In 1066 by David Howarth who was the legal heir to the thrown, William or Harold and why?

Question

I need an indepth analysys of the novel. And peoples opinion on who was the rightful heir to the thrown, William or Harold and why.

Answer 1

Here's a review of the novel. After that is a very good history of William the Conqueror, why he was the rightful heir even though Harold was chosen as king after Edward the Confessor's death. Take the time to read them both. Good luck!

David Howarth's book 1066: The Year of the Conquest would prove to be a useful and important aid for teaching a course dealing with the history of medieval Britain. The book is outstanding in several areas. First, the book is written well. The development of the story is flawless. The reader always knows where he/she stands in the framework of the history. Howarth's decision to allow chronological time to dominate the development of the book is a wise choice. The use of flashback is restricted to several special cases, and the book precedes in an orderly, rational manner. The reader is not constantly being forced to jump ahead to upcoming events; nor is the reader forced to skip back to earlier events in the narrative. Howarth's approach allows the story to develop naturally. Nothing in the book is forced. Oftentimes authors will become so excited about their findings that they display their information before they have developed a proper foundation upon which to base their case. Howarth has the personal restraint to withhold pertinent information until such a time as its true impact and import can be fully felt. Where the author does feel a need to flashback, he does so with precision and efficiency. Howarth is careful not to lead the reader off of the trail that he is developing in the present time when he flashes back; he simply presents small amounts of valuable information in a brief, coherent manner. The reader never becomes lost or confused, and the information revealed is more fully digested and appreciated.

A second strength of the book is the author's use of sources. Howarth's use of all relevant contemporary sources allows him to create a fuller, more balanced history. Howarth carefully attempts to weed out the facts from the propaganda and constant religious overtones which dominate the era's literature. The author knows that the spoils of war go to the victors. The conquest of England resulted in a Norman victory; therefore, the story of the conquest is seen mostly through Norman eyes, and is described mostly by Norman words. Howarth is careful to scrutinize his primary sources. He analyzes their contents at face value. Where conflicting accounts of the same topic exist, Howarth makes certain that he illustrates the discrepancies between the different reports. The author offers his own insights as to the reasons for one account interpreting a situation one way, and a second account interpreting the same situation from a totally different perspective. The author also states which of the accounts he personally feels is the most credible, and he then precedes to defend his choice. However, Howarth leaves the door open and allows his readers to make the final decision as to which account they will accept and which account they will discard. Howarth does not attempt to force-feed his readers; he allows for, and in many ways encourages/ personal interpretations of the data and disagreement with his findings.

The points mentioned above are mostly technical in nature and do not concern what I consider to be the heart of Howarth's work. The greatest achievement of Howarth's book is its ability to present and illustrate something which I call the "medieval mind." Howarth does not make the mistake of interpreting eleventh-century history from a twentieth-century perspective. Howarth's book is valuable because it shows the beliefs, values, traditions, and superstitions which forced men like Ulfer, Harold, and William to act as they did. Not only does Howarth show how these factors affected the great men of the periods. He also pays close attention as to how these forces influenced the everyday life of the common man.

Irrationality is allowed to play a major role in the development of the story. Of course, as Howarth illustrates, that which the modern reader considers irrational may have been considered perfectly logical by the medieval mind. Where Howarth succeeds, others have failed. Howarth does not abuse his twentieth-century gift of hindsight. For example, because the Roman Catholic Church no longer possesses the tremendous influence which it once had in the shaping of world events, a modern reader may balk at Howarth's belief that Harold had already resigned himself to defeat, and that he was fighting, by his own admission, his last battle. A present-day army which marches under a Papal banner will not, in all likelihood, gain an advantage over its enemy. However, because of the way medieval society was structured, Howarth shows that the Papal banner was actually William's greatest weapon against Harold and his army. Howarth never forgets the lesson that the interpretation of history must not be based solely on facts; he knows that historical interpretation must also be based on how the players in the story perceived facts. Hindsight tells us that the Papal banner should have had no influence on the outcome of the battle, but the banner would have had a great effect on the battle according to the workings of the medieval mind, and this extremely important fact is often forgotten by other modern historians.

Here lies the book's greatness. The author constantly forces the reader to look at the situation from the medieval mind's point of view. Howarth strips away twentieth-century prejudices and delivers the reader a living history. Howarth's key figures are not mythic characters fated for greatness or doomed to failure. Harold, William, and all the others are real men with real goals, real hopes, and real fears. Howarth does these men a great service by allowing us to judge them according to their own criteria, not ours.

