Christmas Coronations

Tags

Archbishop Aldred of York, Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury, Bishop of Rome, Christmas Day, coronation, Duke of Normandy, Edgar the Ætheling, Emperor Charlemagne, King Charles I of the Franks, King of English, Pope Leo III, Roman Emperor Constantine VI, Westminster Abbey, William the Conqueror

Charlemagne, King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans.

In 799, Pope Leo III did not have a good relationship with the citizens of Rome and suffered sever abuse when the Romans tried to put out his eyes and tear out his tongue. Leo III, naturally fearing for his life, escaped and fled to the court of King Charlemagne at Paderborn. Charlemagne, under the advisement of scholar Alcuin, sojourned to Rome and in November of 800 and on the first of December held a council on December 1st.

On December 23rd Pope Leo III swore an oath of innocence. And two days later during a Mass, on Christmas Day (25 December), Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum (“Emperor of the Romans”) in Saint Peter’s Basilica. By doing this doing, the Pope effectively nullified the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople.

Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans, King of the Franks, King of the Lombards

It was seen by scholars of the day that when Odoacer forced the abdication of Roman Emperor Romulus Augustulus in 476CE this did not effectively abolish the Western Roman Empire as a separate power Europe.

Theoretically the powers of the Western Roman Emperor were said to have been reunited with, or grafted into, the Eastern Roman Empire. Therefore from that time contemporary scholars believed that there was a singular undivided Roman Empire. Pope Leo III and King Charlemagne, as well as their predecessors, also held to this political ideal of there being a singular Roman Empire that was one and indivisible.

However, the imperial coronation of Charlemagne was not believed to have caused a severance of the Roman Empire back into East and West factions. In the eyes Leo III and Charlemagne, along with contemporary political theorists, they were not revolting against a reigning sovereign, Empress Irene, but legitimately filling up the void of legitimate successors caused by the deposition Emperor Constatine VI in 797 and Charlemagne was held to be the legitimate successor, not of the Emperor Romulus Augustulus, but that of Emperor Constantine VI.

Despite the good intentions of Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor, it intended to represent the continuation of the unbroken line of Emperors from Augustus to Constantine VI. The reality was that his imperial coronation had the effect of setting up two separate, and often opposing, Empires along with two separate claims to imperial authority.

Pope Leo III, Bishop of Rome

One of the issues that has been debated by scholars is whether of not Charlemagne saw this prestigious gift bestowed on him on that Christmas Day? According to the twenty-eight chapter of Einhard’s Vita Karoli Magni which says that Charlemagne was ignorant of the Pope’s intent and did not want any such coronation:

“He (Charlemagne) at first had such an aversion to being granted the imperial title that he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day that theses imperial titles were conferred, although it was a great feast-day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope.”

A number of modern scholars, however, logically suggest that Charlemagne was indeed aware of the coronation. It has been said he certainly cannot have missed the bejewelled crown waiting on the altar when he came to pray; something even contemporary sources support.

Charlemagne is counted as Charles I, Holy Roman Emperor, but many scholars believe the state that evolved into the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation began with the coronation of Otto I, Duke of Saxony in 962. Otto I was crowned Emperor by Pope John XII at Olds St. Peter’s Basilica.

The Pope also anointed Otto’s wife Adelaide of Italy, who had accompanied Otto on his Italian campaign, as empress. With Otto’s coronation as emperor, the Kingdom of Germany and the Kingdom of Italy were unified into a common realm, later called the Holy Roman Empire.

William I, Duke of Normandy and King of the English

Exactly when did William I The Conqueror become King of the English? Although he certainly became the De Facto King of the English when he defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in October of 1066, it was not until his coronation on Christmas Day of that year did he accede to the throne.

William may have hoped the English would surrender to his rule immediately after his his victory over Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in October, 1066, but that just was not the case. A swiftly convened meeting of the Wittan, comprising the English clergy and magnates, elected Edgar the Ætheling, King of the English. Edgar the Ætheling was of the House of Wessex and a nephew of King Edward the Confessor. The support for Edgar by the Wittan was very lukewarm.

William I the Conqueror, King of the English, Duke of Normandy

Undeterred, William continued his conquest of England. He and his armies secured Dover, parts of Kent, and Canterbury, and also captured Winchester, where the royal treasury was located. These captures solidified his holdings in that region and also his line of retreat to Normandy, if that was needed. It was unnecessary.

William then marched northward to Southwark and into London in late November. Next he led his forces around the south and west of London, burning buildings of those in resistance along the way. He crossed the Thames at Wallingford in early December where Archbishop Stigand submitted to William.

He moved on to Berkhamsted soon afterwards where Edgar the Ætheling, Morcar, Edwin, and Archbishop Ealdred also submitted. This solidified his power in London where William began the construction of the Tower of London.

With his troops garrisoned in London William was crowned King of the English at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day 1066.

Aldred, archbishop of York performed the Coronation ceremony in place of Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury. He presented the new king to the people, speaking in English with Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances speaking the words in French.

When the French-speaking Normans and English-speaking Saxons then shouted their approval the Norman soldiers outside thought the noise inside was an assassination attempt and began setting fire to houses around the Abbey.

Smoke filled the church and the congregation fled and riots broke out. Inside William and the officiating clergy completed the service despite the chaos.

Were They A Usurper? King John

Tags

and Count of Poitiers, and Nantes and overlord of Brittany, Anjou, Aquitaine and Gascony, Arthur of Brittany, Duke of Normandy, Geoffrey II of Brittany, King of the English, King Philippe II Auguste of France, Lord of Cyprus, Maine, Richard I the Lionheart, Third Crusade, William II of Sicily

On July 4, 1189, the joint forces of Richard of England and King Philippe II Auguste of France defeated the army of King Henry II of the English at Ballans. King Henry II agreed to name Richard his heir apparent. Two days later King Henry II died at Chinon, and Richard succeeded him as King of the English, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascony, Lord of Cyprus, and Count of Poitiers, Anjou, Maine, and Nantes and overlord of Brittany.

King Richard I was officially invested as Duke of Normandy on July 20, 1189 and crowned king in Westminster Abbey on September 3, 1189.

After Richard became king, he and Philippe II Auguste agreed to go on the Third Crusade, since each feared that during his absence the other might usurp his territories.

