1066, Not something to celebrate?

Tags

1066, 2066, Battle of Hastings, Duke of Normandy, England, Harold Godwinson, Kingdom of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen of England, William I of England, William the Bastard

Okay, I am a few months behind on this. The Norman Conquest of England occurred on October 14, 1066. The Battle of Hastings was fought between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy (who became King William I of England) and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England. That was 950 years ago. In 50 years from now, the year 2066, this historic even will celebrate its 1,000th anniversary. Will this be something to celebrate or not?

Maybe celebrate is not the correct word? How about honor…or even mark the date? No matter how you want to note this historic event the topic is very controversial. Even though this was a significant date that forever changed England’s entire culture, language and structure of society; this event helped shape England and the United Kingdom into what it is today. The truth is, this is the date when England was conquered and defeated and then occupied by a foreign power. Who wants to celebrate or honor that!?

However, is there anything positive that can be acknowledged on this anniversary? Without the Norman Conquest England would have developed very differently. Certainly the end result of this conquest, the by product of this invasion, is something to honor? The monarchy itself, although it did exist pre-1066, also was significantly changed and a descendant of William the Conqueror sits on the throne today. In fact, many people alive in Britain are descendants of William the Conqueror.

Much of this is speculative. In 50 years I will be 103 so chances are I will not be here, but you never know!? I am sure the occasion will be marked in someway and maybe a balance can be found and the good and the bad from this can be acknowledged.

 

 

Historical Fiction

Tags

A Royal Affair, Caroline Matilda of Great Britain, Historical fiction, Johann Friedrich Struensee, King Christian VII of Denmark, King George III of Great Britain, King Henry VIII of England, King John of England, King Richard I of England, Queen Elizabeth I of England, William I of England, William the Conqueror, William Wallace

I enjoy writing short stories. I have written several short stories in the science-fiction genre. After viewing several royalty related movies I began to long for certain stories to be made into feature films. One story I wish Hollywood would make is a story on William the Conqueror. Yet one of the reasons I realize why this probably never would happen is the fact that William the Conqueror is not as well known as other English royals.

The American population is familiar with the present royal family, Queen Victoria and the Tudors, specifically Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. King Richard the Lion Heart and King John are well known as long as they are tied to a story about Robin Hood. Beyond that I am not sure there would be a big interest in a film about William the Conqueror in this country. On the other hand, If Mel Gibson can make Braveheart, about William Wallace who was obscure to many Americans prior to the film, then I guess any story about European royals may be open. There is a foreign film, A Royal Affair, that is up for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. That is the story about King Christian VII of Denmark and Norway and the affair his wife, Queen Caroline Matilda (sister to King George III of Great Britain) had with Johann Friedrich Struensee a royal physician. So maybe it is possible other films will be made about Englisdh and other royals?

In the meantime I have decided to write some historical fisction, in the form of short stoiries. I am beginning with the story of William the Conqueror. I will cover his life in three self-contained stories. One story about his youth and how he withstood tests to his rule of the Duchy of Normandy. The second story will cover his conquest of England and the third will cover the end of his life.

I am in the research mode right now and as I complete these stories I will share them on this blog.

Legal SuccessionI Part III: Stephen and Matilda

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, Empress Matilda, Henry I of England, Henry II of England, Kings and Queens of England, Matilda of England, William Atheling, William I of England, William the Conqueror

In the last section of this series I wrote of the battle for the throne between the three surviving sons of William the Conqueror. While that royal melee between the brothers really cannot be called a sucession crisis, the battle for an hier to the throne after the death of Henry I can be considered a crisis. It was a crisis that lasted almost 20 years.

Henry I had three children by his first wife Matilda of Scotland, daughter of Malcolm III, King of Scots. The two eldest surviving children were William Adelin and Matilda. William was married Matilda of Anjou in 1119 when he was 16 and Matilda was only 8. Needless to say that when William drowned in the English channel the next year when his ship, The White Ship, sank, there were no children from the union. Henry I did remarry the next year. His new bride was Adeliza of Louvain, who was 18 while Henry was 53. No children were born of this union.

The other legitimate child of Henry to survive was Matilda who had married Holy Roman Emperor Hienrich V. That union gave Matilda the title of Empress and it is as Empress Matilda she is most known by. There were no children of this union and the Emperor died in 1125. Matilda remarried in 1128, Geoffery, Count of Anjou (who had the nickname Plantaganet) a prince which the powerful barons did not trust. This union provided Matilda with three healthy sons, Henry, Geoffery & William.  

Henry I desired that his daughter would succeed him and had the Barons of the relm swear and oath to that aim. When Henry died on December 1, 1135 Matilda was in Normandy pregnant with her third child and her cousin, Stephen of Blois usurped the throne from her. Stephen had support from the Barons and was swiftly crowned King of England. Although Stephen held the crown Matilda did not just sit quietly. For almost the entierty of the reign of king Stephen there was civil war, which some historians call “the Anarchy,” which was settled shortly before his death in 1154. The agreement between the two factions was that Matiilda’s eldest son, Henry Fitzempress, would succeed as King of England upon the death of King Stephen.

When Stephen died on October 25, 1154, Matilda’s son became King Henry II of England. Matilda retired to Normandy and held court when her son was abscent from Normandy. She died in 1167 and was clearly the legal successor to her father. Since she was the legal heir and given the fact the she briefly held London when Stephen was captured and imprisoned, many consider her the first true Queen Regnant of England.

Legal Succession Part II: Henry I

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Germany, Henry I of England, Kings and Queens of England, Robert II of Normandy, William I of England, William II of England, William Rufus, William the Conqueror

With the Norman Conquest and the Witan abolished the monarch had greater authority in name his successor. This authority later evolved into a more concise hereditary system.

William I “the Conqueror” divided his lands upon his death in 1087. This was a common practice in this age. This practice was continued in many German states leading to many problems…but I digress. William gave Normandy to his eldest son Robert, and the Crown of England went to his next surviving son, William Rufus. The third surviving son, Henry, received 5,000 pounds in silver and there is a legend that says that the old king, William I, had declared to Henry: “You in your own time will have all the dominions I have acquired and be greater than both your brothers in wealth and power.”

William Rufus was therefore the new and lawful king and is counted as William II and ruled until his death in a hunting accident in 1100. By that time the “prophecy” about Henry had come true. Robert II of Normandy was on a crusade in the Holy Land in August of 1100 when William II died in a hunting accident in the New Forest. With Robert far a way Henry claimed the throne. Did Henry usurp the throne from his brother Robert?

There had been an agreement between Robert II and William II to become one anothers hier should either of them die without issue. This was made in 1087 upon the death of the conqueror. This brotherly love did not last long for in 1088 the two rebelled against one another. This rebellion was spurred on by the barons in both Normandy and England. Dividing the lands between the two brothers created a problem for the barons. The Barons owned land in both England and Normandy and having to serve two different rulers created many difficulties so they sided with Robert II to defeat William II and take the Crown of England from him. The major problem with this rebellion is that when it became time Robert II did not arive at the battle for Rochester Castle and the rebellion swiftly ended.

From that time on who the legal successor to William II should be was never settled. The Crown was up for grabs until William could name a successor. He never got the chance. When he was killed in a hunting accident and with Robert too far away from England to claim the throne, Henry siezed the opportunity and was crowned King of England. In 1106 Henry I of England took Normandy from his brother thus unifying England and Normandy once again.

From a legal standpoint it seems that Henry can be considered the legal hier since the 1088 rebellion dissolved any agreement between William II and Robert II and in the abscence of a named heir the crown went to the first person to grab it.

Legal Succession: William I “the Conqueror.”

Tags

Harold Godwinson, Harold II of England, House of Wessex, Norman Conquest, Wessex, William I of England, William the Conqueror, Witan, Witenagemot

As I have researched this topic it is rather complex so I will give the reader’s digest version.

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 ogf the House of Wessex, who were just kings of only Wessex until they began to slowly unify England, the succession dopesn’t seem to have many hard and fast rules. Succession to the throne of Wessex/England was vested in the descendents of King Egbert. 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.

In 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 the Batsard, 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 truth it seems is that Edward had no power to name his successor and that the power to name the successor was vested in the Witan. They 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) tried to elect Edgar Atheling, the heir to the House of Wessex) as King of England 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.

The Witan was the legal body that regulated the succession in 1066. They chose Harld as the legal successor to Edward the Confessor and 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 England 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.