What do you think?
Rate this book
The English Monarchs
Edward the Confessor: Last of the Royal Blood
An authoritative life of Edward the Confessor, the monarch whose death sparked the invasion of 1066
"In putting flesh back on Edward’s bones Licence has brought a new succession story to popular attention."—Leanda de Lisle, The Times
“This fine biography of Edward the Confessor is both entertaining and elegiac.”—Nicholas Vincent, The Tablet
One of the last kings of Anglo-Saxon England, Edward the Confessor regained the throne for the House of Wessex and is the only English monarch to have been canonized. Often cast as a reluctant ruler, easily manipulated by his in-laws, he has been blamed for causing the invasion of 1066—the last successful conquest of England by a foreign power.
Tom Licence navigates the contemporary webs of political deceit to present a strikingly different Edward. He was a compassionate man and conscientious ruler, whose reign marked an interval of peace and prosperity between periods of strife. More than any monarch before, he exploited the mystique of royalty to capture the hearts of his subjects. This compelling biography provides a much-needed reassessment of Edward’s reign—calling into doubt the legitimacy of his successors and rewriting the ending of Anglo-Saxon England.
"In putting flesh back on Edward’s bones Licence has brought a new succession story to popular attention."—Leanda de Lisle, The Times
“This fine biography of Edward the Confessor is both entertaining and elegiac.”—Nicholas Vincent, The Tablet
One of the last kings of Anglo-Saxon England, Edward the Confessor regained the throne for the House of Wessex and is the only English monarch to have been canonized. Often cast as a reluctant ruler, easily manipulated by his in-laws, he has been blamed for causing the invasion of 1066—the last successful conquest of England by a foreign power.
Tom Licence navigates the contemporary webs of political deceit to present a strikingly different Edward. He was a compassionate man and conscientious ruler, whose reign marked an interval of peace and prosperity between periods of strife. More than any monarch before, he exploited the mystique of royalty to capture the hearts of his subjects. This compelling biography provides a much-needed reassessment of Edward’s reign—calling into doubt the legitimacy of his successors and rewriting the ending of Anglo-Saxon England.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2020
16 people are currently reading
296 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
October 18, 2020
It would seem there are two Edward the Confessors. One is of the history books who has been "developed" and "designed" to what those who came shortly after wanted - a pious, saintly and a little dull; the other is a more stronger, determined, aggressive, worldly-wise and very capable ruler.
Indeed, if one looks at recent history and the previous biography of Edward by the excellent historian Frank Barlow (1911-2009) they differ in views and conclusions to this edition fifty years. This is explained, as Tom Licence says in his introduction that people write within and for their times, but also sources have developed, in some cases been added to, and are understood better.
Tom Licence's book is a very rewarding one that discusses and explains both Edwards I mention above. We meet the young Edward and see how his life develops from exile to his accession and then as king. The sources Mr Licence quotes are firstly well explained so the reader understands them and their type and use as contemporary documents by various parties and players that we meet through the life of Edward, and notably his later life, and further into the later 11th and early 12th century.
At the book's heart are the primary sources used to piece together the life of Edward and his family and the key players. Alongside these are references and use of others, including Barlow who the author is duly respectful of with his earlier book and predecessor in this series.
Edward was born around 1004 and was the son of King Aethelred II and Emma of Normandy.
Edward was part of a long and dynastic line of kings whose roots stretch back to Cerdic (reigned 519–534), in whose name the powerful West Saxon dynasty formed. With this lineage - the blood of kings - Edward was a royal who had the stock and line to rule...the problem for Edward was this recognised blood was his challenge too: he needed a blood-heir and with strong characters circling all his life it is impressive he was able to keep peace and see no civil war during his reign. We also need to set aside but certainly not ignore the Danish family line and reign of Cnut and his 2 sons here who were Edward's predecessors.
But these strong characters and seemingly in some case strong(ish) and other less strong claims to the throne were the ones, or their own sons, who brought that peace to a crash in 1066 just months after Edward had died.
And so this book is detailed in its appreciation of and definition of Edward but it is also a story of Harold and Tostig, and their father Godwin Earl of Wessex, Morcar of Northumbria, William of Normandy (later the William I and Conqueror), Edgar Aethling, Malcom of Scotland, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn and many more. The alliances, marriages, battles, politics and complexities of, as Tom Licence says, keeping these wolves at bay or rather to heel; which Edward did and did well.
The ending of Edward's reign and what came next are well known but how the events came to be as they were is debatable and much discussed from scholars to children studying the period in history lessons today The sources again play a major part and it is here that Tom Licence provides insight on not just what is said, but how, why and by whom.
As a single volume this is a very good book and fits well with the wider English Monarchs series, and one I would recommend to people interested in scholarly but very readable history with solid references, sources, bibliography and index. Alongside this are 4 appendices that explain more on those sources and how they have been written, analysed and studied.
I was disappointed that amongst the maps and plates there was a complete absence of family trees; something that any student of a general nature will know is important for this period as there are so many names, claims and connections.
My copy was a first edition published by Yale University Press 2020.
Indeed, if one looks at recent history and the previous biography of Edward by the excellent historian Frank Barlow (1911-2009) they differ in views and conclusions to this edition fifty years. This is explained, as Tom Licence says in his introduction that people write within and for their times, but also sources have developed, in some cases been added to, and are understood better.
Tom Licence's book is a very rewarding one that discusses and explains both Edwards I mention above. We meet the young Edward and see how his life develops from exile to his accession and then as king. The sources Mr Licence quotes are firstly well explained so the reader understands them and their type and use as contemporary documents by various parties and players that we meet through the life of Edward, and notably his later life, and further into the later 11th and early 12th century.
At the book's heart are the primary sources used to piece together the life of Edward and his family and the key players. Alongside these are references and use of others, including Barlow who the author is duly respectful of with his earlier book and predecessor in this series.
Edward was born around 1004 and was the son of King Aethelred II and Emma of Normandy.
Edward was part of a long and dynastic line of kings whose roots stretch back to Cerdic (reigned 519–534), in whose name the powerful West Saxon dynasty formed. With this lineage - the blood of kings - Edward was a royal who had the stock and line to rule...the problem for Edward was this recognised blood was his challenge too: he needed a blood-heir and with strong characters circling all his life it is impressive he was able to keep peace and see no civil war during his reign. We also need to set aside but certainly not ignore the Danish family line and reign of Cnut and his 2 sons here who were Edward's predecessors.
But these strong characters and seemingly in some case strong(ish) and other less strong claims to the throne were the ones, or their own sons, who brought that peace to a crash in 1066 just months after Edward had died.
And so this book is detailed in its appreciation of and definition of Edward but it is also a story of Harold and Tostig, and their father Godwin Earl of Wessex, Morcar of Northumbria, William of Normandy (later the William I and Conqueror), Edgar Aethling, Malcom of Scotland, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn and many more. The alliances, marriages, battles, politics and complexities of, as Tom Licence says, keeping these wolves at bay or rather to heel; which Edward did and did well.
The ending of Edward's reign and what came next are well known but how the events came to be as they were is debatable and much discussed from scholars to children studying the period in history lessons today The sources again play a major part and it is here that Tom Licence provides insight on not just what is said, but how, why and by whom.
As a single volume this is a very good book and fits well with the wider English Monarchs series, and one I would recommend to people interested in scholarly but very readable history with solid references, sources, bibliography and index. Alongside this are 4 appendices that explain more on those sources and how they have been written, analysed and studied.
I was disappointed that amongst the maps and plates there was a complete absence of family trees; something that any student of a general nature will know is important for this period as there are so many names, claims and connections.
My copy was a first edition published by Yale University Press 2020.
December 22, 2022
Outstanding writing, well researched, great insights with some potentially controversial theories but well defended. I loved this book from the first chapter and am going to buy this book as a reference. Highly recommend.
