigand are a little confused throughout his story, and he might easily take for granted that, if a King was crowned, he must have been crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Leaving then the De Inventione, are we to believe William of Poitiers, supported to some extent by the Tapestry, or are we to believe Florence? I at least have no doubt as to preferring Florence to William. Each is undoubtedly the champion of one side; still the position of the two writers is widely different. The Archdeacon of Lisieux wrote as the laureate of a living sovereign, from whose favour he had everything to hope. The monk of Worcester wrote to clear the memory of a fallen hero from the calumnies which were already beginning to gather round it. William of Poitiers writes in a spirit of frantic reviling against Harold; Florence never displays any unbecoming bitterness against the Conqueror. Besides this, the assertion of William is simply an assertion; the assertion of Florence has the weight of a denial. Add to this that William writes of a transaction which happened in a foreign land of whose laws and internal affairs he clearly knew nothing. Florence, though hardly of an age at the time to say much from his own knowledge, was an Englishman and a Worcester monk, a member of a body which doubtless still watched the career of their former Bishop with interest. As far then as the comparative value of witnesses goes, it seems to me that Florence is a witness in every way more trustworthy than William of Poitiers.

The probability of the case lies the same way. We have seen that the episcopal ministrations of Stigand were at this time commonly avoided in England. Harold himself had (see vol. ii. p. 446) chosen Cynesige and not Stigand to hallow his minster at Waltham. It is therefore most unlikely that, on the occasion of this still greater ceremony, Harold should run the smallest risk of awakening scandal or objection. The custom of the time, and Harold’s own earlier conduct, show that Ealdred would be asked to perform the ceremony, almost as a matter of course.

Lastly, if the ceremony was really performed by Stigand, the assertion that it was performed by Ealdred must have been a deliberate falsehood on the part of Florence or his informants. Mere mistake or carelessness could never have led to it. But if the celebrant really was Ealdred, we can understand that the statement that it was Stigand might get abroad without any absolute lying on the part of any one. Let us suppose a rumour of Harold’s coronation reaching the Norman court. Such a rumour might well come without the name of the officiating Prelate. It would be taken for granted that the ceremony was performed by the Prelate whose proper function it was, the Metropolitan of Canterbury. The natural surmise that Harold must have been crowned by Stigand would soon grow into a rumour that he actually had been crowned by Stigand. The consecration of the perjured King by the schismatic Primate would lead to fresh invectives against both. Such a consecration would be declared to be no consecration; strict churchmen, in the vigour of their rhetoric, would say that Harold had never been consecrated at all. In the next stage those words would be taken literally, and we thus reach the point at which Benoît denies the performance of any religious ceremony. This process is exactly the same as that by which ecclesiastical writers so constantly apply the name of concubine, or sometimes harder names still, to the wives of priests or to other women to whose marriage there was any canonical objection. Lastly, the belief that Harold had no ecclesiastical consecration, mixed up with the talk about “arripuit” and “invasit,” led not unnaturally to the idea, which seems first to appear in Roger of Wendover, that Harold put the Crown on his own head.

There is then, I think, no doubt whatever that Harold was consecrated King with all the usual ecclesiastical rites. That the ceremony was performed by Ealdred may be thought one degree less certain, but that too seems to me to be a point on which scepticism is unreasonable. One point only remains, namely the place of the ceremony, whether Harold was crowned in the old minster of Saint Paul or in the new minster of Saint Peter.

Our direct evidence either way comes from quite inferior writers; those nearest the time, both Norman and English, do not mention the place. Some of the passages have been already quoted. We have seen that Snorro places the ceremony at Saint Paul’s. The list of coronations in what we may conveniently call Rishanger, followed by an alternative statement in Bromton, places it at Westminster. So does John of Peterborough, under 1066; “Successit in regnum Harold us Dux West-Saxonum, filius Godwini, in crastino obitûs Regis, id est in die Epiphaniæ, apud Westmonasterium coronatus.” On the other hand, in the Brevis Relatio (Giles 4) we read,

“Adhuc autem erat corpus ejus [Edwardi] super terram, sicut illi postea retulerunt qui hæc se videre dixerunt, quum Heraldus, quasi insanus atque postponens quidquid Willelmo Comiti de regno Angliæ juraverat, videlicet quod ei illud fideliter post mortem Regis Edwardi servaret, consentientibus sibi civibus Londoniæ, multisque aliis insaniæ ejus faventibus, apud sanctum Paulum in civitate Londoniæ, contra omnem rectitudinem, coronam regni Angliæ arripuit.”

Comparing this evidence, such as it is, the balance is distinctly in favour of Westminster. The witness of Snorro, apparently in favour of Saint Paul’s, really tells the other way. For he had just before said (Johnstone, 191; Laing, iii. 77) that Eadward was buried at Saint Paul’s, whereas there is no need at all to prove that he was buried at Westminster. Snorro most likely confounded the minsters of the brother Apostles. But his statement distinctly is that Harold was crowned in the same church in which Eadward was buried, that is, in Saint Peter’s.

