|
 | Anglo Saxon History |  | |
| | Battle of Hastings 1066AD - J - Hastings and its links to Fécamp Abbey |
|---|
|
| | Emma of Normandy and Fecamp ▲ |
|---|
In 1014, King Aethelred II (the Unready) promised the Saxon Manor of Rameslie to the Benedictine Abbey of Fécamp in
Normandy, which was under the rule of his brother-in-law, Duke Richard II. This grant was made in return for the abbey
sheltering him during Danish invasions. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (MS C, 1014) records Aethelred’s exile in Normandy,
though it does not explicitly mention the Rameslie grant—suggesting the promise may have been a private arrangement.
Although Aethelred regained the throne, he died in 1016 before fulfilling his pledge. However, his Norman widow, Emma,
married his successor, Cnut the Great, and in 1017, the Manor of Rameslie was transferred to Fécamp Abbey—a
transaction likely facilitated by Emma’s political ties, as noted in the Encomium Emmae Reginae (c. 1041), a
contemporary text praising her influence. The manor remained under Norman control until 1247.
The Manor of Rameslie included the lands now known as Rye, Old Winchelsea, and some of the outskirts of modern Hastings,
along with five churches and an estimated 100 salt pans—essential for preserving herring and other fish, a major
industry documented in the Domesday Book (1086) under the abbey’s holdings.
The Abbot of Fécamp wielded extensive rights, including a tithe (one-tenth) of fishing catches, as recorded in a
12th-century charter held in the Fécamp Abbey archives. He also collected taxes and customs dues, controlled
shipbuilding, and monopolized trade in salt and high-quality Caen stone tiles, evidenced by archaeological finds in Rye.
The abbey’s wealth funded local courts, as seen in the Cartulaire de l’Abbaye de Fécamp, which details its judicial
authority. The combined privileges of the Cinque Ports and Fécamp’s oversight spurred Rye’s growth into a
prosperous medieval port.
The involvement of Fécamp’s monks in planning the invasion is supported by the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio (c. 1067),
a near-contemporary poem claiming a Fécamp monk carried William’s message to Harold. This connection likely spared
Rye from the destruction inflicted on New Romney, which the Domesday Book describes as heavily penalized for attacking
Norman ships. Archaeological evidence, such as the lack of widespread burning layers in Rye compared to Romney, supports
the theory of its exemption from retaliation.
| | Fécamp Abbey's Influence in the Court of Edward the Confessor ▲ |
|---|
Yes, Fécamp Abbey had notable influence in the court of King Edward the Confessor (r. 1042–1066), particularly due to Edward’s Norman connections
and the broader political and religious ties between England and Normandy before the Norman Conquest. Here’s how
Fécamp’s influence manifested:
1. Edward the Confessor’s Norman Background
- Edward spent much of his early life (1016–1041) in exile in
Normandy after the Danish conquest of England under Cnut.
- During this time, he developed close ties with Norman monasteries, including
Fécamp, which was one of the most powerful and wealthy abbeys in Normandy.
- Edward’s half-Norman upbringing made him sympathetic to Norman clergy and advisors, which later influenced
his reign.
2. Fécamp’s Landholdings in England
- Even before 1066, Fécamp Abbey held extensive lands in England, granted by
earlier English kings (like Cnut and Edward himself).
- These lands included the port of Steyning (Sussex), an important strategic
and economic asset.
- The abbey’s English estates meant it had a direct interest in English
politics and likely sought to protect its holdings by maintaining good relations with Edward’s court.
3. Ecclesiastical Appointments & Norman Influence
- Edward favored Norman clergy in key church positions, which strengthened
Fécamp’s influence.
- Robert of Jumièges (a Norman monk closely associated with Fécamp’s network) became
Archbishop of Canterbury (1051–1052)—a controversial appointment that angered the
Anglo-Saxon nobility, particularly the Godwin family.
- Robert’s influence contributed to a pro-Norman faction at court, which may
have encouraged Edward to consider Duke William as his heir.
4. Fécamp and the Succession Crisis
- Some historians argue that Edward may have promised the throne to William of
Normandy (as later claimed by the Normans), possibly influenced by Norman clergy, including those from
Fécamp.
- The abbey’s ties to the Norman ducal family meant it had an interest in promoting William’s claim.
- After Edward’s death, when Harold Godwinson took the throne, Fécamp’s prior connections to Edward’s
court may have helped justify William’s invasion as a "rightful" succession.
5. Post-1066: Fécamp’s Rewards
- After the Norman Conquest, Fécamp’s lands in England were expanded and
confirmed by William the Conqueror, showing its political importance.
- The abbey’s prior influence in Edward’s court likely helped secure its position in post-Conquest
England.
