Historian Tom Licence uncovers how key entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle may have been revised after 1066 to legitimise Harold Godwinson’s rise—and erase uncomfortable truths.
New research is shedding light on how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a set of annals that are a major source for England’s history in the eleventh century, may have been subtly rewritten in favour of Harold Godwinson. In a recent study, historian Tom Licence investigates the gaps and inconsistencies in Chronicle versions C, D, and E between 1062 and 1066, arguing that they not only omit important events but also promote a version of history favourable to Harold’s claim to the throne.
“In all three scenarios,” Licence writes, “those annals were written some time after the alleged events they describe, and – in the case of /E and D – by chroniclers who were collaborating to create a narrative that had been purged of uncomfortable details. We can only guess at what events may have been written out of the story, as it was later narrated, but the swearing of an oath, binding the chief men to Edgar Ætheling, is top of my list of guesses. The death of Ælfgar, earl of Mercia, is second on the list. In the annals for Edward’s reign, every earl’s death is recorded except for Ælfgar’s.”
Chronicles D and E provide matching accounts of the northern rebellion of 1065, claiming that King Edward agreed to the rebels’ demands and confirmed Morcar, Earl of Mercia, as the new Earl of Northumbria—replacing Harold’s brother Tostig. According to these accounts, Edward gave his hand to the rebels, renewed the laws of King Cnut, and peacefully resolved the dispute. But earlier sources such as the Vita Eadwardi regis and Chronicle C paint a different picture, showing Edward refusing the rebels’ demands and becoming increasingly isolated before his death.
Entries in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – British Library MS Cotton Tiberius B. I, fol. 144v
This contradiction, Licence argues, is no accident. Instead, it points to a deliberate backdating of Harold’s later actions as king—making it appear that Edward had approved of Harold’s faction before the crown changed hands. He writes:
The DE account dates to the 1070s and makes a set of bogus claims that shore up the rebels’ position: that Morcar had been confirmed in office by King Edward (he had not), and that Edward had renewed the law of Cnut for them (he had not). In the first few months of 1066, the new king, Harold, went to York, and it was Harold in 1066, rather than Edward in 1065, one assumes, who confirmed Morcar in office and renewed the law of Cnut, to bring an end to the revolt.
This tendency to attribute political settlements to Edward, when they were more likely the work of Harold, fits into a broader pattern. According to Licence, after 1061, the chronicles shift in tone and focus. Whereas earlier annals consistently report ecclesiastical matters and the deaths of major nobles, the years 1062–1066 show sudden silences—skipping key events such as Harold’s trip to Normandy, the papal legates’ visit, or Ælfgar’s death. These omissions are especially significant given that Ælfgar’s familial connection to the Welsh king Gruffudd (his son-in-law) would have had major political implications in the campaigns of 1062–1063.
The physical manuscripts support this analysis. In Chronicle E, for instance, the year 1062 is marked by a blank line—suggesting a break in the source material. In D, the years 1062 and 1064 contain only the date with no content, a stark contrast to earlier annals that offered year-by-year detail. Licence argues this is not merely the result of lost entries, but rather evidence of editorial silence, in which politically awkward material was excluded or erased.
Even the accounts that do exist—such as the record of the Welsh campaign—show signs of post-Conquest rewriting. The Chronicle claims Harold and Tostig led a campaign in 1063 that resulted in the death of Gruffudd and the installation of new Welsh rulers. But Licence notes that the dating is off, likely confused by later chroniclers relying on misaligned sources. Moreover, the wording of the Chronicle suggests Harold had authority to install a Welsh king—something that would not have been within his power under Edward’s rule, but which makes sense if the annal was written after Harold had become king.
Translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle by J.A. Giles, published in 1914. Archive.org
Licence concludes that these entries were likely written in the 1070s, long after the events took place, and that their content served to legitimise Harold’s short reign by downplaying opposition, eliminating rivals, and presenting his actions as a continuation of Edward’s will.
The implications of this study are significant for medieval historians. It calls into question the reliability of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a contemporary witness for the years just before 1066 and urges scholars to treat its entries as part of a constructed narrative, shaped by political needs rather than impartial record-keeping.
“No longer can we fall into the habit of merely synthesizing the chronicles,” Licence warns. “Where silences occur, we should look for what might have been scratched from the record and be open to finding it in unlikely places, including later accounts and accounts written abroad.”
Tom Licence’s article, “The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, C, D and E, Annals 1062–66,” appears in Anglo-Norman Studies XLVI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2023, which was published last year. You can access the article through De Gruyter Brill.
Tom Licence is Professor of Medieval History and Consumer Culture at the University of East Anglia and director of the Centre of East Anglian Studies. His research focuses on the Norman Conquest and English history.
