News0 min ago
The Battle of Hastings
Was William the legal heir to the English throne and therefore justified in his subsequent invasion and taking of the throne or was he a usurper and Harold the rightful king?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flubber. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
the question of 'heirs' was a lot more complicated in those days. It didn't necessarily go from father to son. Before 1066, Anglo Saxon lords got to vote, and would generally want the strongest ruler, who might be the king's eldest son or might not. Anyway, as I recall, William got Edward the Confessor to nominate him as heir, swearing on holy relics; Harold thought this was trickery and Edward hadn't known the relics were there. But I don't think, even if Edward had known, that he was necessarily in a position to designate his own successor, so William wouldn't have been a 'legal heir'.
Actually I am not sure. I thought Harold knew he would be king and Edward told him so, but on his deathbed Edward changed his mind and elected William. Now whether this was because of previous generations and offspring and marriages or simply the link to the Pope and religion I don't know . We all know in history that Harold and William had a bit of a spat and in consequence Harold got an eye full and William took over. I always assumed that Harold (as king) was the ace top dog defending his realm, but reading history and death bed promises and exile of heire I wonder now if William did have a more viable claim and the battle was simply him exercising his rightful claim?
-- answer removed --
William claimed that Edward the Confessor had nominated him as his legitimate heir and also that Harold had sworn an oath to support this claim. Whether either happened or not is irrelevant as kings were elected by the barons - the notion of a hereditary monarchy was brought in by the Normans.
Harold had basically run the country during the last years of Edward's reign as Edward was more interested in being a saint. The barons elected Harold so he was the legitimate king.
Harold had basically run the country during the last years of Edward's reign as Edward was more interested in being a saint. The barons elected Harold so he was the legitimate king.
Hi In a pickle - I sort of thought that William was more or less rightful heir and was simply fighting for his right and giving Harold an eyeful in the process. School says "our" king Harold and that nasty man William having a fight and William winning, but I am intrigued as who really was worthy of winning. I now think it was William when we forget promises and look deeper.
As to the right man winning I begin to think its an individuals slant.
Jno I am not ignoring you - not heard of relics so I better get back to my history books.
As to the right man winning I begin to think its an individuals slant.
Jno I am not ignoring you - not heard of relics so I better get back to my history books.
An excellent answer, In a pickle, but there are two rather important poitns you haven't covered. Firstly the Norman knights which made up part of William's forces, who basically saw coming over to England as returning to their rightfull place. Secondly, the fact that King Harold's forces were completely knackered by the time they met with William's invasion army just outside Hastings, thanks to the 'fact that they had just run down from York which they had been defending from the viking Harald Hardrarder's lot. It seems oddly 'convenient' that Harald Hardrarder attacked the North of England just before William came over to the south !
sorry flubber, I misrembered the relics: as IaP points out, it was Harold who was (supposedly) tricked into promising on relics to support William. By saying Harold had broken this sacred vow, William was able to get the pope's support for his invasion.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bayeux.htm
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/bayeux.htm
I loved these replies and thank you all. Many years ago at school I recall being taught about the battle and that King Harold (English King, "hooray") was killed by a William's army (foreign lot , "hiss, boo") and we English were sort of taken over. Now I am older and try to analyse it all I have come to the conclusion that William was probably justified in staking a claim.
I valued every answer I received but a special thanks to In A Pickle for a beaut iful answer that was neither long or complicated!
I valued every answer I received but a special thanks to In A Pickle for a beaut iful answer that was neither long or complicated!
As has been mentioned, there was no hereditary monarchy in Saxon England, though the most powerful families usually ensured their continued rule. For example, Alfred the Great followed his brother as King.
Edward the Confessor was not keen on Harold's family, the Godwin clan, because he considered them too powerful and it is possible he promised the throne to William in order to usurp their authority. Such a promise however would have had no legal standing under Saxon law.
Before Edward's death, Harold was involved in a ship wreck off the coast of Normandy/Brittany and ended up in William's court where the Normans made him swear an oath on a chest of Saints bones (relics) promising to support William's dubious claim to the English throne. Remember, William was illegitimate and any claim he had on anything, including Normandy, was always questioned and under threat.
After Edward's death, Harold was elected King by the Saxon lords who formed the Witan, who did not take any promise obtained under duress by William, seriously.
The invasion by another candidate for the throne, one, Harold Hardrada of Norway was supported by Harold's own brother, Tostig, and it was this invasion and the resulting Battle at Stamford Bridge, that seriously undermined Harold's ability to defend his kingdom, when William invaded in the south.
Edward the Confessor was not keen on Harold's family, the Godwin clan, because he considered them too powerful and it is possible he promised the throne to William in order to usurp their authority. Such a promise however would have had no legal standing under Saxon law.
Before Edward's death, Harold was involved in a ship wreck off the coast of Normandy/Brittany and ended up in William's court where the Normans made him swear an oath on a chest of Saints bones (relics) promising to support William's dubious claim to the English throne. Remember, William was illegitimate and any claim he had on anything, including Normandy, was always questioned and under threat.
After Edward's death, Harold was elected King by the Saxon lords who formed the Witan, who did not take any promise obtained under duress by William, seriously.
The invasion by another candidate for the throne, one, Harold Hardrada of Norway was supported by Harold's own brother, Tostig, and it was this invasion and the resulting Battle at Stamford Bridge, that seriously undermined Harold's ability to defend his kingdom, when William invaded in the south.
Excellent answer suffragette, thank you!
I think we go back to the English feudal system at that time and quite who decided which 'who' should be king. Of course, Harold was chosen and William argued the toss by having a big fight and subsequently won. I think there is a division between historians between the Harold's and the William's and their equal eligibility, and in 2006 the individuals views as to who really should have won or lost a decisive battle that changed British history.
Here I am thinking William was the rightful one to win the war and you go and post an answer seemingly more in the Harold camp and I am right back to square one trying to come to a personal answer to satisfy myself. I loved your reply but I think I hate you all the same for throwing a spanner in the works!
I think we go back to the English feudal system at that time and quite who decided which 'who' should be king. Of course, Harold was chosen and William argued the toss by having a big fight and subsequently won. I think there is a division between historians between the Harold's and the William's and their equal eligibility, and in 2006 the individuals views as to who really should have won or lost a decisive battle that changed British history.
Here I am thinking William was the rightful one to win the war and you go and post an answer seemingly more in the Harold camp and I am right back to square one trying to come to a personal answer to satisfy myself. I loved your reply but I think I hate you all the same for throwing a spanner in the works!
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works with my answer, flubber. I've just found this site and it makes the whole process even more complicated.
http://www.battle1066.com/claim.shtml
If I was really heartless I would start an argument about the beginning of feudal society, which most historians believe was introduced only after the Norman conquest, though there is an argument to suggest that Saxon society was well on the way to introducing the system regardless of the Norman invasion. Another day, maybe?
Best wishes.
http://www.battle1066.com/claim.shtml
If I was really heartless I would start an argument about the beginning of feudal society, which most historians believe was introduced only after the Norman conquest, though there is an argument to suggest that Saxon society was well on the way to introducing the system regardless of the Norman invasion. Another day, maybe?
Best wishes.
I did this for my special subject at uni very interesting, very complicated.
The notion that Edward had at one point nominated William, whom he had not seen since William was around 12 at the Norman court while Edward was in exile, was extremely unlikely. Couple this with the fact that at the period of time during which William is supposed to have travelled to England to receive the nomination, he was fighting a civil war for his survival as count of Normandy and was unlikely to take the weeks of travel required at such a crisis point. Harold's shipwreck and capture was unfortunate, but it would be fairly obvious that he was under duress making any promises. An interesting point is that even while serving as a vassal under William, he was given his own command and was reported to have excelled himself in battle.
The process by which kings were electedhas already been covered - Harold was the lawfully elected king and Edward had no legal power to nominate a successor. There is little room for manoeuvre. Also remember that almost exclusively all the sources that survive are Norman except the Anglo saxon chronicle but I can't remember what that says :)
Also suffragette - one could also ask whether the Normans had a feudal society . . .
The notion that Edward had at one point nominated William, whom he had not seen since William was around 12 at the Norman court while Edward was in exile, was extremely unlikely. Couple this with the fact that at the period of time during which William is supposed to have travelled to England to receive the nomination, he was fighting a civil war for his survival as count of Normandy and was unlikely to take the weeks of travel required at such a crisis point. Harold's shipwreck and capture was unfortunate, but it would be fairly obvious that he was under duress making any promises. An interesting point is that even while serving as a vassal under William, he was given his own command and was reported to have excelled himself in battle.
The process by which kings were electedhas already been covered - Harold was the lawfully elected king and Edward had no legal power to nominate a successor. There is little room for manoeuvre. Also remember that almost exclusively all the sources that survive are Norman except the Anglo saxon chronicle but I can't remember what that says :)
Also suffragette - one could also ask whether the Normans had a feudal society . . .
All the talk of relics,paple dispensation,oaths and the rest becomes irelevant when you consider what happened post conquest. william and his hench men systematicaly removed the english people from any positon of power imposed french as the language of state and brutely supressed all opposition. The piece meal absorbtion of the "celtic lands"came to an end and the energies of the state where directed to holding and extending norman influance in france and else where me the use of force provided by the exploitation of there english possessions! Are these the actions of a rightfull ruler
Actually, a large number of English nobles were left in power until they tried to revolt in Williams absence - additionally the language of the state - laws, taxes and the like, remained English at the lower echelons. Within 2-3 generations a clear gap had arisen between the 'English' normans and the Normans, mainly determined through land holdings.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
