The Vita Ædwardi Regis qui apud Westmonasterium Requiescit () or simply Vita Ædwardi Regis is a Latin biography of King Edward the Confessor completed by an anonymous author 1067 and suspected of having been commissioned by Queen Edith, Edward's wife. It survives in one manuscript, dated 1100, now in the British Library. The author is unknown, but was a servant of the queen and probably a Fleming. The most likely candidates are Goscelin and Folcard, monks of St Bertin Abbey in St Omer.
It is a two-part text, the first dealing with England in the decades before the Norman Conquest (1066) and the activities of the family of Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and the second dealing with the holiness of King Edward. It is likely that the two parts were originally distinct. The first book is a secular history, not hagiography, although book ii is more hagiographic and was used as the basis of later saints' lives dedicated to the king, such as those by Osbert of Clare and Aelred of Rievaulx. The Vita is very important to historians studying eleventh-century England, because it is one of the few good primary sources still available from the period. Also, it is a transitional piece, showing how England was more closely related to Scandinavia, and how after the Norman Conquest, it shifted south and became more connected to continental Europe, particularly France. The time of the Vita was a time when this crucial shift in England's history was taking place.
There are two modern English translations of the text, those of Henry Richards Luard (1858) and Frank Barlow (1962, 1992).
Manuscripts The Vita Ædwardi Regis survives in one manuscript, written in folios 38 to 57 of the British Library Harley MS 526, these twenty folios measuring c. 13 cm by 18.5 c and penned in "brownish ink". Written on the manuscript at a later date is the name of Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury (1604–1610), who must therefore have acquired it. Its location prior to the life of Archbishop Bancroft is unclear, but possible locations include Canterbury itself, London Cathedral or the church of Westminster, as Bancroft had previously been a canon of Westminster as well as treasurer, prebendary and Bishop of London.
The Harley manuscript was probably written down at Christ Church, Canterbury around 1100, owing to the style of the hand. The two centre folios that originally lay between 40 and 41, and 54 and 55 are lost, though their content can be partially reconstructed. Its recent editor, historian Frank Barlow, thought that it was based on an earlier version of the text at Christ Church Canterbury by 1085; he also believed that other copies, now lost, existed at Westminster Abbey and Bury St Edmunds, from which derivative works were written.
Text The text tells the story of the life of King Edward the Confessor. It is written from the perspective of an anonymous author who receives inspiration from his Muse. The text is mostly Latin prose, but it is interspersed with bits of poetry, which the Muse tells the author to include so that his tale is not tiresome. The story goes from the Danish invasion and King Cnut up until the death of Edward, speaking mostly in a historical fashion, and then it backtracks and returns to Edward's life, telling of the miracles he performed and his saintliness. Besides Edward himself, the main character of the story (particularly the historical part) is his wife, Edith of Wessex. The author explicitly states that he desires to write praise to Edith, and the Muse tells him also to write of the goodness of Edith's father, Earl Godwin, and his family.
The Vita is not particularly hagiographic, and is more comparable to works such as Asser's Vita Ælfredi (Life of King Alfred) or Einhard's Vita Karoli Magni (Life of Charlemagne) than to a saint's life. Frank Barlow thought its closest parallel was Vita Regis Rotberti Pii, a biographical narrative on the reign of Robert II the Pious, king of France, written sometime after 1031 by the Fleury monk Helgaud. Book i of the Vita Ædwardi Regis, the majority of the work, was not hagiographic at all. Osbert of Clare, who wrote the first true hagiography of King Edward, ignored book i and built his narrative around book ii. Book i is generally considered the more valuable section for modern historians. In the view of historian J. L. Grassi, it is the most valuable narrative source for the reign of Edward the Confessor, containing around 40 unique items of information. Book i is interspersed with poetry (largely absent from book ii), usually used as "transitional pieces" between different stages of the narrative.
As a source, the Vita was drawn on by later medieval writers. William of Malmesbury consulted it, and his Gesta Regum contains extracts, as does Osbert of Clare's Vita. Sulcard's Prologus de Construccione Westmonasterii, written c. 1085, makes use of the work too, and it is this that enables historians to theorise that a copy of the Vita was at the Abbey of Westminster by this date. More use of the text, if indirect, was made by the famous Cistercian Northumbrian, Aelred of Rievaulx. Ailred's Vita S. Eduardi Regis et Confessoris was the most widely circulated hagiography of Edward, and all later accounts of Edward's miracles and life are based on this. Book iv of Richard of Cirencester's Speculum Historiale de Gestis Regum Angliae is a compilation based on the Vita by Aelred, and contains extracts of the Vita Ædwardi Regis, some of which – roughly 500 words regarding Edith's marriage to Edward – are unique and probably represent part of the lost sections of the original Vita Ædwardi Regis.
Context After King Edward died on 5 January 1066, Harold Godwinson was crowned king of England, and there were multiple threats poised against England from different sides. There was Duke William of Normandy, who claimed to have been promised the crown by Edward and even by Harold himself. There was Tostig, the former earl of Northumbria, who had been banished from the kingdom.
The most important political dynamic in England in the years before the Vita was written was the climb to power by the Godwin family, and the struggle between the Godwins and King Edward. The Vita and other sources tell of the struggles between Earl Godwin and the king, and while these conflicts took many forms (such as the ownership of land, or question of Godwin's involvement in the murder of Edward's brother), the basis behind them all was the struggle for power. Edward was the king, but Godwin clearly desired for his family to rule the kingdom, with his sons as the major earls, and his daughter as the queen. This did not always sit well with Edward, which led to the banishment of the Godwins (including the removal of Edith as queen) in 1051. Interestingly enough, the popular opinion in England seems to have been on Godwin's side more than Edward's, since there was nothing Edward could do to stop his return from exile, since the earl's forces were stronger than his own and the people were with him. The Vita says no less than five times that Godwin was viewed by the whole kingdom as its father, and while there is surely some exaggeration here, it shows an immense amount of support that he had among the English. This makes logical sense, considering that they elected Godwin's son, Harold, to be king when Edward died without an heir. There is no evidence to suggest that there was any internal opposition to Harold's rule.
The Vita claims that Edward gave the kingship of England to Harold with his dying words. However, there is no definitive proof that this was the case. Marc Morris says this claim is shaky, but cannot be completely refuted, since the pro-Godwin sources of the period say the story is true—albeit cautiously—and even the anti-Godwin sources such as William of Poitiers do not attempt to deny it. Stephen Baxter suggest that Edward might have changed his own mind about the succession of the throne multiple times, leading to the uncertainty surrounding Harold's, William's and Edgar Ætheling's claims. Either way, Harold was clearly intent on becoming king, as his seeming eagerness to be crowned immediately after Edward's death indicates, especially since that was not common practice among the English at the time. We do not know if Harold desired to seize the crown and made up Edward's request as an excuse, or if the Vita and the Bayeux Tapestry tell the truth in saying that he was nominated by Edward and elected by the English witan of their own volition. The most likely answer is that the truth is some combination of the two.
The threats to Harold's rule were exclusively external. The primary one was William. William claimed that Edward had promised the throne to him, and the Bayeux Tapestry shows Harold in Normandy, swearing an oath on holy relics that he would let William be king. There is little disagreement in primary sources that this oath was in fact sworn, but there are differences of opinion on why. Sources with a more Norman leaning say that Harold had gone to Normandy with the purpose of making the oath, while English sources claim that the oath—or possibly the entire trip—had not been planned. The Vita itself does not say anything on the matter. Either way, William was a contender to the English throne, and likely many people in England (id est, most people who were involved in the workings of government) would have known that William would not be easily ignored. Matters would come to a head with him sooner or later, as they in the autumn when he invaded.
The other challenge to the throne came from Harold's own brother, Tostig. If the knowledge of William and his claim to the throne was known in England, the knowledge of Tostig and his grievance with his family would have been known even better. He had been the earl of Northumbria, but due to a rebellion of his people, he was expelled while Edward was king and Harold was the earl of Wessex. Tostig was a harsh ruler, and his people did not love him. The Vita itself—though it usually takes a stance favorable to Tostig—says that he was a little too harsh sometimes, and this is probably an understatement. The chief cause of the rebellion was likely Tostig's tax policy, which his subjects perceived to be too harsh, as well violence and cruelty to his people. He was also accused of robbing churches and conspiring to murder noblemen in his earldom. After Tostig was expelled, he remained bitter towards Harold, and it is not surprising that he would have desired to challenge his brother's throne. This challenge came in the form of allying with Harold Sigurdsson, king of Norway, and invading England, an attempt which was stopped at the Battle of Stamford Bridge, where Tostig died.
Shortly afterward, the Normans invaded from the south and William emerged from the Battle of Hastings as the victor. With Godwin's sons—Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, and Leofwine—all dead, he proceeded to become the king of England and subdue the rest of his new realm. This was a long and brutal process that felt to many in England like their entire world was coming undone. The previous power balance had been entirely upset, and many of the English saw the invasion as God's divine judgement for their sins.
Dating
Historiography Barlow argues that the first half of the book—the half dealing with Edward's reign and the doings of the house of Godwin—was written between 1065 and 1066, while the second half—in which the miracles of Edward are recounted—was most likely written around 1067. This opinion has been the subject of controversy, since it says the book was started before the Norman invasion and completed afterward.