[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]
About HASTINGS and 1066
Gentles all, who think:
> that ... choosing royalty by stick-jocking is not
> period choosing them by combat is.
> This alluding to conquest in the like of William of Normandy's little
> affair in Hastings, 1066.
Actually, William the Bastard was Edward the Confessor's CHOSEN heir.
Harold Godwinson actually acknowledged this and swore fealty to William
as the heir to the Crown of England. After Edward died, the nobility of
England turned around and VOTED Harold GWS to be King. Harald Hardaridan
(sp), King of Norway, had his own claim to push as legitimate heir to
Swen and Cunate. So in 1066 there were three different claims to the
throne, one by election by the nobility, one by "illegitamate" descent
from the last king (though I'm not clear on how that worked) and one by
legitimate desent from an earlier dynasty.
But they didn't just throw the Throne open to all takers. You had to
have some sort of legitimate claim. The three claiments were viable (and
all reasonably good choices, too).
But then, I suppose you needed that to build an army in the 11th century,
not like the good old days ;-).