what did the english think about their new king in 1066?

Answer 1

Most of the population were agricultural peasants.
What's the difference between slogging your guts out on the land for a Saxon Lord or doing the same for a Norman?
Same s*** different day......

Answer 2

Nobody knows! There were no opinion polls in those days, so we can only guess by studying how the English behaved towards their new king. Nobody knew in 1066 how much England would change as a result of William's victory in battle, but they soon found out, and the risings of 1067-75 showed that there was significant resistance to him. All of this was in vain, of course.

Answer 3

The word English is not applicable to the Anglo-Saxons. In real terms the English are made up mainly of Norman stock and today are represented exclusively by the English aristocracy.

Anyone who is unable to trace their ancestry [in England] back to at least 1066, is not English.

This rule does not apply to the Celts, the Welsh, Scots, Irish and Cornish, who have been established in these islands for about 10,000 years.

God Save the Queen.

Answer 4

King William, now known as William the Conqueror, had the support of enough English earls and churchmen to become King of England in 1066.

Answer 5

history isn't a neat difficulty, whether lots historians might like it to be. Alfred the great replaced into merely ever King of Wessex, no longer England. HIs grandson Athelstan, who gained the great victory at Brunanburh is in all probability the 1st guy to be waiting to declare that identify; however he styled himself King of the English, a diffused yet needed distinction. William the Bastard might certainly have a valid declare to the throne of britain. He replaced into actually a closer relation to Edward the Confessor than Harold Godwineson. look into additionally the Worcester manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the 300 and sixty 5 days 1051 whilst William made a state circulate to to England - and can possibly have been promised the throne. it is likewise undeniable that Harold promised to help William's declare, and went lower back on his be conscious. this may well be a complicated difficulty (see additionally Edgar the Atheling, whose declare replaced into supported by skill of a few regardless of his having been born in Hungary). replaced into Willliam England's maximum evil ruler? there is merely slightly opposition here. some might say it replaced into Cromwell - a republican. No, England does no longer choose to be a republic. in case you have an elected Head of State, then by skill of definition you wind up with a flesh presser, it relatively is a prospect too poor to take into consideration.

Answer 6

William came to the throne after a series of military campaigns which culminatd in the battle of Hastings (which William won in 1066)...despite smahing the Saxon army he still had to conduct a rather prolonged Saxon insurgency. (Look up Hereward the Wake for details). I imagine a high percentage of the peasant population neither knew nor cared who sat the throne.

Answer 7

Immediately after Hastings the remaining Anglo-Saxon elite were either on the run, or meekly proclaiming Edgar Atheling as their new king - an idea which was rapidly abandoned as the Norman/Breton/Flemish army advanced on London.
The heart of Anglo-Saxon resistance had been removed in the battle, the remainder initially surrendered themselves or gave their children as hostages and pledged their loyalty to ensure they would retain their lands. So i think they were deeply fearful of their new conqueror.
After William was anointed King it became far more difficult for anyone to oppose him - God had doubly annointed him, chosen him, or raised him up to be their king, through his victory in battle and through the ritual of coronation. This dual success proved to most that William must have done something right - that his conquest was God's will. They would therefore believe that the sins of the English were being punished by their defeat in battle and the imposition of a foreign king upon them.
Remember that people in most of Europe believed in a literal God, they believed that He worked his will upon earth, they believed in heaven, hell, sin and the soul. We cannot understand what they thought without understanding that. In their minds William could not have won without the help of God and that would have convinced most people that it was right for him to be king.

Answer 8

Not much, since he became king so late in 1066. By 1067, however, they were fully disenchanted. He replaced the nobility with his friends.

Answer 9

Wiliam did not make sweeping changes ,and many of the saxon landowners were allowed to keep what they had in exchange for there loyallty .Changes made would have been slow and gradual ,the only ones fighting rebelions would have been from armies raised by Saxon landowners concerned about there own situation.


Clive H
What are you talking about?? ,England exists because of the Anglo Saxon invasion .

Answer 10

"Although the south of England submitted quickly to Norman rule, resistance continued, especially in the North. After six years William moved north in 1072, subduing rebellions by the Anglo-Saxons and installing Norman lords along the way. However, particularly in Yorkshire, he made agreements with local Saxon Lords to keep control of their land (under Norman-named Lords who would "hold" the lands only from a distance) in exchange for avoidance of battle and loss of any controlling share."