In late September 1190 Richard and Philippe II Auguste arrived in Sicily. After the death of King William II of Sicily in 1189 his cousin Tancred had seized power, although the legal heir was William’s aunt Constance, wife of Heinrich VI, Holy Roman Emperor. Tancred had imprisoned William’s widow, Queen Joan, who was Richard’s sister, and did not give her the money she had inherited in William’s will.

When Richard arrived he demanded that his sister be released and given her inheritance; she was freed on September 28, but without the inheritance. The presence of foreign troops also caused unrest: in October, the people of Messina revolted, demanding that the foreigners leave.

Richard attacked Messina, capturing it on October 4, 1190. After looting and burning the city Richard established his base there, but this created tension between Richard and Philippe II Auguste. He remained there until Tancred finally agreed to sign a treaty on 4 March 4, 1191. The treaty was signed by Richard, Philippe II Auguste, and Tancred. Its main terms were:

1. Joan was to receive 20,000 ounces (570 kg) of gold as compensation for her inheritance, which Tancred kept.

2. Richard officially proclaimed his nephew, Arthur of Brittany, son of Geoffrey, as his heir, and Tancred promised to marry one of his daughters to Arthur when he came of age, giving a further 20,000 ounces (570 kg) of gold that would be returned by Richard if Arthur did not marry Tancred’s daughter.

The two kings stayed on in Sicily for a while, but this resulted in increasing tensions between them and their men, with Philippe II Auguste plotting with Tancred against Richard. The two kings finally met to clear the air and reached an agreement, including the end of Richard’s betrothal to Philippe II Auguste’ s sister Alys.

Were They A Usurper? King Henry I.

Tags

Duke of Normandy, King Henri I of the Franks, King Henry I of England, King of the English, King Robért II of the Franks, King’s Council, Porphyrogeniture, Primogeniture, Ranulf Flambard, Robert Curthose, Siege of Mantes, The New Forrest, The Rebellion, Usurper, Walter Tirel, Westminster Abbey, William Rufus, William the Conqueror

From the Emperor’s Desk: When making out my list of English/British monarchs that may have been a usurper I overlooked King Henry I.

The succession of Henry I as King of the English is an interesting case. When his father, William I the Conqueror, became King he dissolved the Witan and replaced it with the King’s Council but also he held the authority to name his own successor.

In 1087, William I the Conqueror died of wounds suffered from a riding accident during a siege of Mantes. At his death he reportedly wanted to disinherit his eldest son Robert Curthose, but was persuaded to divide the Norman dominions between his two eldest sons.

To Robert he granted the Duchy of Normandy and to William Rufus he granted the Kingdom of England. The youngest son Henry was given money to buy land.

Robert II, Duke of Normandy

Of the two elder sons Robert was considered to be much weaker of the royal brothers and was generally preferred by the nobles who held lands on both sides of the English Channel since they could more easily circumvent his authority.

At the time of their father’s death the two brothers made an agreement to be each other’s heir. However, this peace lasted less than a year when barons joined with Robert to displace William Rufus in the Rebellion of 1088. It was not a success, in part because Robert never showed up to support the English rebels.

Robert took as his close adviser Ranulf Flambard, who had been previously a close adviser to his father. Flambard later became an astute but much-disliked financial adviser to William Rufus until the latter’s death in 1100.

In 1096, Robert formed an army and left for the Holy Land on the First Crusade. At the time of his departure he was reportedly so poor that he often had to stay in bed for lack of clothes. To raise money for the crusade he mortgaged his duchy to his brother William Rufus for the sum of 10,000 marks.

Background on Henry

Henry was probably born in England in 1068, in either the summer or the last weeks of the year, possibly in the town of Selby in Yorkshire. His father’s invasion of England had created an Anglo-Norman ruling class, many with estates on both sides of the English Channel.

These Anglo-Norman barons typically had close links to the Kingdom of France, which was then a loose collection of counties and smaller polities, under only the nominal control of the king. Henry’s mother, Matilda of Flanders, was the granddaughter of King Robért II of the Franks, and she probably named Henry after her uncle, King Henri I of the Franks.

Henry physically he resembled his older brothers Robert Curthose, Richard and William Rufus, being, as historian David Carpenter describes, “short, stocky and barrel-chested,” with black hair.

Henry I, King of the English

As a result of their age differences and Richard’s early death, Henry would have probably seen relatively little of his older brothers. He probably knew his sister Adela well, as the two were close in age.

There is little documentary evidence for his early years; historians Warren Hollister and Kathleen Thompson suggest he was brought up predominantly in England, while Judith Green argues he was initially brought up in the Duchy.

He was probably educated by the Church, possibly by Bishop Osmund, the King’s chancellor, at Salisbury Cathedral; it is uncertain if this indicated an intent by his parents for Henry to become a member of the clergy.

It is also uncertain how far Henry’s education extended, but he was probably able to read Latin and had some background in the liberal arts. He was given military training by an instructor called Robert Achard, and Henry was knighted by his father on May 24, 1086.

Death of William II

On the afternoon of August 2, 1100, King William Rufus went hunting in the New Forest, accompanied by a team of huntsmen and a number of the Norman nobility, including his brother Henry. An arrow, possibly shot by the baron Walter Tirel, hit and killed William Rufus.

Numerous conspiracy theories have been put forward suggesting that the King was killed deliberately; most modern historians reject these, as hunting was a risky activity, and such accidents were common. Chaos broke out, and Tirel fled the scene for France, either because he had shot the fatal arrow, or because he had been incorrectly accused and feared that he would be made a scapegoat for the King’s death.

Henry rode to Winchester, where an argument ensued as to who now had the best claim to the throne. William of Breteuil championed the rights of Robert, who was still abroad, returning from the Crusade, and to whom Henry and the barons had given homage in previous years.

Henry argued that, unlike Robert, he had been born to a reigning king and queen, thereby giving him a claim under the right of porphyrogeniture.

Let me explain the difference between porphyrogeniture and primogeniture.

Porphyrogeniture is the principle of royal succession in which the first son born after his father’s accession to the throne has the first claim, even if he has older brothers who were born before the father’s accession to the crown.

Primogeniture is the state of being the firstborn of the children of the same parents, and it is also the principle that the eldest child has an exclusive right of inheritance.

