"Did William the Conqueror Fall? " Topic

"One of the stories handed down to generations of British school-children is the idea that William the Conqueror, on arriving in England, slipped as he was coming ashore. This, of course, was a terrible omen (for the Anglo-Saxons)…"
Read here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The truth behind the matter is William was drunk & hence that's why he fell over.

YouTube link (NSFW)

No, like Humpty-Dumpty, he was pushed.

It is a crib on Caesar, iirc. Wace is not to be trusted. But I always liked the detail and keep propagating it. History is all borrowed anyway.

As a non-Anglo-Saxon British citizen, I continue to be amazed by the attitude of British (particularly English) people who are apparently proud that their Germanic-Danish (Angle, Saxon, Jute) ancestors were defeated by a Franco-Viking (ie, Norman) illegitimate, while also rejoicing in their new-found independence from Europe.

Plenty of French citizens who are proud of a certain Corsican bandit, too. ;)

inverugie,

I am not all proud of that Norman illegitimate (nicely put!)….Hastings was a political and cultural catastrophe for the English as well as a military one. I take a small consolation in the victory of Tinchebray in 1106 dubbed 'revenge for Hastings' due to the role played by the Saxon foot in defeating another bunch of Normans.

I've seen it convincingly argued that England was in decline, with a continued slave class among other inequities. Its political strength was moribund in the greater European sphere. A turning inward was occurring for years before the Conquest, not the least of which was a disregard for the authority of the Roman Church. The timing for an English "reformation" was not for the early middle ages! The Norman Conquest reversed all of that and took England out of the Scandinavian orbit and thrust it into the main European sphere. Arguably this was a "good thing". I tend to go with that. When speaking of the health of nations or peoples, an infusion/invasion of "New Blood" almost always results in vitality rather than the reverse….

An interesting point of view Great War Ace. I take your point about 'New Blood' but it came with a very high price for ordinary people (especially the Northern English who had to suffer the 'Scouring of the North' by that illegitimate). As J R R Tolkien pointed out, so much of English folk culture and literature was lost (eradicated) by the Normans. As far as the Anglo-Saxon church was concerned, if I understand it correctly the church was more laid back about things such as married priests etc and generally not as authoritarian as Rome. Perhaps we might indeed have had a reformation much earlier if those Saxon Fyrd hadn't impetuously charged down Senlac Hill!

The Norman Conquest occurred at the same time as the Roman Church was gaining ascendency, pressing its authority into every available area of life. For instance, you mention married priests: Wm the Conqueror's uncle was the archbishop of Rouen, and he was also not celibate by all accounts. But he was practically the last of the "old order" of things in the Norman church, as in "France" generally: Norman priests simply sided with Rome in a timely manner and accepted celibate priests and all the rest of the reforms. This put the slower moving English church in a bad comparison as "schismatic", etc. It needed reforming. Lanfranc certainly agreed.

So Wm the Conqueror's fortune (and political genius?) gained Rome as a powerful ally, while England under the Godwinson clan received the interdict.

Had the Norman Conquest never occurred (for whatever complex of reasons), I think it likely that England's clergy would have eventually lined up with Rome's demands for reform.

And also, eventually, England's anemic political influence would have been absorbed through intermarriage and the like. It is impossible to say who would have dominated in that process. But given Normandy's already intertwined relations with England it probably would have been intermarriage again, like it had been at the start of the 11th century with Emma and Ethelred. No "conquest" per se would have occurred.

I can see Edgar the Aetheling marrying some Norman princess, for instance, after the Witan raises him to the throne and passes by the Godwinsons. The whole matter of passing up Edgar was a bit of political scare mongering anyway: if England had a boy on the throne, it would invite invasion and the kingdom would be vulnerable with a boy as its leader; the kingdom needed a powerful, experience leader to defend it, etc. The Godwinson faction was apparently behind that assertion.

This is all a bit of "yeah, but it could have gone differently". We don't know how contested the succession was in the Witan. It might have been a near thing, with the Godwinsons winning their support for Harold by a slim margin of favorable circumstances. It does all seem to have been more than a bit rushed, and the rush was unseemly, dispensing with the laidback way England traditionally crowned her kings. But if the Aetheling had been chosen because of his clearly legal claims through lineage, Wm of Normandy would never have challenged that claim. He would have used the Godwinson power to further his own influence in England. Eventually a marriage alliance could have resulted.

How would England "under" the Aetheling, now King Edgar, have fared against Harald Hardrada? Was Hardrada's invasion only launched because he knew the Normans were preparing to invade, and he decided to get the jump on them? I think so. Without a Norman invasion distracting England in the south, Norway would never have chanced a single-front invasion in the north. And besides, having lost in the Witan, there is no way that the Godwinson brothers would have joined Tosti and Hardrada in a Norse invasion, i.e. in rebellion. Harold, Gyrth and Leofwine would have been the leaders of a defensive army sent north by "the king". Edgar might have joined them as a figurehead "leader", and to gain experience, etc. The realm would have been united under their boy king and his Godwinson supporters.

In other words, I see the Norman Conquest as entirely avoidable. The Godwinsons were opportunists, not rebels. They would have sided with the Witan no matter what. And Wm of Normandy would never have invaded without the threat to his prestige that Harold's treachery caused….

Anglo-Saxons? Normans? All look the same from this side of Offa's Dyke.

Great War Ace, that was fascinating. Thank you.

Of course this Sassenach thing the Scots are so fond of has been scotched by recent DNA research.

I love that people try and retroactively assign nationalist values to past events.

Back on topic I'd always assumed that William the Bastard had a legitimate claim to the throne? Is this not the prevailing view anymore?

"Legitimate" claim. Hahah. I see what you did there.

Lineage-wise he was the grand-nephew of a former queen of England. But Emma married in, she had no lineage in England.

I believe that the prevailing view is the same as it has been virtually since the NC happened: Wm the Bastard's claim was better than Harald Hardrada's, which was inherited, via succession, from Harthacanute, who had an agreement with Magnus of Denmark/Norway (Hardrada's predecessor, and cousin, iirc), that if either of them died without issue, his kingdom would be assumed by the other. Pretty tenuous.

Wm the Bastard's claim was based on Edward the Confessor, his cousin, "promising" the succession. A Norman propaganda piece with no evidence to support it. That, plus the Norman connections politically, made the Norman claim stronger than the Norse one.

But Harold Godwinson had been top man in the kingdom for years. His family owned half of the earldoms. His father had been top man before him. Edward the Confessor had no love for the Godwinson clan. But they were a potent fact of life politically. So the Witan went with Harold.

But Edgar Atheling was the true heir, lineally. And that has never been disputed. That he was a mere boy should have made no difference, if "heir to the throne" was the top priority. But "times are dangerous" must have leant expediency to passing up a boy to crown a proven warrior of mature years. The security of the realm trumped lineage.

The Witan was within its rights to select the king. That they chose the one man who guaranteed the Norman invasion is a terrible piece of historical irony. Wm the Bastard would never have attempted to gainsay the Witan choosing Edgar Atheling. Wm's prestige was not wrapped up in becoming king of England. But he built his own trap by forcing oaths of fealty out of Harold Godwinson: so that when Harold accepted/took the crown, he was flouting all of his promises as Wm's man. That was impossible to ignore….

Cheers GWA- I know nowt about English history so that's all been very interesting.

You surprise me. I thought that you had at least an Anglo-Scottish version of English history. And I expect that to be more "close to home" than some Yank's "favorite story". :)