The spirit of the Brevis Relatio, a bitter Norman pamphlet of the time of Henry the First, is abundantly shown in my extract. The writer professes to speak from what he has heard from those who were present. But does his statement really assert a coronation at Saint Paul’s? What he records is something which took place at Saint Paul’s before Eadward’s burial. This then could not be Harold’s coronation, for that took place after Eadward’s burial. Also he does not speak of a formal coronation; he uses one of the set phrases of Norman declamation, “coronam regni Angliæ arripuit.” Afterwards (p. 5) he makes William say how “Heraldus coronam regni Angliæ sibi imposuisset.” These are the rhetorical phrases which led to the later story of Harold crowning himself, but they do not in themselves imply any actual coronation at all. If the writer of the Brevis Relatio means an actual coronation, he is at once convicted of error by his placing the coronation before the burial. But it is just as likely that he is not talking of the coronation but of the election. Harold seizes the Crown with the consent of the citizens of London and many others. That is most likely the author’s way of putting the fact that he was elected by the citizens of London and the rest of the Witan, and it is highly probable that an Assembly in which the citizens of London were likely to take a prominent part might be held in Saint Paul’s.

It is therefore by no means clear that there is any evidence at all for Saint Paul’s. The direct evidence for Westminster, though not good, is a little better. The statement of John of Peterborough is very clear and straightforward, but the date of his Chronicle is uncertain, and it is in any case long after the time. His entry may be merely copied from Rishanger, whose statement, being found in a special list of coronations and royal burials, has a certain value, as not being a mere obiter dictum, but the assertion of a man who was specially enquiring into a certain subject.

But I rest the coronation of Harold at Westminster far less on these late statements than on the probability of the case and on what seems to me to be the implied evidence of earlier writers. Florence on the one hand, William of Poitiers and Orderic on the other, seem pointedly to connect the burial of Eadward and the coronation of Harold. In Florence’s narrative, Eadward dies and is buried; “Obiit Lundoniæ et in crastino sepultus regio more.... Quo tumulato,” he continues, in the passage which I have so often referred to, “Subregulus Haroldus ... die eodem ... in Regem est honorificè consecratus.” Two great ecclesiastical ceremonies, one immediately following the other, take place on the same day; in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the presumption surely is that they took place in the same church. William of Poitiers again (see above, p. 602) and, I may add, William of Malmesbury (see above, p. 588), seems to complain of the indecency of having the coronation on the same day as the burial, but they connect the two things, and they in no way imply any difference of place. It is only Orderic (see above, p. 603), who, by the use of the word “furtim,” might possibly suggest that Harold took advantage of the funeral in Saint Peter’s to be crowned elsewhere by Stigand. But he does not distinctly say so, nor do his words necessarily imply it. It strikes me then that Florence implies Harold’s coronation in Saint Peter’s and that nobody else denies it.

In fact, there was every motive for Harold to be crowned in Saint Peter’s, there was none for him to be crowned anywhere else. Eadmund and Cnut had been crowned at Saint Paul’s, but Saint Paul’s was no traditional crowning-place of West-Saxon royalty. Kingston had been forsaken, and no other one spot had definitively taken its place. No prescription was broken through by a Westminster coronation, and the circumstances of the recent consecration of the church, the death and burial of the Founder, would draw all men’s minds to the newly hallowed temple, and cause it to be chosen before all others for the greatest of national rites. To believe that the Prelates and the other Witan buried Eadward at Saint Peter’s, and then, without any conceivable motive, marched off to Saint Paul’s to crown Harold, seems utterly preposterous. There is good reason to believe that the West Minster was, from the very beginning, designed as a national crowning-place. The assertion of the doubtful charter to that effect (see vol. ii. p. 505) is confirmed by the practice of later ages. William was crowned at Saint Peter’s. The fact that he was crowned there is in truth no slight argument that Harold was crowned there before him. William had no motive to innovate on such a point. His only reason for being crowned at Saint Peter’s must have been because Saint Peter’s had been specially designed by Eadward for Kings to be crowned in. And that motive would tell just as strongly with Harold as with William. William had every motive to connect himself in every way with the memory of Eadward, and to put himself forward in every way as the true successor of Eadward and the faithful executor of his wishes. But Harold had exactly the same motives to do exactly the same. A passage of William of Malmesbury (quoted above, p. 555) which has been pressed into the service of the other side (Stanley, Memorials of Westminster, 48) has no reference to the matter at all. All that is there said is that William favoured the Abbey of Westminster because he was crowned there, and that William’s successors, out of reverence for Saint Eadward’s tomb, were crowned there also. There is not a word, expressed or implied, to show that William’s was the first coronation in the West Minster.

I have then, in these three notes, gone, to the best of my power, through the whole of the points suggested by my text from Florence. I trust that I have shown that we have the strongest ground that history can give us for believing that Harold the son of Godwine was in every way a lawful King of the English, a King chosen, crowned, and anointed, according to the ancient use of this Church and Realm. We may quote without hesitation the words even of his own romantic biographer, when he introduces his hero (ii. 151) as “Illustrissimus Rex legitimus Haroldus, jam ritè ac legitimè coronatus.” The evidence of true history, as distinguished from the voice of calumny and misconception, sets Harold before us as recommended by the dying will of his predecessor, as chosen to the Kingdom by the consent of a full and regular Assembly of the whole nation, as consecrated to his kingly office with all the rites of the Church, at the hands of a Primate whose canonical position no man ventured to gainsay. And we may add that there is no ground for depriving the royal Abbey of Saint Peter of the choicest flower in the rich garland of its historic memories. There is no ground for doubting that the spot which beheld the royal unction of Edward and Elizabeth had already received a higher honour still, in being the spot where, for the first and last time in English history, an English King received the English Crown purely because he was the worthiest of the English people.