Tempers flared, but Henry, supported by Henry de Beaumont and Robert of Meulan, held sway and persuaded the barons to follow him. He occupied Winchester Castle and seized the royal treasury.

Henry was hastily crowned king in Westminster Abbey on August 5 by Maurice, the bishop of London, as Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury, had been exiled by William Rufus, and Thomas, the archbishop of York, was in the north of England at Ripon. In accordance with English tradition and in a bid to legitimise his rule, Henry issued a coronation charter laying out various commitments.

The new king presented himself as having restored order to a trouble-torn country. He announced that he would abandon William Rufus’s policies towards the Church, which had been seen as oppressive by the clergy; he promised to prevent royal abuses of the barons’ property rights, and assured a return to the gentler customs of Edward the Confessor; he asserted that he would “establish a firm peace” across England and ordered “that this peace shall henceforth be kept”.

When William II died on August 2, 1100, Robert was on his return journey from the Crusade and was about to marry a wealthy young bride to raise funds to buy back his duchy.

Upon his return, Robert—urged by Flambard and several Anglo-Norman barons—claimed the English crown, on the basis of the short-lived agreement of 1087, and in 1101 led an invasion to oust his brother Henry.

Robert landed at Portsmouth with his army, but the lack of popular support among the English (Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury, was decidedly against him and the Charter of Liberties issued at Henry’s coronation was well liked) as well as Robert’s own mishandling of the invasion tactics enabled Henry to resist the invasion.

Robert was forced by diplomacy to renounce his claim to the English throne in the Treaty of Alton. It is said that Robert was a brilliant field commander but a terrible strategist in the First Crusade.

Assessment

The succession of Henry Beauclerc onto the English throne creates some interesting challenges.

When his father William I the Conqueror became King he abolished the Witan who previously had the right to elect the next King. As we have seen William the Conqueror named his successor to both Normandy and England.

Robert Curthose received the Duchy of Normandy and William Rufus received England. William Rufus never married and therefore never had direct heirs. He also never officially named his successor, although Robert and William did make an agreement to be each other’s heir. As mentioned, this agreement lasted less than a year when barons joined with Robert to displace William Rufus in the Rebellion of 1088.

Therefore, when William Rufus was killed in the hunting accident in the New Forrest legal succession was up in the air. Robert claimed the throne by right of Primogeniture while Henry claimed the throne by right of Porphyrogeniture.

Both Princes had a legal claim to the throne but without a clear heir being named by William Rufus and no law regarding which Prince was the lawful heir, the crown was truly up for grabs.

I believe Henry realized this dilemma and took advantage of Robert’s absence from the Kingdom and seized the crown for himself.

It is easy to think of Henry as a usurper because in our modern sense of hereditary succession based on Primogeniture, Henry, as the younger brother would mean Robert Curthose had the better claim.

However, I think it’s important to realize that at this moment in history the laws governing the succession to the throne were somewhat not clearly defined and the concept of Male Preferred Primogeniture was still in its infancy.

I don’t believe, therefore, that Henry was a usurper given the state of the laws governing the succession at the time. Henry had as much of a valid claim as his brother and was simply in the right place at the right time and took the crown making him the legal successor.

Were They A Usurper? William I the Conqueror

Tags

Abbaye-aux-Hommes, Caen, Duke of Normandy, Edgar the Ætheling, Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, King of the English, William the Conqueror, Witan, Witenagemot

At the time of the Norman Conquest (1066) it has been difficult for me to find any concrete rules regarding the succession to the throne. During the reign of the House of Wessex, who were first kings of Wessex only until they began to slowly unify England, the succession doesn’t seem to have many hard and fast rules.

Succession to the throne of Wessex/England was vested in the descendents of King Egbert of Wessex. However, it was not by primogeniture. There were times when young children of the monarch were passed over in the succession for brothers or uncles of the previous monarch.

Another aspect of the monarchy at this point is the governing council, called the Witan or Witenagemot, which also served in electing the monarchy. Prior to hereditary kingship, which was a later development as families sought to consolidated power, the majority of monarchies were elective…even if that election was limited to one family.

To this day historians debate the role of the Witain (even the name itself) but there is evidence that controlling the succession was one of their powers.

Starting as early as William of Malmesbury in the early 12th century, historians have puzzled over Edward’s intentions for the succession. One school of thought supports the Norman case that Edward always intended William the Conqueror to be his heir, accepting the medieval claim that Edward had already decided to be celibate before he married, but most historians believe that he hoped to have an heir by Edith at least until his quarrel with Godwin in 1051.

William may have visited Edward during Godwin’s exile, and he is thought to have promised William the succession at this time, but historians disagree on how seriously he meant the promise, and whether he later changed his mind.

Edmund Ironside’s son, Edward the Exile, had the best claim to be considered Edward’s heir. He had been taken as a young child to Hungary, and in 1054 Bishop Ealdred of Worcester visited the Holy Roman Emperor, Heinrich III to secure his return, probably with a view to becoming Edward’s heir.

The exile returned to England in 1057 with his family but died almost immediately. His son Edgar, who was then about 6 years old, was brought up at the English court. He was given the designation Ætheling, meaning throneworthy, which may mean that Edward considered making him his heir.

However, Edgar was absent from witness lists of Edward’s diplomas, and there is no evidence in the Domesday Book that he was a substantial landowner, which suggests that he was marginalised at the end of Edward’s reign.

After the mid-1050s, Edward seems to have withdrawn from affairs as he became increasingly dependent on the Godwins, and he may have become reconciled to the idea that one of them would succeed him. The Normans claimed that Edward sent Harold to Normandy in about 1064 to confirm the promise of the succession to William.

In January of 1066 King Edward the Confessor died without any issue (children) causing one of Enland’s first succession crisis. The legend goes that Edward promised the succession to William II the Bastard, Duke of Normandy, a relative by marriage.

There was also a co-claim that Harold Godwinson had received a similar promise. When Edward died early that January both men claimed that Edward had promised them the succession. Historians debate the legitimacy of both of those claims. Even in its time there were many conflicting accounts of these alleged promises. They possible were both manufactured by each party.

The strongest evidence that Edward had promised the throne to William comes from a Norman apologist, William of Poitiers. According to his account, shortly before the Battle of Hastings, Harold sent William an envoy who admitted that Edward had promised the throne to William but argued that this was over-ridden by his deathbed promise to Harold.

William’s tomb before the high altar in the Abbaye-aux-Hommes, Caen

In reply, William did not dispute the deathbed promise but argued that Edward’s prior promise to him took precedence. In Stephen Baxter’s view, Edward’s “handling of the succession issue was dangerously indecisive, and contributed to one of the greatest catastrophes to which the English have ever succumbed.”

The truth it seems is that Edward had no actual power to name his successor and that the power to name the successor was vested in the Witan. The Witan did choose Harold Godwinson, a member of a powerful noble family with connections to the rulers of Denmark.

Therfore in the month of January Harold was crowned as Harold II, King of England. William, feeling that his inheritence was stolen from him, mounted an invasion of England. I won’t go into detail with the story as everyone is familiar with it. William invaded England from Normandy and defeated the forces of Harold II at Senlac outside of Hastings in October of that year.

After the defeat of Harold the Witan (including Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury & Archbishop Ealdred of York) elected Edgar the Ætheling, the heir to the House of Wessex) as King of the English but since military might was on the side of William this was an empty election. William was crowned King of England on Christmas Day of 1066.

However, it took a few years to consolidate his rule and bring all of England under his thumb. Although at his coronation William desired to stress his legal right to the throne, Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury refused to place the crown on William’s head saying “to crown one who was covered with the blood of men and the invader of others’ rights.” Archbishop Ealdred of York was the one who actually placed the crown on his head.

As previously mentioned, the Witan was the legal body that regulated the succession in 1066. They chose Harlod as the legal successor to Edward the Confessor and in October of 1066 after Battle of Hastings the Witan elected Edgar the Ætheling as King of the English.

Despite his claims of being the legal heir to the throne William I “the Conqueror” was clearly a usurper in the legal sense. When William came to the throne he abolished the Witan and replaced it with the “king’s court” or Curia Regis. He also took the power to name his successor and this power gradually made England a more hereditary monarchy.

William was not the first King of the English although some book make him out to be just that. He did profoundly change England though. The amalgamation of old English and Norman culture forged the modern English culture. Every monarch since the Conquest is a descendent of his. When chronicler’s began numbering the kings of England the reign of William the Conqueror was the starting point.

October 14, 1066 – The Norman conquest of England begins with the Battle of Hastings.

Tags

Battle of Hastings, Duke of Normandy, Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, King of the English, Senlac, William the Conqueror

The Battle of Hastings was fought on October 14, 1066 between the Norman-French army of William II, Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England. It took place approximately 7 mi (11 km) northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex, and was a decisive Norman victory. Senlac Hill (or Senlac Ridge) is the generally accepted location in which Harold Godwinson deployed his army for the Battle of Hastings. It is located near what is now the town of Battle, East Sussex.

The background to the battle was the death of the childless King Edward the Confessor in January 1066, which set up a succession struggle between several claimants to his throne. Harold Godwinson was elected by the Witan Council and crowned king shortly after Edward’s death, but faced invasions by William, his own brother Tostig, and the Norwegian King Harald Hardrada (Harold III of Norway).

Harald Hardrada and Tostig defeated a hastily gathered army of Englishmen at the Battle of Fulford on September 20, 1066, and were in turn defeated by Harold at the Battle of Stamford Bridge five days later. The deaths of Tostig and Hardrada at Stamford Bridge left William as Harold’s only serious opponent.

While Harold and his forces were recovering, William landed his invasion forces in the south of England at Pevensey on September 28, 1066 and established a beachhead for his conquest of the kingdom. Harold was forced to march south swiftly, gathering forces as he went.

The exact numbers present at the battle are unknown as even modern estimates vary considerably. The composition of the forces is clearer; the English army was composed almost entirely of infantry and had few archers, whereas only about half of the invading force was infantry, the rest split equally between cavalry and archers.

Harold appears to have tried to surprise William, but scouts found his army and reported its arrival to William, who marched from Hastings to the battlefield to confront Harold. The battle lasted from about 9 am to dusk. Early efforts of the invaders to break the English battle lines had little effect; therefore, the Normans adopted the tactic of pretending to flee in panic and then turning on their pursuers. Harold’s death, probably near the end of the battle, led to the retreat and defeat of most of his army. After further marching and some skirmishes, William was crowned as king on Christmas Day 1066.

Battle Abbey

There continued to be rebellions and resistance to William’s rule, but Hastings effectively marked the culmination of William’s conquest of England. Casualty figures are hard to come by, but some historians estimate that 2,000 invaders died along with about twice that number of Englishmen. William founded a monastery at the site of the battle, the high altar of the abbey church supposedly placed at the spot where Harold died.

August 2, 1100: Death of Willam II, King of the English

Tags

Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of Normandy, Henry I of England, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, King of the English, Lanfranc, Pope Urban II, Robert Curthose, Robert II of Normandy, William II of England, William Rufus, William the Conqueror

William II (c. 1056 – August 2, 1100) was King of the English from 26 September 1087 until his death in 1100, with powers over Normandy and influence in Scotland. He was less successful in extending control into Wales. The third son of William the Conqueror, he is commonly referred to as William Rufus (Rufus being Latin for “the Red”), perhaps because of his ruddy appearance or, more likely, due to having red hair as a child that grew out in later life.

William’s exact date of birth is not known, but it was some time between the years 1056 and 1060. He was the third of four sons born to William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders, the eldest being Robert Curthose, the second Richard, and the youngest Henry.

Richard died in a hunting accident in the New Forest in a collision with an overhanging branch, probably in 1070 or shortly afterwards. He was buried at Winchester Cathedral.

Richard is sometimes referred to as the “Duke of Bernay”, as if part of his father’s continental possessions, as in Burke’s Peerage; this is a mistake based on the misinterpretation of a 16th-century inscription on his tomb, which was also intended for the Earl Beorn, nephew of Cnut the Great.

William Rufus Becomes King of the English

William I “The Conqueror” left England towards the end of 1086. Following his arrival back on the continent he married his daughter Constance to Duke Alan of Brittany, in furtherance of his policy of seeking allies against the French kings.

William’s son Robert, still allied with the French king, appears to have been active in stirring up trouble, enough so that William led an expedition against the French Vexin in July 1087. While seizing Mantes, William either fell ill or was injured by the pommel of his saddle.

He was taken to the priory of Saint Gervase at Rouen. The dying King William I left Normandy to Robert, and the custody of England was given to William’s second surviving son on the assumption that he would become king. The youngest son, Henry, received money.

After entrusting England to his second son, the elder William sent the younger William Rufus back to England on September 7 or 8 bearing a letter to Lanfranc ordering the archbishop to aid the new king. William the Conqueror died September 9, 1087 and William Rufus succeeded to the throne of England on September 26, 1087.

William Rufus became William II, King of the English, while the eldest son, Robert Curthose, became Robert II, Duke of Normandy.

The division of William the Conqueror’s lands into two parts presented a dilemma for those nobles who held land on both sides of the English Channel. Since the younger William and his brother Robert were natural rivals, these nobles worried that they could not hope to please both of their lords, and thus ran the risk of losing the favour of one ruler or the other, or both.

The only solution, as they saw it, was to unite England and Normandy once more under one ruler. The pursuit of this aim led them to revolt against William in favour of Robert in the Rebellion of 1088, under the leadership of the powerful Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who was a half-brother of William the Conqueror.

As Robert failed to appear in England to rally his supporters, William won the support of the English with silver and promises of better government, and defeated the rebellion, thus securing his authority.

In 1091 William invaded Normandy, crushing Robert’s forces and forcing him to cede a portion of his lands. The two made up their differences and William agreed to help Robert recover lands lost to France, notably Maine.

This plan was later abandoned, but William continued to pursue a ferociously warlike defence of his French possessions and interests to the end of his life.

William II was thus secure in his kingdom. As in Normandy, his bishops and abbots were bound to him by feudal obligations, and his right of investiture in the Norman tradition prevailed within his kingdom during the age of the Investiture Controversy that brought excommunication upon the Salian Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich IV.

The king’s personal power, through an effective and loyal chancery, penetrated to the local level to an extent unmatched in France. The king’s administration and law unified the realm, rendering him relatively impervious to papal condemnation. In 1097 he commenced the original Westminster Hall, built “to impress his subjects with the power and majesty of his authority”.

Less than two years after becoming king, William II lost his father’s adviser and confidant, the Italian-Norman Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury. After Lanfranc’s death in 1089, the king delayed appointing a new archbishop for many years, appropriating ecclesiastical revenues in the interim.

In panic, owing to serious illness in 1093, William nominated as archbishop another Norman-Italian, Anselm – considered the greatest theologian of his generation – but this led to a long period of animosity between Church and State, Anselm being a stronger supporter of the Gregorian reforms in the Church than Lanfranc.

William II and Anselm disagreed on a range of ecclesiastical issues, in the course of which the king declared of Anselm that, “Yesterday I hated him with great hatred, today I hate him with yet greater hatred and he can be certain that tomorrow and thereafter I shall hate him continually with ever fiercer and more bitter hatred.”

The English clergy, beholden to the king for their preferments and livings, were unable to support Anselm publicly. In 1095 William II called a council at Rockingham to bring Anselm to heel, but the archbishop remained firm. In October 1097, Anselm went into exile, taking his case to the Pope. The diplomatic and flexible Urban II, a new pope, was involved in a major conflict with Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich IV, who supported Antipope Clement III.

Reluctant to make another enemy, Pope Urban II came to a concordat with William, whereby William recognised Urban as pope, and Urban gave sanction to the Anglo-Norman ecclesiastical status quo. Anselm remained in exile, and William was able to claim the revenues of the archbishop of Canterbury to the end of his reign.

Death

William went hunting on August 2, 1100 in the New Forest, probably near Brockenhurst, and was killed by an arrow through the lung, though the circumstances remain unclear. The earliest statement of the event was in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which noted that the king was “shot by an arrow by one of his own men.”

Later chroniclers added the name of the killer, a nobleman named Walter Tirel, although the description of events was later embroidered with other details that may or may not be true.

The first mention of any location more exact than the New Forest comes from John Leland, who wrote in 1530 that William died at Thorougham, a placename that is no longer used, but that probably referred to a location on what is now Park Farm on the Beaulieu estates. A memorial stone in the grounds of Beaulieu Abbey, Hampshire, states “Remember King William Rufus who died in these parts then known as Truham whilst hunting on 2nd August 1100”.

The king’s body was abandoned by the nobles at the place where he fell. An arrow maker, Eli Parratt, later found the body. William’s younger brother, Henry, hastened to Winchester to secure the royal treasury, then to London, where he was crowned within days, before either archbishop could arrive.

William of Malmesbury, in his account of William II’s death, stated that the body was taken to Winchester Cathedral by a few countrymen, including Eli who discovered the body.

To the chroniclers, men of the Church, such an “act of God” was a just end for a wicked king, and was regarded as a fitting demise for a ruler who came into conflict with the religious orders to which they belonged.

Over the following centuries, the obvious suggestion that one of William’s enemies had a hand in this event has repeatedly been made: chroniclers of the time point out themselves that Tirel was renowned as a keen bowman, and thus was unlikely to have loosed such an impetuous shot.

Moreover, Bartlett says that rivalry between brothers was the pattern of political conflict in this period. William’s brother Henry was among the hunting party that day and succeeded him as king.

Modern scholars have reopened the question, and some have found the assassination theory credible or compelling, but the theory is not universally accepted.

Barlow says that accidents were common and there is not enough hard evidence to prove murder. Bartlett notes that hunting was dangerous. Poole says the facts “look ugly” and “seem to suggest a plot.” John Gillingham points out that if Henry had planned to murder William it would have been in his interest to wait until a later time.

It looked as though there would soon be a war between William and his brother Robert, which would result in one of them being eliminated, thus opening the way for Henry to acquire both England and Normandy through a single assassination.

Tirel fled immediately. Henry had the most to gain by his brother’s death. Indeed, Henry’s actions “seem to be premeditated: wholly disregarding his dead brother, he rode straight for Winchester, seized the treasury (always the first act of a usurping king), and the next day had himself elected.”

William’s remains are in Winchester Cathedral, scattered among royal mortuary chests positioned on the presbytery screen, flanking the choir. His skull appears to be missing, but some long bones may remain.

Contemporary assessment

William II was an effective soldier, but he was a ruthless ruler and, it seems, was little liked by those he governed. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he was “hated by almost all his people and abhorrent to God.”

Chroniclers tended to take a dim view of William’s reign, arguably on account of his long and difficult struggles with the Church: these chroniclers were themselves generally clerics, and so might be expected to report him somewhat negatively.

His chief minister was Ranulf Flambard, whom he appointed Bishop of Durham in 1099: this was a political appointment, to a see that was also a great fiefdom. The particulars of the king’s relationship with the people of England are not credibly documented.

Contemporaries of William II, as well as those writing after his death, roundly denounced him for presiding over what these dissenters considered a dissolute court. In keeping with the tradition of Norman leaders, William II scorned the English and the English culture.

Sexuality

Contemporaries of William II raised concerns about a court dominated by homosexuality and effeminacy, although this appears to have had more to do with their luxurious attire than with sexual practices.

Citing the traditions of Wilton Abbey in the 1140s, Herman of Tournai wrote that the abbess had ordered the Scottish Princess Edith (later Matilda, wife of Henry I) to take the veil in order to protect her from the lust of William Rufus, which angered Edith’s father because of the effect it might have on her prospects of marriage.

The historian Emma Mason has noted that while during his reign William himself was never openly accused of homosexuality, in the decades after his death numerous medieval writers spoke of this and a few began to describe him as a “sodomite”.

Modern historians cannot state with certainty whether William was homosexual or not; however, he never took a wife or a mistress, or fathered any children. As a bachelor king without an heir, William would have been pressed to take a wife and would have had numerous proposals for marriage.

That he never accepted any of these proposals nor had any relations with women may show that he either had no desire for women, or he may have taken a vow of chastity or celibacy.

Barlow said that the Welsh chronicles claim that Henry was able to succeed to the throne because his brother had made use of concubines and thus died childless, although no illegitimate offspring are named.

Barlow also allows that William may have been sterile. Noting that no “favourites” were identified, and that William’s “baronial friends and companions were mostly married men”, despite having concluded that the chroniclers were “hostile and biased witnesses”, Barlow considers that “there seems no reason why they should have invented this particular charge” (of homosexuality) and states that, in his opinion, “On the whole the evidence points to the king’s bisexuality“.

April 6, 1199: Death of Richard I the Lionheart, King of England

Tags

and Count of Poitiers, and Nantes, and overlord of Brittany, Anjou, Aquitaine and Gascony, Berengaria of Navarre, Duke of Normandy, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Henry II of England, King of England, Lord of Cyprus, Maine, Richard I, the Lionheart

Richard I (September 8, 1157 – April 6, 1199) was King of England from 1189 until his death in 1199. He also ruled as Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascony, Lord of Cyprus, and Count of Poitiers, Anjou, Maine, and Nantes, and was overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period.

Richard was born, probably at Beaumont Palace, in Oxford, England, son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine. As a younger son of King Henry II, he was not expected to ascend the throne.

Henry II and Eleanor’s eldest son William IX, Count of Poitiers, died before Richard’s birth. He was a younger brother of Henry the Young King and Matilda, Duchess of Saxony. He was also an elder brother of Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany; Queen Eleanor of Castile; Queen Joan of Sicily; and John, Count of Mortain, who succeeded him as king.

Richard was the younger maternal half-brother of Marie of France, Countess of Champagne, and Alix, Countess of Blois. Richard is often depicted as having been the favourite son of his mother. His father was Angevin-Norman and great-grandson of William I the Conqueror, King of England and Duke of Normandy.

Richard is known as Richard Cœur de Lion (Norman French: Le quor de lion) or Richard the Lionheart because of his reputation as a great military leader and warrior. The troubadour Bertran de Born also called him Richard Oc-e-Non (Occitan for Yes and No), possibly from a reputation for terseness.

Richard I, the Lionheart, King of England, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascony, Lord of Cyprus, and Count of Poitiers, Anjou, Maine, and Nantes, and overlord of Brittany.

By the age of 16, Richard had taken command of his own army, putting down rebellions in Poitou against his father. Richard was an important Christian commander during the Third Crusade, leading the campaign after the departure of Philippe II of France and achieving considerable victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin, although he finalised a peace treaty and ended the campaign without retaking Jerusalem.

Richard probably spoke both French and Occitan. He was born in England, where he spent his childhood; before becoming king, however, he lived most of his adult life in the Duchy of Aquitaine, in the southwest of France.

Early in the 1160s there had been suggestions Richard should marry Alys, Countess of the Vexin, fourth daughter of Louis VII of France and Constance of Castile. The Marriage was meant to sooth the rivalry between the kings of England and France.

Louis VII obstructed the marriage. A peace treaty was secured in January 1169 and Richard’s betrothal to Alys was confirmed.

Following his accession, he spent very little time, perhaps as little as six months, in England. Most of his life as king was spent on Crusade, in captivity, or actively defending his lands in France. Rather than regarding his kingdom as a responsibility requiring his presence as ruler, he has been perceived as preferring to use it merely as a source of revenue to support his armies. Nevertheless, he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects.

Before leaving Cyprus on crusade, Richard married Berengaria of Navarre, Richard first grew close to her at a tournament held in her native Navarre.

Berengaria was the eldest daughter of King Sancho VI of Navarre and Sancha of Castile. As is the case with many of the medieval English queens, relatively little is known of her life.

Traditionally known as “the only English queen never to set foot in the country”, she may in fact have visited England after her husband’s death, but did not do so before, nor did she see much of Richard during her marriage.

The wedding was held in Limassol on May 12, 1191 at the Chapel of St George and was attended by Richard’s sister Joan, whom he had brought from Sicily. The marriage was celebrated with great pomp and splendour, many feasts and entertainments, and public parades and celebrations followed commemorating the event.

Berengaria of Navarre from History Reimagined

When Richard married Berengaria he was still officially betrothed to Alys, and he pushed for the match in order to obtain the Kingdom of Navarre as a fief, as Aquitaine had been for his father.

Further, Richard’s mother, Eleanor, championed the match, as Navarre bordered Aquitaine, thereby securing the southern border of her ancestral lands.

Richard took his new wife on crusade with him briefly, though they returned separately. Berengaria had almost as much difficulty in making the journey home as her husband did.

After his release from German captivity, he had been imprisoned by Leopold of Austria, Richard showed some regret for his earlier conduct, but he was not reunited with his wife. The marriage remained childless.

In March 1199, Richard was in Limousin suppressing a revolt by Viscount Aimar V of Limoges. Although it was Lent, he “devastated the Viscount’s land with fire and sword”. He besieged the tiny, virtually unarmed castle of Châlus-Chabrol. Some chroniclers claimed that this was because a local peasant had uncovered a treasure trove of Roman gold.

On March 26, 1199, Richard was hit in the shoulder by a crossbow bolt, and the wound turned gangrenous. Richard asked to have the crossbowman brought before him; called alternatively Pierre (or Peter) Basile, John Sabroz, Dudo, and Bertrand de Gourdon (from the town of Gourdon) by chroniclers, the man turned out (according to some sources, but not all) to be a boy.

He said Richard had killed his father and two brothers, and that he had killed Richard in revenge. He expected to be executed, but as a final act of mercy Richard forgave him, saying “Live on, and by my bounty behold the light of day”, before he ordered the boy to be freed and sent away with 100 shillings.

Richard died on April 6, 1199 in the arms of his mother, and thus “ended his earthly day.” Because of the nature of Richard’s death, it was later referred to as “the Lion by the Ant was slain”. According to one chronicler, Richard’s last act of chivalry proved fruitless when the infamous mercenary captain Mercadier had the boy who shot the king flayed alive and hanged as soon as Richard died.

Richard’s heart was buried at Rouen in Normandy, his entrails in Châlus (where he died), and the rest of his body at the feet of his father at Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou.

In 2012, scientists analysed the remains of Richard’s heart and found that it had been embalmed with various substances, including frankincense, a symbolically important substance because it had been present both at the birth and embalming of the Christ.

Henry Sandford, Bishop of Rochester (1226–1235), announced that he had seen a vision of Richard ascending to Heaven in March 1232 (along with Stephen Langton, the former archbishop of Canterbury), the King having presumably spent 33 years in purgatory as expiation for his sins.

Richard produced no legitimate heirs and acknowledged only one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. He was succeeded by his brother John as King of England and Duke of Normandy.

His French territories, with the exception of Rouen, initially rejected John as a successor, preferring his nephew Arthur. The lack of any direct heirs from Richard was the first step in the dissolution of the Angevin Empire.

King Richard I remains one of the few kings of England remembered more commonly by his epithet, Cœur de Lion or Richard the Lionheart, than his regnal number, and is an enduring iconic figure both in England and in France.

King Richard I was known as a valiant, competent military leader and individual fighter who was courageous and generous. At the same time, he was considered prone to the sins of lust, pride, greed and, above all, excessive cruelty. Ralph of Coggeshall, summarising Richard’s career, deplores that the King was one of “the immense cohort of sinners.”

January 5, 1066: Death of King Edward the Confessor

Tags

Æthelred II the Unready, Duke of Normandy, Edward the Confessor, Harold II Godwinson, House of Wessex, King of the English, William the Conqueror

Edward the Confessor (c. 1003 – January 5, 1066) was one of the last Anglo-Saxon English kings. Usually considered the last king of the House of Wessex, he ruled from 1042 to 1066.

Edward was the seventh son of Æthelred the Unready, and the first by his second wife, Emma of Normandy. Edward was born between 1003 and 1005 in Islip, Oxfordshire, and is first recorded as a ‘witness’ to two charters in 1005. He had one full brother, Alfred, and a sister, Godgifu. In charters he was always listed behind his older half-brothers, showing that he ranked beneath them.

During his childhood, England was the target of Viking raids and invasions under Sweyn Forkbeard and his son, Canute the Great.

Edward succeeded Canute the Great’s son – and his own half-brother – Harthacnut. He restored the rule of the House of Wessex after the period of Danish rule since Canute conquered England in 1016.

In 1043, Godwin’s eldest son Sweyn was appointed to an earldom in the south-west midlands, and on January 23, 1045 Edward married Godwin’s daughter Edith.

Edith was the daughter of Godwin, the most powerful earl in England. Her mother Gytha was sister of Ulf, a Danish earl who was Cnut the Great’s brother-in-law. She was probably born in or before 1027. Edith was originally named Gytha, but renamed Ealdgyth (or Edith) when she married King Edward the Confessor.

When Edward died in 1066, he was succeeded by his wife’s brother Harold II Godwinson, who was defeated and killed in the same year by the Normans under William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. Edward’s young great-nephew Edgar the Ætheling of the House of Wessex was proclaimed king after the Battle of Hastings in 1066 but was never crowned and was peacefully deposed after about eight weeks.

Historians disagree about Edward’s fairly long 24-year reign. His nickname reflects the traditional image of him as unworldly and pious. Confessor reflects his reputation as a saint who did not suffer martyrdom as opposed to his uncle, King Edward the Martyr.

Some portray Edward the Confessor’s reign as leading to the disintegration of royal power in England and the advance in power of the House of Godwin, because of the infighting that began after his death with no heirs to the throne. Biographers Frank Barlow and Peter Rex, on the other hand, portray Edward as a successful king, one who was energetic, resourceful and sometimes ruthless; they argue that the Norman conquest shortly after his death tarnished his image.

However, Richard Mortimer argues that the return of the Godwins from exile in 1052 “meant the effective end of his exercise of power”, citing Edward’s reduced activity as implying “a withdrawal from affairs”.

About a century later, in 1161, Pope Alexander III canonised the king. Edward was one of England’s national saints until King Edward III adopted George of Lydda as the national patron saint in about 1350. Saint Edward’s feast day is October 13, celebrated by both the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

January 5, 1066: Death of Edward the Confessor, King of the English

Tags

Battle of Hastings, Duke of Normandy, Edgar Ætheling, Edward the Confessor, Harold Godwinson, King of the English, William the Conqueror

Edward the Confessor (c. 1003 – January 5, 1066) was one of the last Anglo-Saxon Kings of the English. Usually considered the last king of the House of Wessex, he ruled from 1042 to 1066.

Edward was the son of Æthelred the Unready and Emma of Normandy. He succeeded Denmark’s Cnut the Great’s son – and his own half-brother – Harthacnut.

Edward restored the rule of the House of Wessex after the period of Danish rule since Cnut conquered England in 1016. When Edward died in 1066, he was succeeded by Harold Godwinson, who was defeated and killed in the same year by the Normans under William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. Edward’s young great-nephew Edgar the Ætheling of the House of Wessex was proclaimed King after the Battle of Hastings in 1066 but was never crowned and was peacefully deposed after about eight weeks.

Historians disagree about Edward’s fairly long 24-year reign. His nickname reflects the traditional image of him as unworldly and pious. Confessor reflects his reputation as a saint who did not suffer martyrdom as opposed to his uncle, King Edward the Martyr. Some portray Edward the Confessor’s reign as leading to the disintegration of royal power in England and the advance in power of the House of Godwin, because of the infighting that began after his death with no heirs to the throne.

Biographers Frank Barlow and Peter Rex, on the other hand, portray Edward as a successful king, one who was energetic, resourceful and sometimes ruthless; they argue that the Norman conquest shortly after his death tarnished his image. However, Richard Mortimer argues that the return of the Godwins from exile in 1052 “meant the effective end of his exercise of power”, citing Edward’s reduced activity as implying “a withdrawal from affairs”.

About a century later, in 1161, Pope Alexander III canonised the king. Edward was one of England’s national saints until King Edward III adopted George of Lydda as the national patron saint in about 1350. Saint Edward’s feast day is October 13, celebrated by both the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

December 17, 942: Death of William I Longsword of Normandy

Tags

Counts of Rouen, Duke of Normandy, More Danico, Richard of Normandy, Rollo of Normandy, Sprota, William II of Normandy, William Longsword of Normandy

William I Longsword (c. 893 – December 17, 942) was the second ruler of Normandy, from 927 until his assassination in 942.

He is sometimes anachronistically dubbed “Duke of Normandy”, even though the title duke (dux) did not come into common usage until the 11th century. Longsword was known at the time as Count (Latin comes) of Rouen.

History of the title

There is no record of Rollo holding or using any title. His son and grandson, Duke William I and Duke Richard I, used the titles “count” (Latin comes or consul) and “prince” (princeps). Prior to 1066, the most common title of the ruler of Normandy was “Count of Normandy” (comes Normanniae) or “Count of the Normans” (comes Normannorum). The title Count of Rouen (comes Rotomagensis) was never used in any official document, but it was used of William I and his son by the anonymous author of a lament (planctus) on his death. Defying Norman pretensions to the ducal title, Adhemar of Chabannes was still referring to the Norman ruler as “Count of Rouen” as late as the 1020s.

In the 12th century, the Icelandic historian Ari Thorgilsson in his Landnámabók referred to Rollo as Ruðu jarl (earl of Rouen), the only attested form in Old Norse, although too late to be evidence for 10th-century practice. The late 11th-century Norman historian William of Poitiers used the title “Count of Rouen” for the Norman rulers down to Richard II. Although references to the Norman rulers as counts of Rouen are relatively sparse and confined to narrative sources, there is a lack of documentary evidence about Norman titles before the late 10th century.
The first recorded use of the title duke (dux) is in an act in favour of the Abbey of Fécamp in 1006 by Richard II, Duke of Normandy.

Birth

William Longsword was born “overseas” to the Viking Rollo (while he was still a pagan) and his wife more danico Poppa of Bayeux. Dudo of Saint-Quentin in his panegyric of the Norman dukes describes Poppa as the daughter of a Count Berengar, the dominant prince of that region. In the 11th-century Annales Rouennaises (Annals of Rouen), she is called the daughter of Guy, Count of Senlis, otherwise unknown to history. Her parentage is uncertain. According to the Longsword’s planctus, he was baptized a Christian probably at the same time as his father, which Orderic Vitalis stated was in 912, by Franco, Archbishop of Rouen.

Life

William succeeded Rollo (who would continue to live for about another 5 years) in 927 and, early in his reign, faced a rebellion from Normans who felt he had become too Gallicised. According to Orderic Vitalis, the leader was Riouf of Evreux, who besieged William in Rouen. Sallying forth, William won a decisive battle, proving his authority to be duke. At the time of this 933 rebellion William sent his pregnant wife by custom, Sprota, to Fécamp where their son Richard was born.

In 933 William recognized Raoul as King of West Francia, who was struggling to assert his authority in Northern France. In turn, Raoul gave him lordship over much of the lands of the Bretons including Avranches, the Cotentin Peninsula and the Channel Islands.

The Bretons did not agree to these changes and resistance to the Normans was led by Alan II, Duke of Brittany, and Count Berenger of Rennes but ended shortly with great slaughter and Breton castles being razed to the ground, Alan fled to England and Beranger sought reconciliation.

In 935, William married Luitgarde, daughter of Count Herbert II of Vermandois whose dowry gave him the lands of Longueville, Coudres and Illiers l’Eveque. He also contracted a marriage between his sister Adela (Gerloc was her Norse name) and William, Count of Poitou, with the approval of Hugh the Great. In addition to supporting King Raoul, he was now a loyal ally of his father-in-law, Herbert II, both of whom his father Rollo had opposed.

In January 936 King Raoul died and the 16-year-old Louis IV, who was living in exile in England, was persuaded by a promise of loyalty by William, to return and became king. The Bretons returned to recover the lands taken by the Normans, resulting in fighting in the expanded Norman lands.

The new king was not capable of controlling his Barons and after William’s brother-in-law, Herluin II, Count of Montreuil, was attacked by Flanders, William went to their assistance in 939. Arnulf I, Count of Flanders retaliated by attacking Normandy. Arnulf captured the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer expelling Herluin. Herluin and William cooperated to retake the castle. William was excommunicated for his actions in attacking and destroying several estates belonging to Arnulf. William pledged his loyalty to King Louis IV when they met in 940 and, in return, he was confirmed in lands that had been given to his father, Rollo.: liii

In 941 a peace treaty was signed between the Bretons and Normans, brokered in Rouen by King Louis IV which limited the Norman expansion into Breton lands. The following year, on December 17, 942 at Picquigny on an island on the Somme, William was ambushed and killed by followers of Arnulf while at a peace conference to settle their differences.

Family

William had no children with his Christian wife Luitgarde. He fathered his son, Richard, with Sprota, his wife more danico.* Richard, then aged 10, succeeded as Ruler of Normandy upon William’s death in December 942.

* marriage more danico was neither an informal marriage nor even legitimized abduction, but simply a secular marriage contracted in accordance with Germanic law, rather than ecclesiastical marriage.