There are 2 previous books in particular on Edward that have molded scholarship. First, is Freeman who admired the saint and felt Edward as king was rather pathetic, (yet he lionized Harold and admired William.) Next is Barlow, who distained the saint and found Edward as King barely competent. Thus we are left with the following: "Was Edward Freeman’s weak and vacillating prince, or Barlow’s wily and unprincipled one?” License says both authors are tainted by their times: “Judging him by the standards of Victorian masculinity and – in Barlow’s case- by the Scandinavian warrior ethos, they laid too little emphasis on Frankish and English models of Kingship, which valued peacemaking, just rule, and delegation of command.” (pg. 7)
License then sets out to prove:
1. Edward desired kingship, felt he was entitled to the crown by birthright, and, once he gained the throne, was an active, vigorous King.
2. King Edward appropriately delegated authority to his earls, and particularly his Godwinsons in-laws, but was not ruled by them. Licence does not believe that after 1053 it was (as Freeman says) “the rule of Harold.”
3. As a man who felt God favored the royal blood of the house of Cerdic, King Edward very much intended to have an heir to continue his line and his name. [Ex. Some of the tension leading to the Godwin rebellion of 1051-52 may have arisen from Edward desiring to divorce Edith and gain a new wife in the hopes of getting an heir.]
4. King Edward did not vacillate between multiple candidates for the crown; he did not offer it to William the Conqueror, Eustace of Boulogne, or even Harold Godwinson. As Edward believed his family blood line was a critical -necessary- part of kingship Edgar Ætheling was chosen (and perhaps publicly pronounced as heir apparent)
5. The crown was not offered to Harold at death; instead Harold’s ‘nomination’ was a coup. [An illuminating take was that Edgar was the acknowledged heir, but Harold was fearful that a regency of Edith would have reinstated her favorite (and now murderously angry) brother Tostig, with great danger to Harold.]
[Licence also hints that, had Edgar been crowned King the conquest would not have happened, but I’m not sure I believe William would have given up on invading England.]
While a biography of Edward, this work also does a marvelous job of explaining the motivations of the other actors (without allowing them to drive the story, a problem in both Freeman and Barlow.)
I am unable convey how interesting I found this book. I could quote entire pages. That said, Below are quotes from the book that I found interesting:
Pg. 59 (this whole page is good): Edward’s adoption of the royal title at some point between Easter 1033, when he appears as a witness without it, and January 1035, which is the latest date for the Brittany campaign, reveals that he had ceased to be a pawn and had become a player. It involved undermining Cnut and his heirs … Crafted in the early 1040s, the annal lends weight to the idea that Edward was affirming rumours about an oath sworn before 1016 which others at court were denying.
Pg 68. Emma was now obliged to play that most dangerous of games, reaching out to the sons she had previously sidelined in a desperate attempt to reverse the inexorable rise of Harold I … It was a highly provocative letter, crafted to elicit a response. For we may assume when Emma wrote to the Æthelings that the nobles would prefer ‘one of you’ she knew perfectly well that Edward had decided he was the rightful king … Only a few years earlier the French queen had driven out her elder son in support of his younger brother, and Emma’s letter left open the possibility their mother might declare for Alfred.
Pg 73. His [Edward’s] feelings towards Alfred may have cast him simultaneously as his beloved brother, Emma’s favorite, a rival for his throne, a traitor, and a fool who played with fire … the brutal part of the reality that may have come into Edward’s thoughts was that Godwine had done him a favour. It is not inconceivable that Godwine had factored such a consideration into his political gamble.
Pg 100 . During these years the king began repaying his royal debts … it is striking, nevertheless, how little the king gave to foreign recipients in comparison with the favours he lavished on power brokers in England who had assisted him to the throne. Poiters would credit his accession to the Normans, but Edward’s actions imply he felt little debt to the Normans on that score.
Pg 140. Godwine, he [Stigand] declared, could hope for the king’s peace only when he gave him back his brother alive … The impossible demand proved the point. Godwine, as everyone knew, could not return Alfred because the earl had acted upon a worse royal order than an order to punish Dover. Either he was a willing executive who could have no qualms about ravaging the burh, or he chose which order to follow and was therefore culpable for Alfred’s capture and, by the same reasoning, for rebellion in the Dover affair. Edward had exposed Godwin’s hypocrisy.