In conclusion, I would encourage instructors of medieval history courses to add 1066: The Year of the Conquest to their reading lists. The book is both interesting and academically sound, and it provides the reader with a unique opportunity to observe the process of everyday living during the medieval era. Howarth's sense of humanity sets this volume apart from other texts dealing with a similar subject. Many histories dealing with the middle ages have a tendency to clutter the reader's mind with visions of musty, dim, academic libraries. Howarth's book summons forth visions of a quiet field, gently bathing beneath the autumn sun, passively waiting for its cue to enter the stage and play its part in the development of a nation.

-----------------

William the Conqueror, born in 1024, worked hard to achieve his goal of ruling England and Normandy, but he never gained the respect of the people in this area. His story begins in Normandy, where Richard II, 5th Duke of Normandy, and his brother Robert lived. Richard II suddenly and mysteriously died two years after his succession to dukedom. Robert, brother to Richard II, took his brother’s place as Duke of Normandy. Robert had no legitimate children, but he did have one son, William, by a peasant girl. Considering there was no one directly in line to succeed Robert, he named William as his successor. Since William was only 11 years old when Robert died, there were lots of arguments and fights within the family over who should take Robert’s place as Duke of Normandy. Mainly, the knights and nobles believed William should take over his father’s place. The Earl of Arques, who had the support of King Henry of France, strongly believed he was the rightful heir to the throne. William was victorious over the Earl of Arques and took his rightful place as Duke of Normandy. However, he always had to deal with uprisings by unruly nobles.

Unsatisfied with only being Duke of Normandy, William believed that, based on his ancestry, he had a rightful claim to the English throne. His aunt, Emma, was the daughter of Richard I, 3rd Duke of Normandy. Emma married the King of England, Ethelred. After Ethelred’s death, in approximately 1016, Canute of Denmark invaded England and became King. Canute then married Emma as well. Since Emma, William’s great aunt, was married to two English Kings, William believed this gave him a hereditary claim to the English throne. Typically, England chooses the heir to the throne hereditarily, but it was a group of nobles and church officials called witena gemot that had the final say.

After Canute’s death, the witena gemot choose Edward the Confessor, the last surviving son of the previous King, Ethelred, as the next King of England. Edward, who had no children, died in 1066. Following his death, the witena gemot selected Harold Godwinssor, the son of a powerful noble, to succeed him. Considering he believed he had two legitimite claims to the English throne (his hereditary claim through his Aunt and he also claimed that Edward promised him the Kingship), William was very displeased that he was not chosen as King.

After Harold became King, both the Norman’s and the English began preparing for war. Both sides began to raise their navy, and the English moved a large number of their troops to the South so that they were directly across the English Channel from Normandy. William, claiming that his purpose in this war was a crusade to reform the English church, appealed to the Pope for his approval. Considering the Church’s position in those days, this move gave William a lot more power when he invaded.

At summer’s end in 1066, William gave the command for his ships to head for England. Interestingly, William was not the only person that was, at this time, headed to England to fight for the crown. Tostig, Harold’s brother, and King Harold Hardroda of Norway decided to join forces and attack England. Neither attacking army had any idea of the other’s existence. Harold of England managed to defeat the combined forces of Tostig and Harald Hardrada. Just as they believed they were in the clear, the English received word that William and his ships had landed at the town of Pevensey. William and his army marched onward to the town of Hastings. England, severely weakened from their previous battle with Norway, was defeated during The Battle of Hastings. Harold died during this battle.

William became ruler over England and Normandy. The people of England were very displeased with the fact that William tricked the Pope into giving his blessing to the invasion. Because of this, he never gained any support or acceptance from the English people. One great thing William did, as King, was organize a census. This was recorded in two volumes: the Great Domesday Book and the Little Domesday Book. William had three sons: William Rufus, Robert, and Henry. Surprisingly, William said that his sons must fight over the throne, after his death. However, William expressed his desire for William Rufus to succeed him. Without much of a fight, the brothers decided that William Rufus would rule England, while Robert would rule Normandy. In 1087, following an exhausting, unstable rule, William the Conqueror passed away. Though he never gained respect for it, he did act on and achieve his desire to be King of England.

Answer 2

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
In 1066 by David Howarth who was the legal heir to the thrown, William or Harold and why?
I need an indepth analysys of the novel. And peoples opinion on who was the rightful heir to the thrown, William or Harold and why.

Answer 3

I have not read the book. But it was Harold who was the rightful heir, if I remember correctly. I don't remember why.
YOU could go to
wikipedia.org
Sorry I could not be much help.

Answer 4

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140058508/104-4601736-8923928?v=glance&n=283155 ,,you can purshase the book from that site..Enojy reading it.

Answer 5

I am sorry --never read that one. not much help, I know..