1066 Claimants

    In terms of how much an oath mattered to people in Medieval England and the rest of the Medieval world, it mattered a great deal. Look at the modes of proof that were used in Medieval England especially Compurgation - the use of oaths, and oath helpers to prosecute a lawsuit. In a country that holds oaths in such an esteem to use Compurgation as a mode of proof an oath definately held a great deal of power. As for is this enough to invade a country apparently to the Normans it was. In terms of what power did the pope hold over England. He held just as much power as anywhere else. The pope still has the power to excommunicate England as a Christian Nation. Ecclesiastical History is not really my strongest area I am just playing devil's advocate this repost was just an off the top of the head type of thing.

....back again...!!

..lots of 'offing of heads' going on!!...good to see some serious thinking without the need to batter and ram an army of perceived 'facts' to and fro...

Originally posted by King John      In terms of how much an oath mattered to people in Medieval England and the rest of the Medieval world, it mattered a great deal. Look at the modes of proof that were used in Medieval England especially Compurgation - the use of oaths, and oath helpers to prosecute a lawsuit.

..i have never heard of 'compurgation' before, and if this is the case, i can see why (or if) Duke William might have put Harold under oath, especially if both parties knew the importance of such matters...there remains in my mind the question over Harold's complicity in the matter, would he have so readily offered up his support to William when his own interests in kingship were apparent? or perhaps he did, but knowing he would renege on the deal later on? Possibly, or if indeed Harold was tricked, as gremlinlord has noted, and a story I remember reading once�

Concerning the possible promise that Harold Godwinson made to help William become King of England if the opportunity came up--there is a story that Harold swore his oath to William on a large chest covered with a cloth. Once the captive had sworn, the Duke whipped off the cloth, opened the chest, and lo and behold, there was a holy relic inside, unbeknownst at the time of the oath-making to Harold.

...in which case, then the oath probably had no binding quality in Anglo-Saxon eyes, viewing the Norman threat as an example of devious trickery, even more so as it utilised the very accoutrements of faith the Normans professed to hold dear..if this was the case, I think Harold had a reasonable cause in defence of his succession claim..

Originally posted by King John      In terms of what power did the pope hold over England. He held just as much power as anywhere else. The pope still has the power to excommunicate England as a Christian Nation.

�did not stop Henry VIII though!!!!�but seriously, I think maybe the Pope�s intervention held more sway with the deeply religious and unquestionable level of faith held by the Normans than it did with the Anglo-Saxon�s�Harold�s rigid defence of his kingly claim is some proof of this; if he had managed to defeat William and claim the English crown, and as gremlinlord also points out, then it does not look like he would have been too concerned over papal interference�but then again, the topic does deal with two highly motivated, politically ambitious and steadfast individuals, whose personal morals and attributes could be called into question�.is it possible the conquest was a more a matter of personal and national faith?�

    

By the by, I looked up who the pope was in 1066 just for fun. It was Alexander II. Apparently he was a very pious man, and very well respected by his fellow cardinals, but some of the nobles in Rome decided that they wanted to regain their former power in the choosing of the new pope. They therefore appointed their own pope, Honorius II, without any other cardinals present. Alexander, however, had much backing from other clergymen, and eventually the old nobles were replaced by ones who were in favor of the cardinal. So he was appointed pope. And apparently he not only backed William's invasion of England, but also Roger Guiscard, a fellow Norman who conquered Sicily around the same time. I just thought that was intriguing.

...thats interesting information Gremlinlord, certainly adds an aspect to the story...i really appreciate the answers i have received from everyone in the thread, as i stated earlier, my knowledge is limited but at the very least, now i have learnt some new ideas and opinions about the Norman conquest and your thread has prompted me to go and dig out a couple of books about the period, time for me to read up i think!!!...i will keep an eye on the thread to see what others have to say...

Edited by Melisende - 12-Dec-2006 at 22:16

Originally posted by Melisende Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, III. "In its origin the kingship of the English was distinctly elective, but with a restriction of choice in all ordinary cases to the members of one royal house." � Stevens, Sources of the Constitution, Chapter Five - The English Executive .... " .... [the] Saxon monarchy was far from being absolute.� Its authority was strictly limited by that of the Witenagemot, which participated in every act of government. Many of its prerogatives were deduced from the fact expressed by its very title, that the king was the representative of his people. His election rested with the Witan, which might depose him. Coronation, as essential as election, partook of the nature of a ratification or second election, and was, in effect, a compact between king and people, as well as a consecration to the kingly functions by the Church." � You may also be interested in this passage from "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" for the year 1066: "In this year was consecrated the minster at Westminster, on Childer-mass-day.� And King Edward died on the eve of Twelfth-day; and he was buried on Twelfth-day within the newly consecrated church at Westminster.� And Harold the earl succeeded to the kingdom of England, even as the king had granted it to him, and men also had chosen him thereto; and he was crowned as king on Twelfth-day." �

    ..the above words seem to add to the general agreement here that Harold Godwine did have the 'moral', and more importantly, 'legal' right to the throne, even if the decision cannot be proved as explicit, which brings me back to an earlier thought that Duke William's claim might have been 'legally and morally' wrong...i am now even more convinced that this was the case...i think it is no simple coincidence that the majority of literature on the subject still refers to a 'conquest' or 'invasion' (which implies illegality) rather than the Norman 'succession'..?�

    

As a bastard William's claim over Normandy alone could be disputed (and he did face a rebellion, which was won by King Henry I ironicaly in his favour) so let alone his claim over England.

Originally posted by The_Jackal_God but hey, without the Conquest, would there be a Robin Hood?

I uderstand this however the topic at hand is not France but rather the claimants to the ENGLISH throne. Ergo the discussion and citation of Dr. Searle's work was to provide a an alternative to primogeniture in the English context. However the nobility of France started the trend toward primogeniture before it became en vogue in Normandy and England

Originally posted by gcle2003 A question to which French and Norman law are totally irrelevant. As is any papal consideration.

Which discards William's claim as legitimate.

Denis,

Yes Harold was shipwrecked - and his release was secured by William. Yes, it was said that Harold did swear some sort of oath (knowingly or not) on the bones of a saint or holy relic.  However, one might suggest that any oath Harold gave was given under duress (and given soley to secure his freedom back to England) and as such would not have been considered as any kind of binding oath - especially by Harold.