Pg. 147. The problem with making an argument out of it is the Vita’s assertion that Robert was masterminding a royal divorce, for Edward would only have contemplated divorcing Godwin’s daughter – a move that would destroy foundational alliances and endanger his position – if the higher priority of procuring an heir obliged him to remarry. … It means, of course, that the very figure whose involvement seems to confirm the making of a promise in 1051 was pursuing a policy that was incompatible with that promise.
Pg. 148. English King's could not simply promise away the throne. The authority to confer it lay with the witan. … In 1041 the witan recalled Edward after 24 years because of his blood title, the uniqueness of which had sustained him in exile and secured him the throne. Given his contacts in Germany and Norway, he should have been aware that Edmund Ironside’s sons were in Hungry and that if he died childless the witan would offer the to them. Though we may be certain Edward made gifts to William in 1051, he could hardly have treated him as his first or even second choice of successor.
Pg 175. Duty bound to his bloodline and the provision of an heir, the king implemented a plan to bring the Ætheling to England. The fact that he would be the second foreignly reared Ætheling – after Edward in 1041 – to be invited to return as the heir apparent attest to the shared understanding among the political elite, both at home and abroad, that the throne should properly pass to a son of Cerdic’s line, even if he was a virtual stranger who had not set a foot in England and may have spoken no English.
Pg 231. Edward knew better than anyone the importance of oaths in providing royal title. Early in his career he put it about that the English had sworn an oath to have him as their king. … Having gone to great lengths to recall the exiles from Hungry, Edward would have been responding strangely to his own experience, and to practice current in the empire, had he not secured a general oath of Edgar’s behalf. It was not a sign he feared opposition, but a sensible conventional measure to smooth Edgar’s path to the throne …. Most of our sources were completed after the Conquest by supporters of Harold or William and can be guaranteed to have done the job of airbrushing Edgar from the record. We should at least be willing t consider the maximum scenario in which Edgar accompanied Edward and Edith on grand occasions; was adopted in a public ceremony; was granted ands and titles, and the promise of the royal estate; and was sworn in as heir at the ceremony involving Harold (and other leading figures) which Hariulf implies took place.
Pg. 239. Because Edgar has often been written out of our accounts, or dismissed as a boy or an imbecile, it is easy to forget he had opinions on the dramatic events playing out around him. … Edith had taken on the role of rearing the royal boys and might be expected to lead the regency government while Edgar made the transition to independent rule … Edith’s wishes for reconciliation with Tostig were Opposite to Harold’s. Edith and Edward had been fond of Tostig, moreover, and would have nurtured their love of him in Edgar or tried to do so. Unless Edgar reacted by forging contrary opinions, he was Tostig’s potentially ally. … At best Edgar’s accession might undo Harold’s designs. At worst, it could bring about his downfall.
Pg. 252. On one side were those whose loyalty would smooth Edgar’s succession; he probably had Edith, Tostig, and Ealdred in that camp. On a different side possibly – though not in open opposition – were Harold, Stigand, and the sons of Ælfar. The ousting of Tostig in 1065 was a military coup which tipped the balance decisively. There was no desire to topple Edward, and before 1065 there may have been no desire to supplant the Ætheling; but after the rebellion, the idea that the king was in Harold’s hand was beginning to look more credible … By effectively removing the blood mystique rom the qualifications a king should possess Harold brought the office within William’s grasp; and since William had never unlearned the infant’s reflex of grasping whatever presented itself, he readied his army, charged u a hill, and bloodied his way to the throne.
Source: Interlibrary Load. But I'm going to buy this.
There are 2 previous books in particular on Edward that have molded scholarship. First, is Freeman who admired the saint and felt Edward as king was rather pathetic, (yet he lionized Harold and admired William.) Next is Barlow, who distained the saint and found Edward as King barely competent. Thus we are left with the following: "Was Edward Freeman’s weak and vacillating prince, or Barlow’s wily and unprincipled one?” License says both authors are tainted by their times: “Judging him by the standards of Victorian masculinity and – in Barlow’s case- by the Scandinavian warrior ethos, they laid too little emphasis on Frankish and English models of Kingship, which valued peacemaking, just rule, and delegation of command.” (pg. 7)
License then sets out to prove:
1. Edward desired kingship, felt he was entitled to the crown by birthright, and, once he gained the throne, was an active, vigorous King.
