1066 Claimants

...hello gremlinlord...

..it certainly is an interesting topic and of great historical importance to my country, especially as the results of the Norman conquest had such a profound effect....personally, it is of interest as i live near to Hastings and have visited the battle site on many occasions, the city where i live was probably the place where the Bayeaux Tapestry was made.... so yes, important things....As someone from the United States, i would be interested in reading your own thoughts on the matter of kingly succession...
..all the best...

I agree that William would have had the strongest claim, but I don't think Edward would have chosen him to be his heir. There were a lot of anti-Norman strains going around England at the time, and it wouldn't be a very good political move to appoint a Norman duke as the next king. Harold is out of the picture, and Harald didn't show his face until after the king's death (not that he would have been considered for an instant). Although young kings are rarely successful, I believe Edward had no other option besides Edgar.

Hmm, I see where you're coming from...good point. So basically you're saying that on his deathbed Edward would not have cared for a politically correct stance but would have gone for the better choice? I could agree with that. I suppose now it just depends on Edward's mental condition when he was on his death bed. But congratulations, King John, you have officially changed my mildly long-standing opinion on the matter. Your explaination makes more sense than mine, now that I step back and look at it.

Gremlinlord I have a question for you. This is a little revisionist history but I am actually interested to see what your opinion is on the matter. Had William lost at Normandy what do you think the effects on history would have been?

King John--you mean Hastings? Well...if we're going on the fact that Harold won the battle before he got shot in the eye with an arrow, it would seem that England would have remained closed to the outside world for quite a while longer, which I would think would not be the greatest situation. England might have gotten a reality check like the Japanese, but that would have taken a century or two. All in all, they would have fallen behind on the modernization that was constantly occuring on mainland Europe simply because they would not have been required to face it as they were not in direct contact with the continent. The Norman Conquest also had quite a large impact on the English language, being a catalyst for the end of Old English, so I suppose there would be a significant number of words and phrases that we wouldn't be using today. It would have taken something equally as dramatic as the invasion to push the the Anglo-Saxon language to the next level if William had not won, which wouldn't have happened as the Norman conquest was pretty much the final time England/Great Britain has been invaded. The Domesday Book is also worth mentioning, I think; the census was an important developement on the way to make a stronger government.

Edited by gremlinlord - 10-Dec-2006 at 07:02

..hello again gremlinlord�

You live near Hastings, Act of Oblivion? And where the Bayeaux Tapestry may have been made...That's impressive. If I ever get to England I'm making a beeline for wherever you are!

..yes, I am fortunate to live in Canterbury, a city and area of England with a rich historical background�.just across the road from where I live are the ruins of St Augustine�s Abbey, founded in AD 597 and originally a burial place for the Anglo-Saxon kings of Kent. The city also boasts one of the earliest Norman keeps although the structure is in some ruin with only the bottom half still available to see. Only a few miles away is the more impressive keep at Rochester, very much intact and wearing the scars of battle�.Canterbury�s main park and garden is named �Dane John� gardens and in this garden stands the original earth mound where the first Norman wooden castle keep was built. The name �Dane John� possibly derives from the anglicised version of the French word donjon meaning a castle keep�.plenty to see and do and if you visited these shores, I would be glad to accompany you on an excursion�!!

..but back to your original post. I have a interest in the period and events but I must admit I do not have an in-depth knowledge and my information is sketchy�..but from what I can gather and in my opinion, I think Harold Godwine would have been the strongest choice for the throne, principally because of what others have stated here; the choice of succession would probably have been made by the �witenagemot�, the collection of aristocratic and influential figures who not only assisted the king in decision-making, but also had a key role in determining the succession of kings�although this assembly perhaps had a legal �right� to decide, it is more likely that Edwards immediate court and household maintained a great deal of influence and it was this influence that led to the confusion over what was actually the Confessor�s personal choice�

..perhaps the most detailed primary sources are the chronicles of William of Jumi�ges and William of Poitiers, who both agree that the Confessor promised the succession to Duke William, but the obvious criticism of this is that both writers are Norman chroniclers with an evident prejudice�.R.Allen Brown in his book �The Normans and the Norman Conquest� offers a convincing portrayal of events and sources that back up his belief that an oath from Harold to Duke William did take place, although the book was written in 1969 and such assertions have been �revised� since. In �Conquest and Colonisation-The Normans in Britain, 1066-1100� (2001), Brian Golding provides a brief but adequate analysis of the succession, and asks pertinent questions regarding the issues surrounding who had �rightful� claim to the throne. However, my personal opinion is that even if the throne was promised to Duke William, to answer the original question, I will stick with Harold Godwine as having the strongest claim�

�.as a minor footnote to this discussion, I would like to add a �story� which may or may not be a rumour or myth, and may have been told before on these forums�

�.in England we have a common phrase �blimey�, which is often used as an exclamation to show surprise/shock/bewilderment alongside a number of other uses. The phrase is a shortened version of �gawd blimey� which in turn is a corruption of �god blimey.� However, the interesting bit (hopefully!!) of the tale is that �blimey� is a shortened slang word for �blind me�, which then makes the spoken phrase �god blind me�. This is taken as a �swearing� or �pledge� that if one breaks a promise or oath, then let God strike and take out one�s eyes. This loosely ties in with the image of Harold Godwin on the Bayeaux Tapestry clutching his face with an eye pierced by an arrow, perhaps from the Norman belief that Harold reneged on an oath to William, which was apparently sworn on holy relics. In conclusion, it has been suggested that the arrow in the eye story was only a Norman �representation� of Harold�s �betrayal,� and Harold Godwine was in fact, as possibly portrayed elsewhere on the tapestry, cut down by Norman swords�..?????

..hi gremlinlord...

..yes, the south coast of England has much historical interest, mainly as it was the most quickest and easiest area to raid from the mainland continent, hence there are many leftovers in Kent from the Viking, Roman and Norman days, not to mention the fortifications built over the centuries to deter future invasions..the area is swarming with historic sites, and Canterbury's Roman history is particularly interesting...

..however, back to your thread topic...

Have they found a character in the tapestry who might possibly be a second Harold? That would be cool...history rewritten.

..the depiction in the tapestry of Harold being slain by swords is an idea that is not that new, i am not sure where it is, but i believe it is near to the 'arrow in the eye' figure.....i remember reading something about it and watching a TV documentary regarding this matter, it is a quite convincing argument, and plausible, but no absolute proof exists of the 'truth' as far as i know...

...i do believe that some of the women involved in the making of the tapestry were Anglo-Saxon, (possibly Nuns based in Canterbury) and may have 'added' a few sly criticisms of their new Norman masters in some of the scenes!!!..again, i cannot recall the details, worth looking into though...

..bye for now...

"legally and morally wrong?"   Really? I might be totally off base but didn't William appeal to the pope for a papal bull or bannar, which he subsequently fought under? Furthermore, if Billy thought that he was entitled to the throne because Edward promised it to him or because he was Harold's feudal lord (whether homage was done under duress or not) this can hardly be seen as being "legally or morally wrong."

..Hello King John...

Originally posted by King John "legally and morally wrong?"   Really? I might be totally off base but didn't William appeal to the pope for a papal bull or bannar, which he subsequently fought under? Furthermore, if Billy thought that he was entitled to the throne because Edward promised it to him or because he was Harold's feudal lord (whether homage was done under duress or not) this can hardly be seen as being "legally or morally wrong."

..no, no, no, King John...my apologies, my thought was not stated as backed up fact, i do not know enough about the subject to make such claims�all my posts in this thread are off the top of my head and are more enquiry led than researched statements�..my words were just a personal thought referring to the Norman chroniclers mentioned in an earlier post, and the supposed �rigid-ness� of their accounts; perhaps because they needed to somehow validate and legitimise a succession claim that was perceived in some circles as being illegitimate�?

..however, having read your post again, and to further expand my knowledge, (and play a bit of devils advocate!), I would be interested to know how much weight Papal influence carried in England at the time, and whether this would have had any baring on the Witan�s probable judgement that Harold should have been king? (which is the only basis for my claim that Harold had the strongest claim). It�s a tricky topic for me to understand, but if as gcle2003 claims, Edward had no right to �promise� the throne, then does this make the promise �invalid� or non-legal? Or if Harold�s homage/oath to Duke William, forced or otherwise (or did it even happen?), was just that, an oath of support, does that not make William�s claim and subsequent military invasion illegitimate or morally questionable as well? How much force does an �oath� really have? I would imagine that the Norman�s strong faith would hold an oath as binding, but does this still provide a solid foundation for invading another country? Collectively with Edward�s promise, I guess for Duke William the answer was a sturdy yes!! However, in the country in question, England, how much legal and moral weight did a promise and an oath really have?�lots of questions there King John, but I am just thinking out loud and on the gallop�.!!

PS-it looks like gcle2003 got there before i could post, and with thanks, has provided some answers to my questions...!! However, if there is anything else that could be added to my enquiries, all will be gratefully received...
    







    

Edited by Act of Oblivion - 11-Dec-2006 at 14:21