Conquest of England 1066 AD. The battles of Fulford, Stamford and Hastings.

By Garrett Pearson

Prelude

1066 AD Proved a decisive year for Anglo-Saxon England.

King Edward shown on the Bayeux Tapestry

The English King Edward the Confessor died childless on January 5 of that year and failing to nominate an heir created a power vacuum for the throne. The only true claimant was a nephew of Edward’s, Edgar Ætheling. Edgar however, aged only fourteen and residing in Hungary was virtually unknown to the Saxon people and thus devoid of support in England. 

Three forceful claimants sought the crown, Earl Harold Godwinson of England, King Harald Sigurdsson (Hardrada) of Norway and William, Duke of Normandy.  

Each claim was tenuous; Harold’s claim cited a promise given him by Edward on his deathbed. Hardrada’s, based on distant ties to the former Anglo-Danish King Canute, and William by a promise he claimed given to him years earlier by Edward. William also claimed that Harold, whilst a detainee or guest of his in Normandy, had given an oath of fealty to him and promised support in his claim to the English throne. 

Harold was crowned King on January 6 by Bishops Stigand of Canterbury and Ealdred of York with the support of the English Witan, the Saxon assembly of nobles. Harold’s coronation was astonishingly quick, perhaps done before objections could be raised, previous Kings usually taking time to be exposed to their people and Lords.  

Rebellion and invasion

Harold’s estranged and younger brother, Tostig Godwinson, the former Earl of Northumberland and whom Edward exiled before his death, now sought to reclaim his Earldom. After raiding the Isle of Wight and the southeastern coast of England but to no gain and little effect, he looked for greater support against his brother from the other claimants, William and Hardrada. 

Allying himself with Hardrada the pair agreed to meet with their fleets at Tynemouth on the northeast coast of England. Hardrada, abandoning his long and unproductive war against Denmark arrived with three hundred ships and an army of approximately nine thousand men, consisting mainly of Norsemen but supplemented by vassals from Orkney and Shetland and some Scots mercenaries supplied by King Malcolm III. Tostig arrived with twelve ships, and supported by some exiled Saxon retainers and Flemish mercenaries supplied by his brother-in-law, Count Baldwin of Flanders.   

 

Battle of Fulford – September 20

Battle of Fulford - Mathew Paris (Public Domain)

After sacking Scarborough and the northeast coast, Hardrada’s and Tostig’s fleet turned into the river Humber and sailed inland, landing and disembarking at Riccall (Richale) some ten miles south of York (Jorvik). 

Two miles south of York at Fulford, they were confronted by brothers Edwin and Morcar, the respective Earls of Mercia and Northumberland and around five thousand Saxon troops. 

The Earls drew their army up along the north bank of the Germany Beck with Edwin and his Mercians on the right flank by the river Ouse and Morcar and the Northumbrians to the center with marshland to their left. Hardrada’s men were still coming in from Riccall when battle commenced, the Saxons seeking victory before all of Hardrada’s troops arrived. Owing to the high tide on the Ouse, the beck was also in flood forcing the Saxons and Norse to fight across it. With difficult conditions for both armies, Hardrada committed his light troops along the beck hoping they could hold the Saxons until more of his men came up from Riccall. Initially the Saxons enjoyed success, pushing Hardrada’s men back but as the heavy Norse troops arrived and were marched around the riverbank, where the tide had now fallen; they attacked the Saxon right flank driving Edwin and his Mercians off. More Norse pushed around the Saxon left flank, both contingents then turning to attack the rear of the Saxon center, cutting them to pieces. Casualties were heavy on both sides though the power of the northern Saxon army was broken and both Earls managed to escape.

Harald and Tostig marched eight miles east of York to Stamford to await and accept hostages and the surrender of the city, Stamford being chosen as it was a well-known landmark on the boundary of the east and north ridings of Yorkshire.

Battle of Stamford – September 25

With the northern Saxon army destroyed and believing Harold to be in the south watching for William, Hardrada sent half of his troops under his Earl (Jarl) Eysteinn Orri back to their ships at Riccall, the rest relaxing in the meadows by the river Derwent at Stamford.

Harold however, hearing news of the Norse invasion had force-marched north from London, completely surprising the Norse contingent at Stamford. Expecting no trouble, many of the Norse had sent their mail hauberks and shields back to their ships, now, unprepared and with hastily drawn battle lines, they faced the Saxons. The speed of the Saxon arrival suggests that most were mounted but whether they dismounted to fight on foot as traditional or attacked mounted is still a moot point. With Saxon numbers estimated at ten to twelve thousand men, Hardrada dispatched runners back to Orri at Riccall, some fifteen miles away calling for reinforcements.

The Norse were gradually pushed back. Seeking to regroup on more favorable ground, they crossed a narrow bridge whilst a lone warrior with a double-handed axe held it against the Saxons. Buying time for his comrades, he is reputed to have slain between twenty and forty men before finally succumbing to a spear in the groin thrust from beneath the bridgeboards by a Saxon warrior.

During a lull in the fighting, the chroniclers, Snorri Sturluson and Henry of Huntingdon, cite that a warrior approached Tostig and Hardrada offering Tostig his Earldom back. When Tostig asked what terms for Hardrada, the man is said to have replied “Only six feet of English ground or more, as he is taller than other men.” The warrior was reputed to be Harold.

Battle recommenced and Hardrada fell to an arrow through the throat, Tostig was also slain. Jarl Orri and his men arrived in late afternoon having ran the fifteen miles from Riccall. Committing immediately to battle they stalled the Saxon onslaught but succumbing to exhaustion and a foe that sensed victory they were pushed back, Orri being killed in the melee.

Late in the day, Harold offered the remaining Norsemen the chance to leave, never to return, under pain of death. The Norse casualties were so great that only thirty ships were required to take the survivors back to Norway.

Battle of Stamford Bridge & death of Hardrada (unknown artist)

Invasion and the Battle of Hastings 14 October

William’s fleet of some seven hundred ships, a mixture of warships and transports landed at Pevensey Bay on September 28 or 29. He immediately dispatched troops to invest Hastings town and to ravage the surrounding countryside. 

Harold, resting in York when he heard of Williams’s invasion set off south reaching London in four days. At this speed, it is thought he rode ahead with his Huscarls (personal guard) with others to follow on as soon as able.

Harold was urged to wait in London for the men from the north and for more men to come in but being a successful, confident and vigorous commander; he refuted the advice, and marched to meet William. Word was put out for men to assemble by the ‘Hoar apple tree” a well-known landmark, long since lost.