2. King Edward appropriately delegated authority to his earls, and particularly his Godwinsons in-laws, but was not ruled by them. Licence does not believe that after 1053 it was (as Freeman says) “the rule of Harold.”
3. As a man who felt God favored the royal blood of the house of Cerdic, King Edward very much intended to have an heir to continue his line and his name. [Ex. Some of the tension leading to the Godwin rebellion of 1051-52 may have arisen from Edward desiring to divorce Edith and gain a new wife in the hopes of getting an heir.]
4. King Edward did not vacillate between multiple candidates for the crown; he did not offer it to William the Conqueror, Eustace of Boulogne, or even Harold Godwinson. As Edward believed his family blood line was a critical -necessary- part of kingship Edgar Ætheling was chosen (and perhaps publicly pronounced as heir apparent)
5. The crown was not offered to Harold at death; instead Harold’s ‘nomination’ was a coup. [An illuminating take was that Edgar was the acknowledged heir, but Harold was fearful that a regency of Edith would have reinstated her favorite (and now murderously angry) brother Tostig, with great danger to Harold.]
[Licence also hints that, had Edgar been crowned King the conquest would not have happened, but I’m not sure I believe William would have given up on invading England.]
While a biography of Edward, this work also does a marvelous job of explaining the motivations of the other actors (without allowing them to drive the story, a problem in both Freeman and Barlow.)
I am unable convey how interesting I found this book. I could quote entire pages. That said, Below are quotes from the book that I found interesting:
Pg. 59 (this whole page is good): Edward’s adoption of the royal title at some point between Easter 1033, when he appears as a witness without it, and January 1035, which is the latest date for the Brittany campaign, reveals that he had ceased to be a pawn and had become a player. It involved undermining Cnut and his heirs … Crafted in the early 1040s, the annal lends weight to the idea that Edward was affirming rumours about an oath sworn before 1016 which others at court were denying.
Pg 68. Emma was now obliged to play that most dangerous of games, reaching out to the sons she had previously sidelined in a desperate attempt to reverse the inexorable rise of Harold I … It was a highly provocative letter, crafted to elicit a response. For we may assume when Emma wrote to the Æthelings that the nobles would prefer ‘one of you’ she knew perfectly well that Edward had decided he was the rightful king … Only a few years earlier the French queen had driven out her elder son in support of his younger brother, and Emma’s letter left open the possibility their mother might declare for Alfred.
Pg 73. His [Edward’s] feelings towards Alfred may have cast him simultaneously as his beloved brother, Emma’s favorite, a rival for his throne, a traitor, and a fool who played with fire … the brutal part of the reality that may have come into Edward’s thoughts was that Godwine had done him a favour. It is not inconceivable that Godwine had factored such a consideration into his political gamble.
Pg 100 . During these years the king began repaying his royal debts … it is striking, nevertheless, how little the king gave to foreign recipients in comparison with the favours he lavished on power brokers in England who had assisted him to the throne. Poiters would credit his accession to the Normans, but Edward’s actions imply he felt little debt to the Normans on that score.
Pg 140. Godwine, he [Stigand] declared, could hope for the king’s peace only when he gave him back his brother alive … The impossible demand proved the point. Godwine, as everyone knew, could not return Alfred because the earl had acted upon a worse royal order than an order to punish Dover. Either he was a willing executive who could have no qualms about ravaging the burh, or he chose which order to follow and was therefore culpable for Alfred’s capture and, by the same reasoning, for rebellion in the Dover affair. Edward had exposed Godwin’s hypocrisy.
Pg. 147. The problem with making an argument out of it is the Vita’s assertion that Robert was masterminding a royal divorce, for Edward would only have contemplated divorcing Godwin’s daughter – a move that would destroy foundational alliances and endanger his position – if the higher priority of procuring an heir obliged him to remarry. … It means, of course, that the very figure whose involvement seems to confirm the making of a promise in 1051 was pursuing a policy that was incompatible with that promise.
