Edward’s success was also shown during his reign, as he was able to solve the problem of not having enough supporters. Edward embarked on a Normanisation Policy in 1051, where he imported around twelve Normans in Britain. According to Barlow, Edward gave Ralph land, Robert of Fitswimarc estates; Fecamp of Normandy was given coasts in Sussex. Osbern was given Bosham. Edward does this as he wants to improve his political position by bringing in Normans and balancing the power with the Godwines. Evidence was supported by Stenton who describes that Normans were imported into England. Also this eases the problem for Edward not having and English relations in England. Therefore it could be argued that Edward was not a failure, as he knew how to deal with when he has not got enough support.
Some historians argue that Edward should be described as a failure as king he was not able to deal with the power of Godwine. Evidence shown according to Barlow that Godwine owned a lot of land. Swein was made earl in 1050, earldom compromising the MERCIAN SHIRES of Hereford, Gloucester, Oxford, Wessex shires of Berkshire and Somerset. Harold was earl of East Anglia in 1045. Beorn Estrithson was given earldom in the eastern midlands. This information is corrobated by Stenton and Stafford who mentions Swein and Harold holding earldoms. Barlow also mentions Godwine owning a lot of land, this view supported by Stenton who mentions that Godwine’s earldom extends along the South coast from Kent to Cornwall. Due to all this power that the Godwines had, this was a threat to Edward, as Godwine might become over mighty. Therefore it could be argued that Edward was a failure as there was a need for Edward to depend on the Godwines’ power and a need to give Godwines earldoms to earn their support. This view is agreed with Barlow, who also mentions dependence of Godwine was also needed due to Edward’s lack of loyal support. William of Malmesbury and Florence of Worcester agrees with this view as they mention that Edward was not secure in his position. As many historians agree with this view, therefore it could be argued that this piece of evidence was reliable. William of Malmesbury in some extent was most probable in saying a reliable comment. This was because he was writing much later, and probably had access to more sources. According to Stafford, William of Malmesbury was aware that the English and the Norman often told a different story.
Edward could be argued as a success with the Godwines. Edward acted decisively as he realised the importance of giving land to the Godwines. Edward does give land to the Godwines but made sure that the Godwines did not exert power over him, as he did not allow him to become over mighty. This shows that Edward had maintained control over the Godwins. According to Barlow in two occasions Edward was able to put Swein into exile without being influenced by the Godwines. The first time was becaue of raping Abbess of Leominister and secondly due to murdering his cousin Beorn. Edward was also able to put the Godwines into exile
Edward could be argued as a failure with the Godwines, as he was unable to stop the Godwines from rebelling in 1051. Edward was not able to stop Godwine from feeling the impregnability of his position, as he believed he could challenge the king with impunity. Barlow agrees with view and shows Godwine’s impregnability as he chose to fight against Edward, as he was already contumacious. This piece of evidence is probably reliable as Loyn supports the view and ASC (D) agrees that Godwine was powerful and there is no other evidence that contradicts with this view. According to Stafford, he believes that Barlow’s narrative of Edward is unaffected by 1066. He mentions that he was reliable as he ‘turned especially to the allegedly contemporary ASC’. Therefore it is probable that this piece of evidence is reliable. Therefore it is most probable that Edward was a failure, as he was unable to make Godwine fear him, causing Godwine to rebel as a result.
Edward was even less successful with the Godwines as his achievement with putting Godwine into exile was only a short-term success. This was because Edward was unable to expel the Godwines in 1052. This was due to Edward not having support from Siward and Leofric. This view is agreed by Barlow, Stenton and supported by Campbell and Schama. All these historians agree that Edward had no other alternative but to allow the Godwines to return in 1052 due to not having the support from Leofric and Siward,. Therefore it is most probable that this piece of evidence was reliable. In addition to this, Godwine had many support from Wessex and London citizens, and according to the ASC (D), Godwine was greeted warmly, however this view is contradicted with Stafford as he describes that he ‘was not swept back on a tide of popular enthusiasm.’ Therefore, it is likely to describe Edward as a failure with the Godwines as he was not able to maintain control over the earls, by earning their support. According to Stafford, Ralf and Odda were supposed to receive reinforcements and help resist the Godwine’s army. But by the time Edward’s army had assembled which took time, the Godwine’s army had already arrived London. Therefore, it is more likely to describe Edward as a failure as he was slow in mobilizing his army. There is evidence from Barlow showing that the return of the Godwines in 1052 caused Edward to lose his confidence.
