Oath
'Harold himself had taken an oath of fealty to Duke William at Rouen in the presence of the Norman nobles, and after becoming his man had sworn on the most sacred relics to carry out all that was required of him. After that, the Duke had taken Harold on an expedition against Conan, Count of Brittany, and had given him splendid arms and horses and heaped other tokens upon him and his companions.'
In this passage, Orderic highlights the three great bones of contention about the oath: no-one can agree where it was sworn (Rouen? Bonneville? Bayeux?); no-one can agree when it was sworn (before or after the Brittany campaign?); and no-one can agree why it was sworn. Was Harold simply swearing an oath of fealty as a vassal of William, or was there actually something more to it, as the pro-Norman sources would have us believe? This is important, because as a vassal of William's, Harold was not constrained to hand over the crown of England any more than William, a vassal of the French king, owed the crown to France.
A close examination of the Bayeux Tapestry tends to suggest that Harold was being honoured after heroics on the Brittany campaign, given arms and armour, and in return swearing an oath of fealty. Even the most pro-Norman sources tend to suggest that there was an element of trickery about the whole occasion: Harold is said to have sworn a hollow oath, after which William whipped away the covering on the table, revealing the most holy of relics which bound it. So it seems likely that Harold did not believe he was swearing away the kingdom, and it was only after the fact that William and his apologists were able to dress this up as the great act of perjury that it became.
Published: 2001-05-01
Bookmark with:
What are these?