Conclusion: A Key Player in Edward’s Pro-Norman Circle
Fécamp Abbey did not dominate Edward’s court but was part of a broader Norman
ecclesiastical network that shaped politics. Its landholdings, clerical appointments, and ties to the Norman
ducal family made it an influential force behind the scenes—contributing to the circumstances that led to the Norman
Conquest.
| | Contemporary documents regarding Fécamp ▲ |
|---|
1. William of Jumièges – Gesta Normannorum Ducum (c. 1070)
Mentions Fécamp as a key ducal residence and religious center.
Discusses Duke Richard II (996–1026) and Robert the Magnificent (1027–1035), who were buried at Fécamp.
Notes that William the Conqueror spent time there in his youth under the protection of the abbey.
2. William of Poitiers – Gesta Guillelmi (c. 1071–1077)
Refers to Fécamp in Normandy as a place where William held councils and gathered support before the invasion of
England.
Implies its political and strategic importance in Norman governance.
3. Dudo of Saint-Quentin – De moribus et actis primorum Normanniae ducum (early 11th c.)
Written before 1017 but includes early Norman history.
Describes Fécamp as a favored residence of Duke Richard I (the Fearless) and a center of Norman power.
4. Charters & Abbey Records
Fécamp Abbey’s own records (some surviving in later copies) attest to donations and privileges granted by Norman
dukes.
| | South Coast Port Affiliations ▲ |
|---|
Here’s a comparative breakdown of the shifting allegiances of key
south-coast ports (1030–1066), highlighting their political swings between royal authority, the
Godwin family, and external invaders:
Allegiance Timeline of Major South-Coast Ports
(1030–1066)(⭐ = Stronghold / ⚔️ = Conflict Site)
| Port | 1030–1042
(Cnut & Harthacnut) | 1042–1051
(Edward vs. Godwins) | 1052–1066
(Godwin Dominance) |
|---|
| Dover | ⭐ Royal
(Cnut's navy base) | ⚔️ Anti-Godwin
(1048 clash vs. Sweyn) | Resists Godwins
(1052) |
| Hastings | Royalist | ⚔️ Attacks Sweyn
(1049), then neutral | Leans Godwin
(1052) |
| Pevensey | Godwin-aligned | ⭐ Godwin
stronghold | ⭐ Godwin rally point
(1052) |
| Sandwich | Royal trade hub | Royalist
(vs.
Godwin exiles) | Blockaded by Godwin
(1052) |
| Romney | Minor fishing port | Neutral | Bypassed by Godwin
(1052)
|
Key Political Shifts1040s: Rise of the
Godwins -
Pevensey & Bosham became Godwin power centers.
- Hastings initially resisted Sweyn (1049) but later aligned with Godwin by 1052.
- Dover remained anti-Godwin, clashing with Sweyn and later Harold.
1051–1052: Godwin’s Exile & Return Sandwich/Dover
stayed royalist, forcing Godwin to bypass them. Pevensey/Hastings enabled his successful
naval blockade of London.
1066: The Norman
Factor Hastings & Pevensey: Harold expected attack
near Pevensey (old Godwin base), but William landed there anyway. Romney: Brutally sacked by Normans as a warning. Sandwich: English fleet abandoned it post-Hastings, aiding William’s
supply lines.
Why Allegiances ShiftedGeography: Ports like Pevensey (Sussex) were deep in Godwin territory,
while Dover (Kent) was a royal gateway. Economics: Trade
ports (Sandwich) backed stability (crown), while fishing towns (Hastings) sided with local lords. Punishment: Romney’s 1066 destruction showed the cost of
resistance.
ConclusionThe south coast was a
battleground of competing loyalties: 1030–1050: Split between crown and Godwin influence. 1051–1066: Godwin dominance, but royalist holdouts
(Dover). 1066: Norman victory reset all allegiances by
force.
| | Conclusion ▲ |
|---|
From the influence on Hastings by the monks of Fecamp since 1017AD when Rameslie was transferred to
Fecamp by the guidance of Queen Emma, it would seem likely that there was a great deal of trade between Hastings and
Normandy.
This in turn would make the people of Hastings, who had been semi independent since the Romans left, and the Saxons
landed here about 465AD, to be less loyal to the Godwins and more sympathetic towards the Normans.
They also seemed to be loyal to the King prior to the Godwins, as they had attacked Earl Godwins son Sweyn's ships in
1049AD, and were only influenced by force later in 1052AD when some of the fleet joined Godwin.
| | Military Intelligence ▲ |
|---|
The monks of Fecamp at Rameselie would have traveled throughout the area and hence would have provided the details of
the landscape to Duke William. This would mean that the area was well known to the Normans, with its shipbuilding, salt
production, fishing fleet and trading, all of which would encourage Harold to march to Hastings to recover his
assets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Local Interest
Just click an image |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