When Harold took Godwine’s place as king of Wessex, after Godwine died. Edward was unable to stop Harold from becoming over mighty and enable Harold’s land to extend further. This evidence is shown in Stafford as he mentions that Tostig took Northumbria in 1055 after Siward’s died, In 1057/8 Harold took over from Ralf in Welsh marchers. According to Stafford, Edward allowed Harold to succeed all his brother’s earldom in 1050’s and 60’s. Barlow and Stenton support this view. By 1057, all the earldoms except for Mercia were in the hand of the Godwines. It is most probable that this shows Edward as a failure as he was unable to stop Harold from becoming over mighty, and due to there being a decrease in the supporters that Edward had, this enable Harold to extend his land further and more land meant more power. This view is agreed by Campbell. This view is supported by Stenton saying that, ‘Harold had a great deal of influence in southern England, where centre of national authority lay.’ This view is also supported by Schama as he says that, ‘he was at the height of his powers.” Edward’s failure is also shown, as he was unable to deal with the Welsh and Scottish Affairs, but instead had to depend on Harold dealing with it. There is evidence shown in Schama and Stafford, where they both agree that in 1062 that Harold was given a role in attacking Gruffyd. This view was also supported by Barlow as he says, ‘Harold was able to make Wales fall into pieces.’ Harold was given the role as he was put in charge of offensive and defensive against the Welsh. This evidence is supported by the ASC. Schama says that Harold was ‘Edward’s indispensable man, keeping enemies from his borders.’ This view is corrobated by ASC as it describes Edward as being “Sub’regnulus”, as Harold was acting the king the ruler, whereas Edward was becoming the figurehead. There is evidence shown by Campbell that due to Harold’s power increasing, this enable Harold to question himself about the succession. Schama also agrees this view. This shows Edward as a failure as king, because due to Edward’s weakness not being able to stop Harold from becoming over mighty, not only does this increase the problem Harold has from the Godwines, but also increases further the problem concerning the succession issue as Edward did not have an heir to the throne.
Edward could be described as a failure after 1057, after the watershed, the death of his main supporters combining with the power that Harold had. There is evidence from Barlow and supported by Loyn, that Edward becomes less politically active, due to the death of his main supporters in 1057. Siward dies in 1055, Leofric in 1057, Edward the Exile in 1057, Ralph of Hereford in 1057 and Earl Ralph died, who was Edward’s main supporter. The Watershed meant that Edward was in a weak position as he had lost the support from other rivals to the Godwines, this allowed Harold to extend his power as this meant that Harold becomes more and more powerful due to Edward losing his supporters. Edward became disillusioned, not only because he was troubled because of the loss of his major supporters, also because there were four earldoms that were in the hands of the Godwines and Aelfgar who held Mercia, supported the Welsh. In the past Edward had relied on the rivalry of the Godwines and Leofric to prevent the Godwines from becoming over mighty. He could not rely upon this in 1057 as Harold has gained a lot of power by this time. If Edward could not rely upon the divisions of the Godwines and Leofric he had to rely on the interval divisions between the Godwines themselves. Edward’s weakness is shown as he watches the events that occurs between Harold and his brother Tostig and accepts them because he could have the power not to appoint Edwin, and Tostig was Edith and his favourite but he did not. Harold had accepted this so this shows Edward’s weakness because he was so reliant on Harold he could not show action unless Harold was supporting him. Edward’s failure was shown further in 1065 events; this was because Edward could not stop Tostig’s removal from Northumbria. Edward just made Harold take in charge, but due to Harold’s main aim, which was to become king of England, he wanted Morcar’s and Edwin’s support therefore he went against his brother and made Morcar rule Northumbria.
Edward’s failure was shown, as he was unable to solve the problem of the succession issue. Edward had no sons, which meant he had no heir to the throne which was the reasons why there was a problem with the succession. The king was married for five years but did not have any children; some could argue that this was Edward’s fault for not sleeping with his wife. According to Schama Edward did marry Godwine’s daughter, but refused to consummate the marriage.
Edward could be described as a failure as he did not have a consistent policy, when trying to deal with the succession issue. He kept changing his mind as circumstances changed with matters of the succession issue. The reason why Edward promised Swein of Denmark the throne was because he threatened to invade England and according to Adam of Bremen Edward promised him the throne in 1047. Edward does not think about whether this claim would be likely to be successful in the long-term but makes the decision due to the circumstances in England. He was afraid that England was going to get invaded by Swein of Denmark, therefore felt that the only choice he had was to promise him the throne although it was not in his own interest. However, this piece of evidence suggested by Adam of Bremen is most probable to be unreliable as there are no other pieces of evidence corrobating this source. Therefore it is likely that his claim was invalid. Edward is shown as a failure as he does not keep this promise, if the promise actually did happen. By 1051, according to William of Jumieges Edward promised William of Normandy the throne. Both William of Jumieges and ASC (E) mentions that Edward sent Robert of Jumieges to Normandy to the Duke. William of Jumieges directly says that Robert of Jumieges was sent to Normandy to promise the Duke the throne as Edward told him to do so. However both ASC (E) and ASC (D) does not mention that Edward promised William of Normandy the throne. Therefore, it is probable that William of Jumiege’s evidence should not be trusted upon as both the ASC (D) and ASC (E) does not agree with the evidence given by him. Also this evidence should not be trusted up on as William of Jumieges was a panegyrist, as he was writing an encomium of him. The ASCD (D) was the most politically impartial (unbiased) of all the chronicles, therefore is most probable that the ASC (D) was saying the truth. However it is likely that Edward did promise William the throne as William was facing Baronial Rebellion at the time and would not have come to England to meet the king unless it was as important as an issue as being promised the throne. Also according to ASC (E), it mentions that Robert went to Rome, similar to that of William of Jumieges, but there is no mention of him speaking to William about the throne, but however mentions that William comes to England at once. Therefore it is most probable that this was concerning the succession issue. However if this was the case, it could be argued that Edward was a failure as he should not have promised William the throne if he had already promised Swein the throne. This shows William’s inconsistency of his policy.