Pg. 148. English King's could not simply promise away the throne. The authority to confer it lay with the witan. … In 1041 the witan recalled Edward after 24 years because of his blood title, the uniqueness of which had sustained him in exile and secured him the throne. Given his contacts in Germany and Norway, he should have been aware that Edmund Ironside’s sons were in Hungry and that if he died childless the witan would offer the to them. Though we may be certain Edward made gifts to William in 1051, he could hardly have treated him as his first or even second choice of successor.
Pg 175. Duty bound to his bloodline and the provision of an heir, the king implemented a plan to bring the Ætheling to England. The fact that he would be the second foreignly reared Ætheling – after Edward in 1041 – to be invited to return as the heir apparent attest to the shared understanding among the political elite, both at home and abroad, that the throne should properly pass to a son of Cerdic’s line, even if he was a virtual stranger who had not set a foot in England and may have spoken no English.
Pg 231. Edward knew better than anyone the importance of oaths in providing royal title. Early in his career he put it about that the English had sworn an oath to have him as their king. … Having gone to great lengths to recall the exiles from Hungry, Edward would have been responding strangely to his own experience, and to practice current in the empire, had he not secured a general oath of Edgar’s behalf. It was not a sign he feared opposition, but a sensible conventional measure to smooth Edgar’s path to the throne …. Most of our sources were completed after the Conquest by supporters of Harold or William and can be guaranteed to have done the job of airbrushing Edgar from the record. We should at least be willing t consider the maximum scenario in which Edgar accompanied Edward and Edith on grand occasions; was adopted in a public ceremony; was granted ands and titles, and the promise of the royal estate; and was sworn in as heir at the ceremony involving Harold (and other leading figures) which Hariulf implies took place.
Pg. 239. Because Edgar has often been written out of our accounts, or dismissed as a boy or an imbecile, it is easy to forget he had opinions on the dramatic events playing out around him. … Edith had taken on the role of rearing the royal boys and might be expected to lead the regency government while Edgar made the transition to independent rule … Edith’s wishes for reconciliation with Tostig were Opposite to Harold’s. Edith and Edward had been fond of Tostig, moreover, and would have nurtured their love of him in Edgar or tried to do so. Unless Edgar reacted by forging contrary opinions, he was Tostig’s potentially ally. … At best Edgar’s accession might undo Harold’s designs. At worst, it could bring about his downfall.
Pg. 252. On one side were those whose loyalty would smooth Edgar’s succession; he probably had Edith, Tostig, and Ealdred in that camp. On a different side possibly – though not in open opposition – were Harold, Stigand, and the sons of Ælfar. The ousting of Tostig in 1065 was a military coup which tipped the balance decisively. There was no desire to topple Edward, and before 1065 there may have been no desire to supplant the Ætheling; but after the rebellion, the idea that the king was in Harold’s hand was beginning to look more credible … By effectively removing the blood mystique rom the qualifications a king should possess Harold brought the office within William’s grasp; and since William had never unlearned the infant’s reflex of grasping whatever presented itself, he readied his army, charged u a hill, and bloodied his way to the throne.
Source: Interlibrary Load. But I'm going to buy this.
February 18, 2022
Edward the confessor has not been a King I ever found particularly interesting having never bought into the saintly nonsense, I always thought he must have been a puppet and a survivor. However reviews of this book looked good and it appeared to be more readable unlike Frank Barlow’s tome.
Overall the book is good,the start and end are really interesting and pacy….I just found the middle boring and heavy going. Finishing with 2 chapters about the diplomas and writings I did not read, it’s for researchers not history lovers.
The author got my interest in Edward but it waned by the end, he just is not that interesting!
Overall the book is good,the start and end are really interesting and pacy….I just found the middle boring and heavy going. Finishing with 2 chapters about the diplomas and writings I did not read, it’s for researchers not history lovers.
The author got my interest in Edward but it waned by the end, he just is not that interesting!
May 15, 2021
Edward the Confessor – last of the royal blood, by Tom Licence, 2020, 253 pages or 300 with appendices,
The Yale English monarchs series is absolutely splendiferous and this book continues the good work. This is a book that matches detail, readability and insight and it left me wishing that Licence had written more about Anglo-Saxon England.