Top Image: King Harold in the Bayeux Tapestry – Wikimedia Commons
Historian Tom Licence uncovers how key entries in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle may have been revised after 1066 to legitimise Harold Godwinson’s rise—and erase uncomfortable truths.
New research is shedding light on how the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a set of annals that are a major source for England’s history in the eleventh century, may have been subtly rewritten in favour of Harold Godwinson. In a recent study, historian Tom Licence investigates the gaps and inconsistencies in Chronicle versions C, D, and E between 1062 and 1066, arguing that they not only omit important events but also promote a version of history favourable to Harold’s claim to the throne.
“In all three scenarios,” Licence writes, “those annals were written some time after the alleged events they describe, and – in the case of /E and D – by chroniclers who were collaborating to create a narrative that had been purged of uncomfortable details. We can only guess at what events may have been written out of the story, as it was later narrated, but the swearing of an oath, binding the chief men to Edgar Ætheling, is top of my list of guesses. The death of Ælfgar, earl of Mercia, is second on the list. In the annals for Edward’s reign, every earl’s death is recorded except for Ælfgar’s.”
Chronicles D and E provide matching accounts of the northern rebellion of 1065, claiming that King Edward agreed to the rebels’ demands and confirmed Morcar, Earl of Mercia, as the new Earl of Northumbria—replacing Harold’s brother Tostig. According to these accounts, Edward gave his hand to the rebels, renewed the laws of King Cnut, and peacefully resolved the dispute. But earlier sources such as the Vita Eadwardi regis and Chronicle C paint a different picture, showing Edward refusing the rebels’ demands and becoming increasingly isolated before his death.
This contradiction, Licence argues, is no accident. Instead, it points to a deliberate backdating of Harold’s later actions as king—making it appear that Edward had approved of Harold’s faction before the crown changed hands. He writes:
The DE account dates to the 1070s and makes a set of bogus claims that shore up the rebels’ position: that Morcar had been confirmed in office by King Edward (he had not), and that Edward had renewed the law of Cnut for them (he had not). In the first few months of 1066, the new king, Harold, went to York, and it was Harold in 1066, rather than Edward in 1065, one assumes, who confirmed Morcar in office and renewed the law of Cnut, to bring an end to the revolt.
This tendency to attribute political settlements to Edward, when they were more likely the work of Harold, fits into a broader pattern. According to Licence, after 1061, the chronicles shift in tone and focus. Whereas earlier annals consistently report ecclesiastical matters and the deaths of major nobles, the years 1062–1066 show sudden silences—skipping key events such as Harold’s trip to Normandy, the papal legates’ visit, or Ælfgar’s death. These omissions are especially significant given that Ælfgar’s familial connection to the Welsh king Gruffudd (his son-in-law) would have had major political implications in the campaigns of 1062–1063.
The physical manuscripts support this analysis. In Chronicle E, for instance, the year 1062 is marked by a blank line—suggesting a break in the source material. In D, the years 1062 and 1064 contain only the date with no content, a stark contrast to earlier annals that offered year-by-year detail. Licence argues this is not merely the result of lost entries, but rather evidence of editorial silence, in which politically awkward material was excluded or erased.
Even the accounts that do exist—such as the record of the Welsh campaign—show signs of post-Conquest rewriting. The Chronicle claims Harold and Tostig led a campaign in 1063 that resulted in the death of Gruffudd and the installation of new Welsh rulers. But Licence notes that the dating is off, likely confused by later chroniclers relying on misaligned sources. Moreover, the wording of the Chronicle suggests Harold had authority to install a Welsh king—something that would not have been within his power under Edward’s rule, but which makes sense if the annal was written after Harold had become king.
Licence concludes that these entries were likely written in the 1070s, long after the events took place, and that their content served to legitimise Harold’s short reign by downplaying opposition, eliminating rivals, and presenting his actions as a continuation of Edward’s will.
The implications of this study are significant for medieval historians. It calls into question the reliability of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a contemporary witness for the years just before 1066 and urges scholars to treat its entries as part of a constructed narrative, shaped by political needs rather than impartial record-keeping.
“No longer can we fall into the habit of merely synthesizing the chronicles,” Licence warns. “Where silences occur, we should look for what might have been scratched from the record and be open to finding it in unlikely places, including later accounts and accounts written abroad.”
Tom Licence’s article, “The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, C, D and E, Annals 1062–66,” appears in Anglo-Norman Studies XLVI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 2023, which was published last year. You can access the article through De Gruyter Brill.
Tom Licence is Professor of Medieval History and Consumer Culture at the University of East Anglia and director of the Centre of East Anglian Studies. His research focuses on the Norman Conquest and English history.
Top Image: King Harold in the Bayeux Tapestry – Wikimedia Commons
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts