Anybody wish to comment on the notion that Duke William of Normandy (the Conqueror) did not, in any meaningful sense, 'usurp' the throne but had at least as much blood-right to it as Harold who lost the battle at Hastings?
Merry Andrew: William of Normandy was a bastard (both literally and figuratively); because he was illegitimate, he had no right to inherit the English throne. But then neither did Harold Godwinson or Harald Hardrada, who likewise had no ancestral claims on the crown. So, in that sense, you could say that William had as much right to the throne as those two.
rover -------- another interesting facet of English history is that many of the nursery rhymes we learn as kids, were written as satirical pieces about the royal family and other political events
It really is an interesting subject even if you aren't British.
And if one happens to be British, one finds it all a terrible bore, only lightened by the prospect of the end of all of them.
After the Romans pulled out of Britain about 500, there was a mishmash of small kingdoms. For about 200 years prior to and for disputed periods after Egbert during the Saxon period, England was broken up into seven smaller kingdoms, and was continually invaded and claimed by the Danish. Egbert was originally the king of Wessex
Saxon dynastic House
829-839 EGBERT, first proclaimed king of all England
866-871 AETHELRED I
871-899 ALFRED THE GREAT
899-925 EDWARD THE ELDER
940-946 EDMUND I
959-975 EDGAR (since Edgar England has been unified)
975-978 EDWARD II THE MARTYR
978-1016 ETHELRED II THE UNREADY
1016-1016 EDMUND II IRONSIDE
1035-1040 HARALD I
Restored Saxon line
1042-1066 ST EDWARD THE CONFESSOR
1066-1066 HARALD II
--Norman invasion/ House of Normandy:
1066-1087 WILLIAM I THE CONQUEROR
1087-1100 WILLIAM II
1100-1135 HENRY I
House of Blois:
House of Plantagenet:
1154-1189 HENRY II
1189-1199 RICHARD I THE LION-HEARTED
1216-1272 HENRY III
1272-1307 EDWARD I LONGSHANKS
1307-1327 EDWARD II
1327-1377 EDWARD III
1377-1399 RICHARD II
House of Lancaster
1399-1413 HENRY IV
1413-1422 HENRY V
1422-1461 and 1470-1471 HENRY VI
House of York
1461-1470 and 1471-1483 EDWARD IV
1483-1483 EDWARD V
1485-1485 RICHARD III
House of Tudor
1485-1509 HENRY VII
1509-1547 HENRY VIII
1547-1553 EDWARD VI
1553-1553 (9 days) LADY JANE GREY
1553-1558 MARY I
1558-1603 ELIZABETH I
House of Stuart
1603-1625 JAMES I (Scotland & England under same king)
1625-1649 CHARLES I
1649-1659 there was no king. Oliver Cromwell ruled as Lord Protector until 1658, followed by his son Richard
House of Stuart, restored
1660-1685 CHARLES II
1685-1688 JAMES II
1688-1689 no king, rule by Parliament
House of Orange and Stuart
1689-1702 co-monarchs WILLIAM III and MARY II, Mary died 1694.
House of Stuart, restored
House of Hanover
1714-1727 GEORGE I
1727-1760 GEORGE II
1760-1820 GEORGE III
1820-1830 GEORGE IV
1830-1837 WILLIAM IV
House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
1901-1910 EDWARD VII
House of Windsor
1910-1936 GEORGE V
1936-1936 EDWARD VIII
1936-1952 GEORGE VI
1952-present ELIZABETH II
If and when the Prince of Wales becomes King, he will be Charles III. His eldest son William would follow him as William V.
Pretty good for Frankenstein's monster, huh? They gave me a better brain this incarnation.... I admit I looked up some of the dates, but the names and order I had from memory.
very good equus. Why was Ethelred Unready?
Actually, that's a misnomer. Most high school textbooks nowadays call him Ethelred the Unready but the cognomen he was known by was actually Ethelred the Unrede, which doesn't really translate as 'unready.' It's more like Ethelred the Ill-advised or Ethelred who had no Counsel. It's easy to imagine him as unready, however, because he lost big-time to the invading Norsemen (many of whom eren't actually Danes at all, but a mixture of Danes, Noregians or Swedes. The English called all Vikings Danes.)
You are certainly right, Andrew, only a slight correction of the spelling for this nice man: it is unræd ['ALT' plus '0230' on the keyboard]
And you're right also, of course, Walter. And thanks for the typography tip.
I would like to know why during the Saxon period, there are Harold I & II and Edmund I& II and Ethelred I&II, but the three Edwards don't get numbered: then Plantagenet Edward Longshanks gets to be Edward I when he should be Edward IV?
So, there have been 11 King Edwards even though they end with Edward VIII in 1936....
There is apparently no "official" numbering of these kings, and it is reasonably certain that none of them used a number in their lifetime.
Those Edwards got 'by-names' (a couple of Charles in France/Germany, various Danish, Swedish and other European kings in line with hundreds of local rulers had to accept the same fate in those times
Equus, there are also those who will point out to you that no Anglo-Saxon ruler ever completely gathered all of the A-S territories under his hegemony, and recieved the fealty of all the petty lords without quibble. Some historians refer to Edward the Confessor, for example, as the Earl of Wessex, as opposed to a king.
Good point, Set. But Edward probably had more right to use the title of king than many another ruler before him (Alfred always excepted). Certainly no other earl or baron, no matter how recalcitrant, dared style himself thus during Edward's tenure. The problem was that this God-besotted ruler died issueless, bequeathing the crown to his nephew Harold Godwinson. But Harold had already promised to back the claim of William of Normandy years previously when William came to Harold's rescue after Harold had been shipwrecked on the coast of Normandy. Harold reneged on that promise and accepted the crown for himself. William came ashore at Hastings in October of 1066 to claim his just due, that's all.
A nice website on
From this, we can can learn that
though old Pevensey village is now a mile inland, in former centuries it stood right on the shore, William the Conqueror came ashore somewhere near Pevensey
Walter, who had been at the last English king's tomb a couple of weeks ago and got, ages back, a good mark for his paper about the "Bayeux Tapestry" :wink:
You're right as usual, Walter. William came ashore at Pevensey, not Hastings. They landed without incident because Harold and his troops were at Stamford Bridge, driving off Harald Hardraada who had landed with ambitions similiar to William's.
Quite interesting, btw, that some English women and men still bring flowers to Edward's tomb.
(Just pure luck, Andrew, that I'm right here - - it was much easier to be examinied "about 1066 and all that" than any other topic they 'offered' in Ancient [sic!] history.)
Not only do the English bring flowers to the tomb of Edward the Confessor but until recetly there was someone who placed a notice in The Times of London each October 14 in the IN MEMORIAM column, reading:
Harold of England -- Killed in action defending his country from the invader, 14th October, 1066.
(Source: National Geographic, August, 1966)
Good lookin' out, MA and Walter--few people know a coherent narrative of the period. Guillaume le Batard was amazing for having recovered Normandy, and then successfully invading and subjugating England. Harold of Wessex as equally deserving of praise--to have assembled an army, marched north to meet and defeat the other Harald, and then marched south to confront the Normans was truly a militarily epic feat. Later commanders would have found such an undertaking daunting, and it is more remarkable in those less well-organized societies. His misfortune at Hastings ought not to overshadow his accomplishment.
Then we learnt to speak French, which trickled down from roals via the courtiers to the peasants.
Another stepping stone towards modern English