There's a lot to enjoy in this book and Licence articulates a lot that often seems to be overlooked in accounts of (very) late Anglo-Saxon England. Too many books treat Edward's reign as prelude to Hastings, with everything being weighed as to its significance to the disputed throne. This book readdresses that.
This isn't a history of England, but is one of Edward, and so the North only figures when it impacts Edward's rule. On the other hand, though, it's great to see Norman sources being used prominently, as continental sources often seem only to be used to confirm English ones, rather than as a matter of course. Licence certainly brings out the idea of Edward as a European king and not just a king of England.
This book is sympathetic to Edward, bringing out his successes and sees him as a manager of earls who were deputised to do the mucky business of governing in his name. Licence does shoe just how unlikely it was that Edward gained the throne, something which is not always considered. He had stepbrothers who died before him, had to ride the vicissitudes of an usurpation of his line, there were two other stepbrothers through his mother who were younger than him who also died before him and his own brother's bid for the throne failed, too.
Within this is the best account of the possible invasion plan of 1033x4 that I've seen. Usually this is either discounted or relegated to a footnote, so it was nice to see it gone into. Speaking of footnotes, there are surprisingly few in this book, but oddly that didn't detract from my enjoyment of it. Licence cites his sources where they are needed to substantiate his points.
There are a number of fascinating points made within and whilst I think he's made his arguments well, showing supporting evidence, I can imagine a few points will be the subject of debate:
1, his notion of disgruntled and nervous magnates inviting Edward to accept a royal dignity instead of the initiative coming from Harthacnut.
2, he doesn't see Edward as being dominated by the Godwins. His account of the crisis with Godwin is excellent. He shows that Edward wasn't a pawn of Godwin's prior to this and suggests that rather than it being a sign of weakness, the promotion of Godwin's kin was also useful for Edward as it strengthened the state and so this was a convergence of interest, instead of domination by a magnate family.
3, unlike others who don't believe that William visited Edward, he goes with the idea that he did come over, possibly in aid of Edward whilst Godwin was in exile (Licence is doubtful that a throne was promised).
4, he sees Harold gaining the throne through a coup instead of by designation.
There were only a couple of niggles with this book. I wasn't that keen on the term gaslighting being used without being proven and there are a few instances were speculation of someone's feelings is presented almost as fact. Beyond this, I was surprised that the paragraph on coinage reform didn't refer to the ideas of Sally Harvey regarding how this may have been reflected in the crisis of 1051. This felt like an oversight. Also, the appendix on charters is probably more for specialists, or the well informed reader than the average purchaser, but it was still good with some top experts being referenced.
This is a book to buy.
The Yale English monarchs series is absolutely splendiferous and this book continues the good work. This is a book that matches detail, readability and insight and it left me wishing that Licence had written more about Anglo-Saxon England.
There's a lot to enjoy in this book and Licence articulates a lot that often seems to be overlooked in accounts of (very) late Anglo-Saxon England. Too many books treat Edward's reign as prelude to Hastings, with everything being weighed as to its significance to the disputed throne. This book readdresses that.
This isn't a history of England, but is one of Edward, and so the North only figures when it impacts Edward's rule. On the other hand, though, it's great to see Norman sources being used prominently, as continental sources often seem only to be used to confirm English ones, rather than as a matter of course. Licence certainly brings out the idea of Edward as a European king and not just a king of England.
This book is sympathetic to Edward, bringing out his successes and sees him as a manager of earls who were deputised to do the mucky business of governing in his name. Licence does shoe just how unlikely it was that Edward gained the throne, something which is not always considered. He had stepbrothers who died before him, had to ride the vicissitudes of an usurpation of his line, there were two other stepbrothers through his mother who were younger than him who also died before him and his own brother's bid for the throne failed, too.
Within this is the best account of the possible invasion plan of 1033x4 that I've seen. Usually this is either discounted or relegated to a footnote, so it was nice to see it gone into. Speaking of footnotes, there are surprisingly few in this book, but oddly that didn't detract from my enjoyment of it. Licence cites his sources where they are needed to substantiate his points.