It is surmised Harold’s speed was a plan to catch William unawares, William however stole a march on Harold and the two sides came in sight on opposing hills on the early morning of October 14. William on Telham hill with his papal banner, a gift of support from Pope Alexander the second to aid his endeavours against Harold the ‘oath breaker.’ On Caldbec hill, Harold set his banners of the fighting man and the dragon of Wessex, his brothers Gyrth and Leofwine in support. His men formed up on a hammer shaped ridge at the hill front, above a boggy area called Santlache meaning ‘Sandy Stream’ and punned later by the Normans as Senlac, meaning ‘blood lake.’

William moved to the low ground between the hills expecting Harold to come down off Caldbec hill and fight him, Harold sensibly refused.

Battle commenced at 0900hrs with volleys of arrows from the Norman archers. The Saxons, in dense formation raising their shields against the incoming storm suffered little damage, William then dispatched his infantry uphill in an attempt to shatter the Saxon shieldwall. His men were met by a hail of missiles, arrows, clubs, stones and javelins, the Saxons roaring defiance with cries of ‘Ut, ut, ut’ (out, out, out) after a prolonged struggle and no sign of the wall breaking, William sent his mounted knights in support. However, with the wall unbroken the best the knights could do was ride in and away stabbing with their lances else hurl maces and javelins in an attempt to break the wall. 

With the Saxon wall showing no sign of breaking, the Breton contingent on William’s left flank broke and fled back down the hill, some of the cavalry floundering in the soft ground and a cry went up that William was dead. Some Saxons broke ranks and chased the Norman rout, seeing crisis, William threw back his coif and helmet showing himself alive and rode amongst his men trying to stem the panic. Managing to rally his men, the Normans counter attacked and slaughtered the Saxons on the open ground. 

A break in the fighting had both sides reforming, the Saxons adjusting their shrinking shieldwall and the Normans regrouping for another assault. The battle continued into the afternoon with the Normans again making no headway against the Saxon defence. At the height of a full assault on the shieldwall, the Normans again began falling back down the hill as if in disarray, the Saxons, once more sensing victory and against all commands, broke ranks and gave chase. On the low ground, the Normans turned and easily slaughtered the Saxons, who in loose order were easy prey to the mounted knights. 

With the loss of the men in the low ground, the Saxon shieldwall shrunk again. William, seizing the moment committed to a full assault by all his troops, his archers this time causing casualties in the weakened wall. The infantry forced gaps in the Saxon ranks, the knights riding in to widen and split the defences open, Gyrth and Leofwine both slain as the knights forced through. Harold, the last King of the Saxons was killed alongside his Huscarls, they closing about their King and dying to a man around him, such were the bonds of oath and warrior brotherhood.

Death of Harold depicted - ambiguously? - on the Bayeux Tapestry

The battle had raged since 0900hrs in the morning until sunset, about 1700hrs at that time of year making it the longest fought battle on English soil. The fighting had been fierce, William having three horses killed beneath him.

Estimates of combatants vary widely, the main consensus being the sides were roughly even in number and around eight to ten thousand men on each side 

Did Harold die from an arrow in the eye? The Bayeux tapestry portrays such a scene or is Harold depicted twice, shot by the arrow and then ridden down by a Norman knight? No one can say for certain how he died. Harold’s body was so mutilated that his mistress, Edith Swanneshals, was summoned to identify it, doing so by tattoos that only she would have been privy to.

Battle won; the conquest was far from over. William was crowned King of England on Christmas day 1066 but would be occupied up until his death in 1087 AD dealing with Saxon insurrection, Danish invasion and revolt by his own Norman Lords.

~~~~~

Interesting questions and thoughts arise from this short but turbulent period:

If Hardrada had triumphed at Stamford, would he have beaten William and England become predominately Norse?

Were the Norman retreats a planned ruse?

If William had lost, English royalty, culture, language and laws would be completely different.

Military experts conclude that, if the Saxons had not moved from the ridge, the battle outcome had to be a win for Harold or at the very worst a withdrawal of the Normans.

~~~~~~~~~~

Garrett Pearson was born and raised in the northeast of England; he is married with two grown sons. Captivated by the long and turbulent history of his homeland he became a passionate student of English history and ancient military history. He is an author of Historical Fiction, a member of the Historical Novel Society and a guest blogger to English Historical Fiction Authors (EHFA). He specialises in Dark Age England and the Saxon/Viking wars as well as the Second Punic War between Carthage and Rome.

Facebook

Amazon

Twitter

Author’s email is garrettpearsonauthor@gmail.com 

The Most Famous Fact in English History is Not True

By Mark Colenutt

Every country has a famous date. In the US it’s 1776 and the declaration of Independence, the rest of the world knows the day for some reason but can’t remember the year. In France it’s 1789 and the Storming of the Bastille. In Spain it’s 1492, not only the year that the centuries-long Reconquista was finalized, but it was also the discovery of the New World by the Crown of Castile. And in Australia it’s probably 1882 when they beat England at Cricket for the first time, but the less said about that the better.

In the case of England it is 1066, the Norman invasion of England. But why 1066? Why commemorate a defeat? The Spanish don’t ingrain 1588, The Spanish Armada, on the impressionable minds of their students as the most significant year in their history, especially when 1571 and the battle of Lepanto would be a more influential naval battle. The Scots commemorate Bannockburn in 1314, a resounding victory for them, over celebrating 1707 with the Act of Union. The Italians, to be even more specific, all know the date 25th April, 1945, which pays tribute to the liberation of Italy during the Second World War and the overthrow of the fascist regime.

It is true that 1066 was a fundamental shift in the direction of old England. It introduced feudalism and castle building, thus safeguarding the nation against future invasion and making the Norman feat unrepeatable. They introduced cavalry as a new military tactic and ended slavery in England. They also tied the nation fatefully for centuries to royal intrigue and conflict with France. And the French connection gave rise to Norman French being used at court and its influx of Latin gradually transformed the dulcet tones of Olde English, for better or for worse. They even introduced the need for surnames when they commissioned the Doomsday Book.

It was not the first time in the history of southern Britain where a foreign invader had changed the cultural direction of a people and with it their identity. The Romans had achieved this a millennium before, almost to the day, when they suppressed the last-ditch attempt by Boudicca and her allies to end Roman hegemony. At the battle of Watling Street the ancient world confronted the modern with the resulting defeat of the Britons carving their descendants a different character and aesthetic.

So, it is for these reasons that modern England looks back to 1066 as an equally radical shift in cultural identity and political ideology, and not just for the unprecedented cathedral building project that the Normans engaged in. And this is why every child, old enough to remember four digits and suffer detention, has to learn this all-important date. In fact, even the most stubborn student will have internalized this date despite their most dogged efforts not to learn anything at all in their history classes. So forceful is this date in the English classroom that those that choose to snooze the hour away have absorbed it via hypnopædia. In short, there is no escape. One of the most famous history books written in England is even titled 1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates, published in 1930, it is a parody of the style of history teaching in English schools at the time and “punctured the more bombastic claims of drum-and-trumpet history.” But 1066 is only one half of the equation.

There are only two historical facts that every school child knows about England. And those that wish to undermine the subject would go as far as to say they are the only facts you need to know, but that is only if you hold examinations above understanding. The first indispensable fact, as we have already admirably established, is the year 1066. The second is the manner in which the Anglo-Saxon King Harold met his end.

The traditional dragon banner of Wessex

Everyone knows he died with an arrow through the eye at the battle of Hastings. But here comes the shocking admission… it’s not true.

The Normans would have us believe as much, because it fed into their narrative, it was perfect propaganda. Halley’s Comet was sighted shortly after Harold usurped the throne.

The most powerful Thane in the land had, apparently, sworn to support Duke William of Normandy’s rightful claim to the throne but then went back on this holy oath, an oath sworn upon holy relics so the Bayeux Tapestry goes to lengths to illustrate. Such omens were strong currency at the time and still are when the time is right.

So, how did every history department in England come to propagate a false event? Quite easy in fact, but we will need to take a look at prime source material and the scene of Harold’s death during the drawn out battle to explain further. The Latin inscription, called tituli, above Harold in the Bayeux tapestry (which is actually an embroidery) reads: HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST – meaning: Here King Harold is slain. However, there is reason to doubt that this is correct.

In order to shed light on this, we will need to take a closer look, literally. There is indeed a figure right below the name ‘Harold’ with an arrow in his eye and the name above a figure would normally be indicative of that person. But what catches my attention is the falling figure just to his right. It is not the same man. They are clearly two different people, which can be discerned from the differing leg ‘warmers’ that both men are wearing.

Now, comes the history. The first known recounting of the events surrounding Harold’s death comes from the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio - ‘Song of the Battle of Hastings’, which was written just months after the battle. It says that four knights cut him down and there is no mention of the arrow at all. This seems to fit in with the image in the tapestry. The arrow would have been a great lyric, but it isn’t even in the song.

In fact, the first reference to Harold and the arrow was the Italian monk Amatus of Montecassino, some thirty years after the event! That is no eyewitness account and must be approached cautiously, if at all. It makes for a great story, admittedly, but it doesn’t mean there’s a grain of truth to it, especially when the writer is based in some far off land.

Again, when Harold’s wife Edith the Fair had to identify his body, due to it being badly mutilated, there was no mention of the arrow then either.

Another account has William killing Harold, a further account has Harold dying in the morning as fighting began while the Chronicle of Battle Abbey says no one knows how Harold died.

So, while it could be true there is no proof that it is, and just because there is a man with an arrow in his eye in the embroidery, sorry tapestry, is not definitive either. I imagine many men lost their lives with an arrow through the eye during these times. The character in the tapestry could quite easily be one such victim. In fact, the man with the arrow in his eye is not dead but injured, while the figure cut down by the Norman knight is already dead as he falls. It is once again the latter image that fits in with the first account we have of Harold’s death.

One must therefore conclude that we can no longer teach with any certainty that Harold was most surely killed with an arrow to the eye. If we do this we continue doing the Normans’ bidding for them, centuries later, by ensuring the mysticism of a bad omen is proof of God’s will. It will of course lessen the weight of a great story and make it less ingrained upon our collective imagination but we must stay true to the facts.

So, to end we learn anew the advice that haunts all historians, namely ‘check your sources’ and it has a striking precedent here with this well worn history of England. But it does beg the question, while Hollywood continues to powerfully shape our impression of the past like a modern-day Bayeux tapestry, what else are we sure about that probably never happened?

~~~~~~~~~~

Mark Colenutt as lived in Spain for the past 27 years. He has a BA in Medieval History and MA in Imperial and Social History. He teaches history by day and moonlights as a writer in both fiction and non-fiction. He writes the fictional Chester Bentley Mysteries directed at a young readership with co-author Jacqueline Wood, under the pen name MJ Colewood. The series is a collection of epic mysteries surrounding major events in British history. Each story leads to the discovery of one of the most surprising untouched treasures from Britain’s extraordinary and volatile past. Chester Bentley and the Last Treasure of Ancient England puts the reader on the front lines of the Norman invasion and then brings them back to the present as Bentley hunts down the long lost treasure.
Book on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3gs5rCV
Website: www.mjcolewood.com 

The Man Who Broke King Harold

by Helen Johnson

The invasion, occupation and conquest of England by William of Normandy's troops in the 1060s created trauma that echoes through the centuries.

Famously, the Conquest began at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, when King Harold of England was killed.  But Normandy was a small duchy.  England was one of the wealthiest and best organised countries in Europe.  How could Duke William beat king Harold?

I believe that Harold was broken before he ever faced William - broken by his own brother, Tostig.

Tostig and Harold's father was Godwin, Earl of Wessex, who married King Cnut's kinswoman, Gytha.  In 1042, Cnut's succession failed and Edward, son of defeated King Aethelred 'the Unready', was invited to return from exile in Normandy.

Tostig's king and brother-in-law, King Edward the Confessor,
depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. Image Credit

Under Edward, Earl Godwin rose to power.  His sons gained earldoms, and he married his daughter, Edith, to the King.

Tostig's sister Edith of Wessex,
wife of King Edward Image credit

The 'The Life of King Edward', written not long after the Conquest, describes two of Godwin's six sons, Tostig and Harold.  Both, we are told, were 'handsome and graceful persons.'  They were similarly 'strong' and 'brave'.

Harold was practiced in 'endless fatigues'.  He was mild tempered and 'of ready understanding'.  He 'could bear contradiction well'....'not readily... retaliating.'  If he thought someone loyal, he would share his plans.

It's a portrait of a self-controlled, thoughtful man, prepared to communicate and to listen to others.

Tostig, by comparison, 'occasionally was a little over-zealous in attacking evil.'  He was of 'bold and inflexible constancy of mind.'   He would 'ponder much and by himself the plans in his mind'.... 'In his word, deed or promise he was distinguished by adamantine steadfastness.'

And, in a comment that possibly tells us more about other men than of Tostig, 'He renounced desire for all women except his wife...'

Tostig's portrait is of a secretive, stubborn man, who might sometimes break into extreme behaviour.

However, Tostig was admired for his military prowess and firmness of mind, and became a  trusted servant of the King.

In 1051, King Edward's brother-in-law, Eustace of Boulogne, visited Dover. Unfortunately, his men ran amok. Townsfolk resisted, and around forty people were killed.

King Edward considered his brother-in-law to be in the right, and ordered Earl Godwin to punish the people of Dover. Godwin, believing the townsfolk to be in the right, refused.

Edward was furious.  He exiled Godwin's family, repudiated his wife, Godwin's daughter, and sent Godwin's youngest son, Wulfnoth, to Normandy as a hostage.

The incident was a flare for the Norman/English power play that simmered in England. Edward grew up in exile with his mother's people in Normandy after Danish Cnut took the throne. When Edward returned to England, he brought friends and habits gained in Normandy. But the Anglo-Scandinavian English aristocracy, including Godwin, did not like the Frenchified ways of the Normans.

A year after being exiled, Godwin returned, and supporters flocked to him. Edward was compelled to restore Godwin – and his sons and daughter.

Godwin subsequently appears to have been king in all but name.  Edward spent his time either in Church or at the hunt while his wife 'preserved the secret of the King's chastity.'  Edward developed his reputation for saintliness, while Godwin ran the kingdom.

When Godwin died in 1053, his son Harold moved into his place both as Earl of Wessex and as the King's 'Number Two.'

The Godwin plan was always for the whole family and in 1055 when Earl Siward of Northumbria died, Tostig was swiftly installed as Earl. The younger Godwins, Gyrth and Leofwine, became Earls of East Anglia and Kent.

Tostig's star was rising. He had, of all the brothers, the most illustrious wife: Judith of Flanders, half sister of Count Baldwin V of Flanders, granddaughter of Duke Richard II of Normandy, and cousin to King Edward.

A valuable gospel book, owned by Tostig's wife Judith
 and taken with her when the couple were expelled
from Northumbria Image Credit

Tostig was a favourite of King Edward, and they hunted together. Tostig was Queen Edith's favourite brother. He had a palace in York, from which to govern Northumbria.  He was wealthy, and made lavish gifts to Northumbria's patron saint, Cuthbert.

Project Godwin was going swimmingly: only one region of England, Mercia, was not ruled by a Godwin.

But in October 1065, while Tostig hunted with King Edward in Wiltshire, the Northumbrians attacked his palace in York. They slew his retainers and broke into the treasury.

The rebels rampaged south, stopping along the way to meet their allies: Edwin, Earl of Mercia, the Welsh, and their armies.

To show the King the strength of their feelings, the Northumbrians harried Northampton. Pity the unfortunate civilians of Northampton. Harrying, a standard military tactic of the time, meant burning houses and stealing cattle.

The rebels marched on to Oxford.

What had gone wrong?

Tostig's role as Earl of Northumbria was to govern, on behalf of the King, the whole of northern England. However, until 954, Northumbria was an independent kingdom, and in 1065 the Wessex-based King's power was limited to what historian W. E. Kapelle describes as 'essentially an overlord'.

Tostig was the first southerner ever appointed to rule there, and it appears either that he did not understand Northumbria, or that he aimed to govern in the same way as Wessex. However, Northumbria's laws were different to Wessex's. Northumbria had the 'Danelaw' – the laws of the Scandinavian immigrants who were the majority population in the area. Its territory and laws were defined by King Alfred in 879, and affirmed by subsequent kings including Cnut (reigned 1016 – 1035).

Many things were different in the Danelaw, but the universal complaint was that Tostig taxed too heavily. Taxes were significantly lower in the Danelaw. Did Tostig attempt to tax at southern levels?

Tostig was also accused of corruption. And there were murders – all men connected to the dynasty of hereditary Northumbrian earls, who were overlooked when Tostig got the Earldom. Might they have been a focus for rebellion?

Certainly, Tostig upset enough northerners that large numbers rebelled. They organised well. They allied with Edwin of Mercia, the only English Earl not a Godwin, keen to curb Godwin power.  Edwin allied with the Welsh, who Tostig and Harold had attacked in 1063.

The allies demanded that the king remove Tostig, renew the 'laws of Cnut' (i.e. Danelaw tax levels), and install Earl Edwin's brother, Morcar, as Earl of Northumbria.

King Edward sent Harold, his familiar 'number two', to negotiate.  Edward's orders were, essentially, to tell the Northumbrians to shut up and go home.

But when Harold saw that he had fewer soldiers than the massed Northumbrians, Mercians and Welsh, he knew that was impossible.

When Harold reported to Edward that there would be civil war unless Tostig was dismissed, Edward suffered a seizure.

Harold gave the Northumbrians all they demanded.  He averted civil war – but at cost of banishing his own brother.

Tostig went into exile in Flanders. Morcar became Earl of Northumbria. Peace settled.

Ships in the Bayeux Tapestry: Tostig travelled in ships like this,
to Flanders, Denmark and Norway.  And maybe to Normandy.
Image Credit

From this moment, King Edward descended into terminal decline. Some commentators have suggested that Edward and Tostig were homosexual lovers. From this distance, that is impossible to know. But they were certainly close companions. Edward's marriage was 'chaste'.  Tostig 'renounced desire for all women except his wife', although she did bear children.

Whatever the reasons, Edward died, childless, on 5 Jan 1066. The Witan, the country's council of wise men, overlooked Edward's teenage great-nephew, Edgar, and chose Harold to become King.

It appeared a prudent choice. The custom at the time was that the Witan chose the best candidate, and mature brothers or nephews were often chosen over younger contenders. Harold was brother-in-law to the deceased king, and had, in practice, been doing the job for years.

The news infuriated Tostig. As the king's favourite brother-in-law, and with a royal wife, I believe that Tostig had expected to become king. Instead, he was exiled, and Harold slipped into the throne.

In exile, Tostig's brother-in-law, Count Baldwin of Flanders, provided him with a home, an estate, and income of the town of St Omer. But Tostig was not satisfied: he wanted vengeance.  His 'adamantine steadfastness' cut in. Harold must pay for his betrayal.

Tostig sought support. Baldwin did not want a military adventure. Tostig surely went next to neighbouring William of Normandy, husband of Tostig's wife's niece. But I have found only writer – Peter Rex - who confirms that. Several historians record that Tostig went to his mother's cousin, King Swein of Denmark. Swein, like Baldwin and William, refused him. Tostig moved on, to Harald 'Hardrada', king of Norway.

Tostig reminded Hardrada of a treaty made in the late 1030s between Cnut's son Harthacnut and King Magnus of Norway, and persuaded Hardrada that he had a claim to England. Tostig, presumably recalling his father's return after exile, claimed that he had many supporters in England.

Hardrada was persuaded.  They raised troops, and in September 1066, they marched on York.

Was Tostig deluded when he promised Hardrada that supporters would flock to them? Or was he simply lying?

In the event, the Northumbrians defended York.  They met Tostig and the Norse at Fulford, a swampy place a couple of miles south of York.  The new Earl, Morcar, was young, not tested in battle.  Hardrada had a lifetime's military experience. The Northumbrians didn't have a chance.

After the slaughter, the Northumbrians surrendered. As usual, hostages were given as security.  Tostig began his vengeance by selecting those hostages. Promises were extracted from the Northumbrians to march with the invaders to depose King Harold – Tostig's primary aim.

Unbeknown to the invaders, however, King Harold was racing north.  Too late to save the Northumbrians, he went straight to attack the invaders.

Harold called out Tostig and offered him peace. He even offered him his place back as Earl of Northumbria – 'one third of the kingdom'.

Tostig refused – that 'adamantine steadfastness'.

So, at Stamford Bridge, on 25th September 1066, Harold's army wiped out the Norse, King Harald Hardrada, and Harold's brother, Tostig. Shortly afterwards, William of Normandy landed on the south coast.

As Harold rushed his troops back south, he paused to pray at Waltham Abbey.

A year previously, Harold and Tostig were the golden boys of England, King Edward's senior Earls.  Now, Tostig lay dead, killed if not by Harold's own hand, then certainly by his actions. What would he tell their mother?

While there, Harold received a message. The message told him that William had the Pope's blessing, and carried his banner. The message was that William had God on his side.

From this moment, Harold, the brother-killer, appeared a changed man.

His brother Gyrth volunteered to attack William, while Harold and his troops recuperated. Should Gyrth lose, the King and his troops could fight again. Gyrth also suggested they scorched the earth around William's encampment, contain them, and starve them out. They were all sensible suggestions.

But Harold – the brother-killer - did not listen. He insisted on facing William in battle at once.

Harold led his men to face God's judgement at Hastings on 14th October, 1066.

Harold, Gyrth and Leofwine were all felled by William's troops.

Their mother lost four sons in three weeks.

And England was conquered.

The death of King Harold, as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry

Bibliography:

The Life of King Edward, anonymous, but believed to have been commissioned by Queen Edith Godwinson, and written by monk/s of St Bertin Abby at St Omer, Flanders.

The Relations between England and Flanders before the Norman Conquest, by Philip Grierson.

The Godwins, by Frank Barlow

The Saga of Harald Hardrada, in Heimskringla by Snorri Sturlesson

Queen Emma and the Vikings by Harriet O'Brien

Bloodfeud  by Richard Fletcher

The Norman Conquest of the North by William E Kapelle

William the Conqueror, the Bastard of Normandy, by Peter Rex

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/vikings_4.htm

Finding Fulford by Charles Jones.

1066 The Year of the Conquest, by David Howarth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

~~~~~~~~~~

Helen Johnson has roved around Yorkshire, England, for twenty years, writing about the history, heritage, landscape and people of the region.

She was inspired to write about the Norman Conquest after learning of William the Conqueror's 'Harrying of the North' – an act which today would qualify as genocide.

Her short story, 'God's own Country', published at Copperfield Review, imagines how two people might have felt about one of William the Conqueror's policies – his plan to blend what he described as the 'two races' of his dominions. Read the story HERE

Helen is working on two novels set in Conquest Yorkshire, one for adults and one for teenagers.

You can discover more of Helen's work and read about William the Conqueror's good intentions at her website, https://www.helenjohnsonyorkshirewriter.co.uk/ or follow her on Twitter @Yorkshirewriter.

Heroes of the Dark Ages - Who's yours?

by Matthew Harffy

If I were to ask a group of people to name a hero from the Early Medieval period, the era more commonly known as the Dark Ages, who do you think they might mention? Alfred the Great perhaps? After all, he is the only king to be known as “Great” that Britain has ever produced.

King Alfred the Great

Some might go with that famous warrior king from the end of the period, Harold Godwinson. He will forever be known to all British schoolchildren as the man who rather clumsily got an arrow in his eye at the Battle of Hastings on that most famous of dates, 1066.

Harold has something in his eye on the Bayeux Tapestry

Some people, unsure of what is fact and what is fiction, might even give King Arthur a plug. Now, we don’t even know whether Arthur really existed, and we certainly don’t have any facts about his life or who he was even if we believe he is not purely fictional. And yet, his name is synonymous with Britishness and the distant mist-veiled days of the Dark Ages. He is “the once and future king” who will return to rid us of an invading army when the land most needs him.

A watery tart lobs a sword at Arthur

People who are more knowledgeable of the period’s history, and who are more inclined to turn to learning rather than battle-glory as a sign of greatness, might well mention The Venerable Bede, the Northumbrian monk and scholar who wrote much of what is known of the history of Britain up to his death in the 8th century.

Bede - the grandfather of British history

If they are really into their seventh century history, people might say their hero is King Penda of Mercia, or King Oswald (later Saint Oswald) of Northumbria, but I think those people would be few and far between.

What I can guarantee is that nobody would say that their hero of the Early Medieval period is King Sigebehrt of East Anglia. Well, perhaps I can’t guarantee it, but if someone voted for him, you can be sure they would belong to an extremely niche crowd!

However, to his people, Sigebehrt was every bit the hero.

St. Felix and King Sigebehrt

King Sigebehrt of East Anglia (known later also as Saint Sigebehrt, following his ***SPOILER ALERT*** martyrdom ***SPOILER ALERT***), had been the epitome of the warrior kings of the Anglo-Saxons.

You may well be thinking that it’s no wonder you haven’t heard of some ancient king of a small area of modern-day England. But back in the 7th century, East Anglia was a big deal. It was one of the most powerful kingdoms of Britain, perhaps the most powerful for a time. Indeed, it was powerful enough for its king, Rædwald, to be called by Bede ‘Rex Anglorum’ (King of the Angles, which makes him sound like he was great at trigonometry, but remember that the Angles were the Germanic tribe who gave their name to what would eventually become England). Rædwald was not only able to rule over all the Angles, but also to put those he favoured on the thrones of other kingdoms, as he did with King Edwin of Northumbria.

Replica of the Sutton Hoo helmet

Rædwald is probably the noble buried in the ship beneath the famous mound at Sutton Hoo, and it is likely that Sigebehrt was either his stepson or his nephew. Whatever his relationship to the great king, Sigebehrt was part of the dynasty of the Wuffingas, the ruling family of East Anglia for many decades.

Little is known about Sigebehrt’s early life, save that he was exiled from East Anglia to France. Exile was common at the time for nobles with a claim to the throne. It certainly beats death! In France he became a Christian and was in fact the first English monarch to be baptised before his succession to the throne.

Upon the assassination of Rædwald’s son, Eorpwald, Sigebehrt returned to take the throne of East Anglia. Nothing is known about how he did this, but given the violence prevalent at the time and the fact his prowess in battle was later chronicled, it seems likely he had to fight his way to the top. That he was a Christian wouldn’t have hurt his prospects either, what with Edwin of Northumbria and Eadbald of Kent both having converted to Christianity and having ties to the Frankish rulers, who may well have aided Sigeberht to take the crown.

However he managed it, he was the king by 629 and he promptly went about setting things in motion that would cement Christianity’s place in the kingdom. During his stay in France, Sigeberht had been impressed by the learning found in the religious schools on the Continent. So, after setting up a Burgundian missionary, Felix (yet another Saint!), as Bishop of Dommoc (possibly Dunwich), Sigeberht then secured the future of the Church by establishing a school, based on the model that he had witnessed in France, where boys could be taught reading and writing in Latin.

Saint Fursey (not sure which one he is!)

Furthering the Church’s influence in his kingdom, he then granted the Irish hermit Fursey (yes, another Saint!), a monastery site called Cnobheresburg, most commonly identified as Burgh Castle, near Great Yarmouth.

If it sounds as though Sigebehrt was obsessed with learning and the Church, you wouldn’t be wrong. He was clearly much more interested in the Church than in governing and being a warlord king of the people of East Anglia. We know this, because a few years after attaining the throne, he abdicates power to Ecgric, another of the Wuffingas dynasty, whereby he promptly retires to his monastery at Beodricesworth (Bury St Edmunds).

Now this is where the story gets really interesting, and what drew me to the character in the first place.

In 636 or thereabouts, that most successful of pagan warlords of the age, Penda of Mercia, attacked East Anglia. For some reason the people didn’t think Ecgric was up to the task of defending them, so they went to Beodricesworth and dragged their erstwhile king, Sigebehrt, out from his monastery, that he might save them from the invading Mercians.

Well, the peaceful, Christian Sigebehrt refused to fight, but his ex-subjects were having none of it and he was forced onto the battlefield unarmed and unarmoured to lead his people. I won’t give you details of what happened, but let’s just say that a robe and a cross are not great protection against spears and swords! And you already know he becomes Saint Sigebehrt, after his ***SPOILER ALERT*** martyrdom ***SPOILER ALERT***, so join the dots!

Battles are never pretty

Sigebehrt, might not be the most famous of kings of the Early Medieval period, but he was certainly influential in securing the Church in East Anglia, and his life was definitely interesting enough to spark inspiration in me to write a novel featuring him and his unfortunate end. And if being brave enough to step into the chaos and havoc of a Medieval battlefield without weapons or armour doesn’t make you heroic, I don’t know what does!

Who is your Dark Ages hero or heroine? Leave a comment below. I’d love to read your thoughts.

~~~~~~~~~~

Matthew Harffy is the author of the Bernicia Chronicles, a series of novels set in seventh century Britain. KILLER OF KINGS, which features Sigebehrt, Ecgric and the battle with Penda is now available in hardback, e-book and audio.

The other books in the series, The Serpent Sword, The Cross and the Curse, Blood and Blade and Warrior of Woden are available on Amazon, Kobo, Google Play, and all good bookstores.

Website: www.matthewharffy.com
Twitter: @MatthewHarffy
Facebook: MatthewHarffyAuthor

Images:
King Alfred: Odejea [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)]
King Arthur: Newell Convers Wyeth [Public domain]
Death of Harold: Myrabella [Public domain or CC0], from Wikimedia Commons
The Venerable Bede: The original uploader was Timsj at English Wikipedia. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Stained glass, Old Felixstowe Church: Copyright Andrew Hill
Sutton Hoo helmet: British Museum [CC BY-SA 2.5 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5) or Public domain]
Saint Fursey: Public Domain
La victoire de Tullus Hostilius sur les forces de Veies et de Fidena ---- Giuseppe Cesari [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

The Crowning of a King 1066... Two Views

By Helen Hollick

On January 5th 1066, King Edward, (later known as the Confessor) lay dying at Westminster, London. He passed peacefully away either late on the 5th or in the early hours of the 6th, and Earl Harold Godwinson of Wessex was crowned King in the newly built Westminster Abbey, on the 6th January. The first English King to be crowned there - and the last.

Why Harold?

Edward had no sons - possibly because he had taken a vow of celibacy (unlikely), or he was impotent, or even homosexual. He never blamed his wife Edyth, Harold's sister, for childlessness (even when he temporarily set her aside in the early 1050's after a massive falling-out with the Godwin family.) 

This crowning was the catalyst that started the events of 1066, and there are two views as to the right or wrong of it.

View One
THE NORMANS

Duke William of Normandy believed that Edward had promised him the Crown.
Born some time between 1003 and 1005, from 1017 until 1041 Edward had been exiled in Normandy. His mother, was Queen Emma - daughter of Richard I of Normandy, his father Aethelred (the Unready). When Emma took the Danish Conqueror of England, Cnut, (more familiarly spelt Canute - and yes, he of 'hold back the tide' fame) as her second husband, her sons, Edward and Alfred had to flee. Obviously Normandy under the protection of Emma's kindred was the safest place.

Edward would have known the young Duke William very well. William was the son of Richard II of Normandy, the result of a liaison with the daughter of a tanner. Richard died when William was eight years old, with no other heir, he became Duke. For more than thirty years Edward languished in Normandy (Alfred dying a most horrible death while trying to reclaim England), only recalled to be crowned King when Cnut and Emma's son died. (There were other possible contenders but Emma saw to it that her son got the Top Prize).

Here was a man indoctrinated with the Norman way of life, his friends were Norman, he knew Norman ways, not English customs.The powerful Godwin family - Harold's father had been given the Earldom of Wessex by Cnut, and various Godwin sons held various Earldoms -  had a major falling out with the King in 1051-2

It is possible, though not recorded, that William came to England during this time when the Godwin's were in exile - a legitimate visit to see his Great Aunt, Emma, who was by then elderly. Did Edward promise the throne to his young friend and kinsmen during this visit? Did Emma, perhaps suggest it to her Great Nephew - after all William was kin, the Godwinsons were not.

But the Godwins fought their way back to even greater power, and virtually ruled England in the King's stead. after 1052.

A few years before 1066 (1063/4?) we know that Harold was at William's Court. What we do not know is why. The Normans claimed it was to offer Edward's assurance that the English Throne would still become William's. To ensure Harold's loyalty to this end, he had to swear an oath on Holy relics to support William when Edward died.

He didn't support him. Quite the opposite in fact.

According to the Normans, the crowning of Harold II took place in unnecessary haste and the holy anointing undertaken by Stigand, the illegally placed Archbishop of Canterbury. (Rome had never approved his appointment) thus making the whole ceremony void.

When William heard of the outrage he immediately set about an invasion to secure his rightful place as King.

We know the rest .

View Two
THE ENGLISH

It was unlikely that Edward would have promised the throne. There were other candidates, and the English Earls - even if not supporting Godwin -would never have accepted a Norman as King (fact proven by the way they welcomed Godwin back from exile in preference to Edward's foreign friends.)

For one thing Edward could still, in 1051/2, possibly have his own sons. For another it was English law for the Witan - the council to elect a king - the most 'Kingworthy' man. Yes, normally this was the eldest son for he would have been 'trained' for the job - but Edward had no sons.

There was one other possible heir: another son of Aethelred (not by Emma) was Edmund Ironside. He died fighting Cnut (hence Cnut became King), and his son, another Edward, and family fled - as it turned out, to Hungary, where  he was later found and invited back to England.  Edward the Exile returned to England in 1057, but died almost immediately. (The stories that he was murdered by Harold, who was escorting him, are nonsense. If Harold was going to do away with him why not a) conveniently 'not find him' or b) kill him en route - why wait until they got back to England?)

The Exile's son, Edgar, then about five years old, grew up at the English court and given the designation 'Ætheling' or throneworthy, (i.e. 'heir'). But he would still have been a youth in 1066, so probably regarded as not capable of ruling or leading an army against William. (One can see a parrallel in later years when Richard III was crowned instead of the two young princes - probably for exactly the same reason).

Edgar was briefly declared king after Harold's death in October 1066, but that hope failed against the might of William's army and determination. Edgar's name was absent from any witness lists of Edward's diplomas, and there is no evidence in the Domesday Book that he was a substantial landowner, both possibly indicating his young age.

The next most Kingworthy was Harold - proven as a leader, commander, warlord and administrator. It was also known that William would strongly object - they had to chose a man who was capable (at least in theory) of defeating him.

The coronation was not performed in undue haste - that familiar saying? 'The King is dead; Long live the King!' is there for a reason. Uninterrupted continuity. The Earls, Bishops, important people were gathered at Westminster for the Christmas Court. They had remained longer because the King was dying. They wanted to return to their homes and lands - the next  opportunity for a crowning would have been Easter - so of course the service took place at the earliest possible time. The 6th January.

And Stigand did not crown or anoint Harold - Ealdred, Archbishop of York did. There was no question of his legality.

But what of the claim that Harold had pledged an oath to aid William? It is more likely that Harold went to William hoping to achieve the release of his brother, Wulfnoth, and nephew, Hakon, held hostage by William since that temporary disgrace of Earl Godwin back in 1052. (I'll not go into detail, suffice to say the exile was caused by some Normans stirring trouble in Dover. Godwin refused to take their side, hence his falling out with the King. When Godwin was re-instated the Normans fled and took the two boys with them.)

Harold did return to England with Hakon, but Wulfnoth never saw his freedom again. Harold was probably forced to make that oath of loyalty. If he had not, he and his men would either have been imprisoned or killed - and Saxon honour at this time beheld a Lord to protect his men at whatever personal cost. What was more honourable for Harold? To deny Duke William and see his men slaughtered, or perjure himself to save their lives?

He chose the latter. Good for him.

Harold II Rex

So who do you think was right? Norman or English? 
Feel free to add your view in the comments below. 

Brief bibliography:

The Battle of Hastings Jim Bradbury

The Godwins Frank Barlow

The Life of King Edward the Confessor Frank Barlow

Edward the Confessor Frank Barlow

Harold the Last Anglo-Saxon King Ian W. Walker  

Anglo-Saxon England F.M Stenton

Kingship and Government in Pre-conquest England Ann Williams

Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest H.R. Loyn

There is a fuller list available on my website

[This is an Editor's Choice post which was published in its original form on 6 January 2016]

~~~~~~~~~~

Helen Hollick lives on a thirteen-acre farm in Devon, England. Born in London, she wrote pony stories as a teenager, moved to science-fiction and fantasy, and then discovered historical fiction. Published for over twenty years with her Arthurian Trilogy, and the 1066 era, she became a USA Today bestseller with her novel about Queen Emma The Forever Queen (UK title A Hollow Crown.) She also writes the Sea Witch Voyages, pirate-based nautical adventures with a touch of fantasy. She has written a non-fiction about pirates and one about smugglers in fact and fiction which is due to be published in 2019.

Same book - different titles
HAROLD THE KING -UK
I AM THE CHOSEN KING - US

Website: www.helenhollick.net

Newsletter Subscription: http://tinyletter.com/HelenHollick

Main Blog: www.ofhistoryandkings.blogspot.com

Twitter: @HelenHollick

Click here for Helen Hollick on Amazon 

Did the Conqueror Build Upon Existing Foundations?

by Annie Whitehead

950 years ago today, the world changed - for those living in England, at any rate. They had a new king, and new masters, and history had a brand new reference point - 1066. But legally, administratively, and ecclesiastically, how much did William change?

Falaise, Lower Normandy; 
William was born in an earlier building here

William of Normandy was not opposing the old regime in England, he was claiming his right to carry on the government of a kingdom of which he said he was the rightful king. The England to which he came in 1066 was a soundly organised country in most respects. William abolished nothing, and introduced little new; his reign consisted of a successful attempt to fuse old and new, building upon the already existing structure.

The power of the nobility in Anglo-Saxon England was being strengthened from two levels of the social scale. The king gave grants of almost anything that was in his power to give: land, privileges, and judicial powers. From the inferior classes came men seeking the protection of a lord. Here was the beginning of a process which came to be known as feudalism. There were at this time only two aspects: a personal bond between two free men - a superior (the lord) and and inferior (the vassal) - and a method of land tenure, whereby the vassal held a benefice of his lord. The personal relationship entailed the vassal putting himself under the protection of this lord, and in a symbolic gesture of submission he would place his hands between those of his lord and swear an oath of fealty. Under this solemn contract the man was obliged to serve and obey his lord, and the lord was obliged to protect and maintain the man.

