[6] 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.

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.

[10] 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.

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.

[15] 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.

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.

[19] 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.

[22] 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.

[23] 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.

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.

Monika Otter and Tom Licence agree with Barlow that the text was started and finished on either side of the Battle of Hastings.

Barlow dismisses Bloch's theory, saying that the single manuscript can be reliably dated to around AD 1100, and that it at least the earlier part of the text was in use in the 1080's.

[33] Likewise, J. L. Grassi says that whoever wrote the Vita clearly had access to inside and personal information about the king, and was probably even present at Edward's death.

There is good reason to believe that the afore-described prose of the Vita was written after Edward's death, but before the Battle of Hastings.

The text goes all the way to Edward's death, and its praise of the Godwin family—especially Edith and Harold—indicates that it was written at a time when those two were possibly the most influential people in England.

The earlier part of the text contains a full account of Edward's life (albeit, from a fairly Godwinist perspective) that ends with his death.

When the Normans ruled England, writing a book about Edward that focused on how fortunate he was to have the wonderful family of Godwins guiding him would have been a dangerous political move.

[37] Possibly the most heart-breaking poem in the work is the last one, which sits between the initial account of Edward's death and the stories of his miracles.

[44] There are equally strong stylistic and circumstantial claims for both Goscelin and Folcard, so according to Barlow, there is really no way of knowing which of the two wrote it, but it is extremely unlikely that anyone else would have written it.

[47] Even so, Arbabzadah is cautious in assigning Folcard as the author, saying that statistics are not a perfect tool, and that the Vita "certainly deserves further attention in future work on questions of attribution".

[50] Rhona Beare argues that the biblical and classical allusions in the text have parallels in Goscelin's known works, particularly the reference to the four rivers of Eden, and the term, Cyllenius heros.

[51] Simon Keynes and Rosalind Love, however, responded that these claims were weak, considering that the reference to the four rivers of Paradise is handled differently in the Vita than in other works by Goscelin, and that the term, Cyllenius heros, was likely widely known at the time due to another popular text that contained it.

She was the daughter of Godwin and the wife to Edward, and it would not be an understatement to say that she was the most powerful woman in England at the time of her reign as queen, and possibly even afterward.

[54] Edith was—in some ways—the greatest piece in this puzzle, being the wife of the king himself, and thus bringing her family into Edward's most intimate circle.

She effectively had two roles/identities: the queen of England, and the daughter of Godwin; no matter what happened, her fate was intrinsically tied to that of her own family.

[56] The eventual falling out between Harold and Tostig is the ultimate loss and tragedy: the ruin of the great house of Godwin which Edith worked so hard to uphold and protect.

The poetry is representative of Edith grieving for the loss of peace, prosperity, and power that the Godwins suffered because of the feud between Harold and Tostig, and ultimately, the arrival of the Normans.

This could also have been a safeguard to justify a work that spoke so well of the Godwins in an era when Norman rule would have been hostile to memories of the old power structure.

Carola Hicks suggest that she was also the author of the Bayeux Tapestry, saying that she used it to support the Norman invasion, while not destroying the English legacy, attempting to become a unifying force of peace.