Harold Ii William I And The Interregnum

[Jamesblair 1]

This is my first post on this forum.

I am interested in the sequence of coin types of the early phase of the Norman Conquest, and one thing that has perplexed me is: what happened, numismatically speaking, during the interregnum between Harold's death and the issue of William's first type (profile left / cross fleury)? It seems virtually inconceivable that William could have issued coinage before he had become the legal monarch with his Coronation on December 25 1066, though it is possible he might have been able to set in motion the preparation of dies once the English had surrendered at Berkhampstead early in December. During the intervening interregnum there must have been a need for coinage, supposing that the bulk of Harold's Pax issue had been used to pay his mercenaries and had thus been exported when they returned home to Denmark and elsewhere.

My hypothesis is that the variety of Harold's type without sceptre might have been a posthumous issue, produced during the interregnum: the omission of the sceptre possibly indicating that Harold was no longer king.

Does anyone know of any evidence that could confirm, or refute, this hypothesis please?

[Rob 3,185]

wish I could. sorry.

[Gary1000 41]

Silver is silver, wouldn't they have just used French coin.

[Peckris 579]

Silver is silver, wouldn't they have just used French coin.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the numismatic background to this, but knowing a bit of history ... I tend to agree with Gary. There wouldn't have been much need for coinage back then, apart from major projects (certainly not for day-to-day transactions). What they needed I would have thought would have been met by existing Saxon silver, plus whatever French silver they brought with them.

[Rob 3,185]

It all depends on whether people brought silver to the mints for coining. As the coinage was changed every three years approx. by a new design, the existing one is likely to have been superseded as soon as possible, but it is unlikely a blanket ban on striking would be imposed. The world was full of current coins, so adding a few others of the previous monarch whilst awaiting instructions would not upset anyone.

[Accumulator 52]

Not my area at all, but an interesting first post. Perhaps Clive can help? Anyway, welcome to the forum!

[HistoricCoinage 151]

Silver is silver, wouldn't they have just used French coin.

Silver is silver, wouldn't they have just used French coin.

Knowing absolutely nothing about the numismatic background to this, but knowing a bit of history ... I tend to agree with Gary. There wouldn't have been much need for coinage back then, apart from major projects (certainly not for day-to-day transactions). What they needed I would have thought would have been met by existing Saxon silver, plus whatever French silver they brought with them.

I'd have to disagree with these statements quoted. The "silver is silver" statement would have applied up until some time in the 9th/10th centuries but certainly not this late in the grand scheme of things and that there "wouldn't have been much need for coinage back then" is correct to some extent, but the huge increase in cut quarters and halves clearly demonstrates otherwise. It is true that the English issues would have been melted down once the mercenaries took them back home as, with many complex European economies, foreign coins were exchanged for a fee and is a way that kings exploited the use of coinage for substantial economic gain. But this then raises the question as to why these mercenaries would have taken them back home in the first place if they knew they would have to pay substantial fees, it is far more likely that they would have taken them home as commodities or silver ingots which would have been much more profitable to exchange upon arrival home, casting doubt on any lack of coinage circulating in England - assuming that there was preferential treatment for indigenous coins and silver over foreign coins, a debate still ongoing. As for using a 'French' coin, Normandy was a distinct region within what was not a homogeneous region of 'France' but in a landmass existing within a broken-up Frankia/Carolingian Empire. Such coins from this region or 'France' would not have been able to circulate in England and this is clearly evident by the paucity of finds from England.

Going back to the original question, it must be remembered that coins of Edward the Confessor would still have been circulating during Harold II's reign and even into William I's reign, as is evidenced by hoards such as the Abergavenny Hoard and the Chancton Farm Hoard, Sussex, and so there is the possibility/(certainty) that enough coin was circulating, whether that be remnants of other late Saxon types or even Harold II's Pax type. However, I am doubtful that the 'without sceptre' type is a posthumous issue struck for William as the distribution of mints is limited to somewhat provincial mints (with the exception of Bristol and Norwich) and so I would have expected a posthumous type to have originated out of the central place where the dies were designed & created, i.e. London. Yet this is not the case.

This is only my thoughts briefly jotted down as I don't currently have time to go to the literature, but I find your hypothesis interesting, yet not plausible at first thought.

Edited February 27, 2014 by HistoricCoinage

[sound 25]

This is my first post on this forum.

I am interested in the sequence of coin types of the early phase of the Norman Conquest, and one thing that has perplexed me is: what happened, numismatically speaking, during the interregnum between Harold's death and the issue of William's first type (profile left / cross fleury)? It seems virtually inconceivable that William could have issued coinage before he had become the legal monarch with his Coronation on December 25 1066, though it is possible he might have been able to set in motion the preparation of dies once the English had surrendered at Berkhampstead early in December. During the intervening interregnum there must have been a need for coinage, supposing that the bulk of Harold's Pax issue had been used to pay his mercenaries and had thus been exported when they returned home to Denmark and elsewhere.

My hypothesis is that the variety of Harold's type without sceptre might have been a posthumous issue, produced during the interregnum: the omission of the sceptre possibly indicating that Harold was no longer king.

Does anyone know of any evidence that could confirm, or refute, this hypothesis please?

Very interesting conjecture. I doubt whether your question can be answered with certainty, certainly North dosn't address the issue.

The first coin minted is listed as between 1066-1068?

Harold as you know was killed on 14 October, William being crowned on December 25. It could be argued reasonably, that coins were immediately struck in preperation for his coronation. After all what better way for a Monarch to establish his authority. Surely there were enough coins in circulation to suffice for the intervening two months?

The Saxons did not submit readily it wasn't until 1071 that Willian returned to Normandy. During that time William struck two other coins which demonstrated IMO his desire for continuity.

Of course as stated your thought provoking question probably cannot be fully satisfied.

Regards

Mark