In the eleventh century the Church and most of the aristocracy held some book-land; a royal grant by book creating an estate which could be passed to heirs and which could not be lawfully resumed by the king. Leases were common, and peasants who had lost the absolute ownership of their lands became tenants of their lord, rendering rents and service in return for the use of his property.

Feudal elements then were certainly present in England before the Conquest, but the nobility were not yet vassals of the king, and it would appear that few substantial landowners held property on loan. Nevertheless, most of the characteristics of feudalism could be found in the old English kingdom.

With the Norman Conquest came the completion of the establishment of feudalism. William took land from the English earls and granted it to his followers as a reward for their military service. The new barons were enfeoffed with the scattered estates of the English, but no man was allowed to conquer for himself, except on the Welsh and Scottish borders. The land was granted by the king to be held under all the old conditions. The only changes lay in the revision of the military service required by the king, and in the closer tie of feudal vassalage. The barons in turn leased their lands to lesser barons. To curb the warlike aristocracy, William had them swear an oath of fealty to him direct. Thus the whole social structure from the king down to the poorest ceorl (churl) was brought under the control of the feudal system. William had completed the process with a natural progression, and had at the same time consolidated the royal position and organised the social system under him.

Swearing the oath of fealty

The judicial powers of the Anglo-Saxon kings were small; the king was not yet the fount of justice. A man looked to the popular courts to protect and enforce his rights under the law. This process of law was personal and local, and customs differed even from estate to estate. The Shire court, which met at least twice a year, was concerned with the traditional cases under folk law, mainly theft and violence. The townships and Hundreds sent representatives to the meetings. By Edward the Confessor’s day, the function of declaring Shire law and passing judgement had passed to the king’s thegns. The Shire Court had become an instrument of local government, receiving royal writs, and executing the king's demands. The administrative drive passing from the king via the writ to the Shire court was beginning to unite the country. Even more closely connected with the crown were the Hundred courts. Their main purpose was the administration of police schemes which the king had devised, and they met every month.

William I made few changes to the existing judicial system. Feudal law was introduced to govern the personal and tenurial relationships of the new aristocracy. But the only changes to affect the English were the introductions of Forest and Church courts. In time, the new feudal law influenced all land holding, and in the end provided England with a new land law. William made no radical changes to the existing law, and merely introduced laws out of  necessity to govern his new aristocracy.  Gradually the system filtered through to affect all the people. William therefore supplemented the existing system, which, although it made the judicial system initially more complex, meant that eventually the two peoples came under the same law, and brought more control for the king.

The Anglo-Saxon Church appeared more as a loose confederation of bishoprics under the king than as an independent hierarchical organisation. The absence of an active hierarchical principle had led to a confusion in the territorial organisation of the Church. Many bishops held more than one see, and the dioceses too were losing the character of distinct units. The general confusion brought about by an attempt to model the English Church on the Roman administration and organisation was eradicated by William’s total disregard for the papacy during his attempt to give the Church a greater structural coherence.

Lanfranc *

William replaced the English bishops with foreigners. The number and size of the dioceses remained unchanged but several of the episcopal sees were re-sited in cities in accordance with canon law. Dioceses were gradually divided into archdeaconries, which were then divided into rural deaneries. As the diocese often perpetuated the boundaries of the ancient sub-kingdoms, and the archdeaconries and rural deaneries corresponded to the Shire and Hundred, the territorial framework of the Church remained thoroughly English. However, the loose confederacy of bishoprics was reorganised on a strictly hierarchical principle and feudal ideas were incorporated into this reorganisation. The southern bishops were subordinated to Canterbury, and oaths of canonical obedience were required, which resembled the fealty of the vassal. As the Church became divorced from folklaw and traditional customs, it felt the control of the king. Church lands were treated as baronies and the bishops as vassals, bound to do homage and swear fealty.

William, working with Archbishop Lanfranc, achieved the primacy of Canterbury over York, but the situation was unstable because of the increasing power of the papacy, and a tendency for the pope to deal direct with the bishops. Primacies everywhere were being weakened by the increasing papal power. William ignored the papal attempt to deprive the laity of its traditional rights in the Church. He admitted no papal legates, and forbade any of his bishops to go to Rome, even Lanfranc. The establishment of the Archbishop of Canterbury as primate of all England provided the kingdom with a single supreme ecclesiastical court, and appeals could go no further than this without the king's’ permission. William succeeded in his ambition to restrict the already limited connection between the English Church and Rome, attaining power over the Church in the same way as he had with the laity. The English Church was unified under the primacy of Canterbury, in turn answerable to the king.

Signatures at the council of Winchester.** The large crosses are the signatures of
 William & Matilda, the one under theirs is Lanfranc's, and the other bishops' are under his.

Anglo-Saxon England, it would seem, was basically well organised and in need only of strong direction. With William I’s reign came that direction. William was no innovator; he took existing basic institutions and strengthened and co-ordinated them, added to them where necessary, and was successful in establishing a peaceful and workable fusion of the English and Norman peoples, without needing to make radical changes with revolutionary ideas, but merely by improving upon that which had had inherited.

Whether those people who now came under the yoke of new Norman masters felt the same way, is another story…

Further reading:
English Society in the Early Middle Ages - DM Stenton
The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1215 - F Barlow
The Norman Conquest - GH Browning

* Near contemporary picture of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury - Bodleian Library
**Accord of Winchester signed 1072 by William the Conqueror & his wife. This elevated Canterbury over York as to whose archbishop would be the highest primate in England.

(all the above images are in the public domain)

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is a history graduate and prize-winning author. Her first novel, To Be A Queen, is the story of Aethelflaed, daughter of Alfred the Great, who came to be known as the Lady of the Mercians. It was long-listed for the Historical Novel Society’s Indie Book of the Year 2016 and has been awarded an indieBRAG medallion. Her second novel, Alvar the Kingmaker, which tells the story of Aelfhere of Mercia, a nobleman in the time of King Edgar, has also been awarded an indieBRAG gold medallion. Most recently she has been involved in a collaborative project, a collection of stories by nine authors re-imagining the events of 1066 and asking 'What If'?
Annie's Author Page
Alvar the Kingmaker
To Be A Queen
Annie's Website
Annie's Blog
1066 Turned Upside Down