There are a number of fascinating points made within and whilst I think he's made his arguments well, showing supporting evidence, I can imagine a few points will be the subject of debate:
1, his notion of disgruntled and nervous magnates inviting Edward to accept a royal dignity instead of the initiative coming from Harthacnut.
2, he doesn't see Edward as being dominated by the Godwins. His account of the crisis with Godwin is excellent. He shows that Edward wasn't a pawn of Godwin's prior to this and suggests that rather than it being a sign of weakness, the promotion of Godwin's kin was also useful for Edward as it strengthened the state and so this was a convergence of interest, instead of domination by a magnate family.
3, unlike others who don't believe that William visited Edward, he goes with the idea that he did come over, possibly in aid of Edward whilst Godwin was in exile (Licence is doubtful that a throne was promised).
4, he sees Harold gaining the throne through a coup instead of by designation.
There were only a couple of niggles with this book. I wasn't that keen on the term gaslighting being used without being proven and there are a few instances were speculation of someone's feelings is presented almost as fact. Beyond this, I was surprised that the paragraph on coinage reform didn't refer to the ideas of Sally Harvey regarding how this may have been reflected in the crisis of 1051. This felt like an oversight. Also, the appendix on charters is probably more for specialists, or the well informed reader than the average purchaser, but it was still good with some top experts being referenced.
This is a book to buy.
January 30, 2025
This is by far the best book on Edward the Confessor, a rare example of a book with top-notch scholarship and page turning ability. Usually you have to make some sacrifices in either direction with a book like this, but not here. Edward had gone a long time without a true, full-length new bio. There is a Peter Rex one from the late 2000s that’s just a rehash of Frank Barlow’s 1970 bio, but this one by Licence has ripped things down to the studs and then paved its own course. That’s a welcome change after 40+ years of relying on Barlow, as good as he was.
Licence treats Edgar the Aetheling seriously, as opposed to most other 1066-related authors, which is a novel approach. It’s not as though Edgar really becomes a main character, but he’s been upgraded from extra to supporting actor. Licence also gives more attention to Edward’s 1030s raid on England, which I was happy to see. Anyway, this is about as good as it gets. Pick it up!
Licence treats Edgar the Aetheling seriously, as opposed to most other 1066-related authors, which is a novel approach. It’s not as though Edgar really becomes a main character, but he’s been upgraded from extra to supporting actor. Licence also gives more attention to Edward’s 1030s raid on England, which I was happy to see. Anyway, this is about as good as it gets. Pick it up!
April 28, 2024
this is one of those excellent history books that can completely sway your opinion. I've come out of reading this with a much greater respect for edward the confessor than I had before. although edward is the centrepiece, the godwinsons are thoroughly inspected too- plus the very complex aelgifu-aethelred-emma-cnut marriages. licence also manages to provide metaphors and comparisons to stories that don't feel heavy handed or pushed by the author. I wouldn't recommend this book to someone with no prior knowledge of pre-norman english history, though. it is, on the other hand, perfect for any fellow gcse history anglo-norman doers.
August 27, 2022
Excellent book on the life of a King who had lived his childhood in exile during turbulent times of the viking rule. He waited for his opportunity of his rightful place on the throne in the meantime building relationships across Europe and during his kingship brought peace and calmness to England.
Only King to be Canonised.
Unable to father children left a power struggle behind. To rectify this he intended his great nephew as the last of the cedric line to rule but with the nachinations of William, Harold & Tostig things never went to plan.....
Only King to be Canonised.
Unable to father children left a power struggle behind. To rectify this he intended his great nephew as the last of the cedric line to rule but with the nachinations of William, Harold & Tostig things never went to plan.....
March 20, 2022
A deeply researched, rich biography of one of England's less understood monarchs. Licence is a master of this era of history. He transports the reader back in time to understand the historical context of the period, the wars and intrigues, the faith growing among the people— a very good read.
August 5, 2021
Tom Licence’s new monograph is a gripping and lively account of the reign Edward the Confessor. This fresh perspective of the events preceding the famous year of 1066 is sure to be a hit. Fantastic read and cannot recommend it enough!
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews