How to destroy the Papacy in the 11th Century?

Status
Not open for further replies.
1. Because he knows he's not much of a warrior compared to Henry I and knows he must win? Could he win against le Roi in an actual fight?
2. William didn't have much of a claim to England in the first place, and look what he did. He refused to be ruled by some Kingdom weaker than his duchy, so he decided to take matters into his own hands and invade France.
 
1. Because he knows he's not much of a warrior compared to Henry I and knows he must win? Could he win against le Roi in an actual fight?
2. William didn't have much of a claim to England in the first place, and look what he did. He refused to be ruled by some Kingdom weaker than his duchy, so he decided to take matters into his own hands and invade France.

The French Crown can call upon a MUCH larger army than William can. OTL William knew this and decided to make feudal Obesciance to the French King in Paris even after he was crowned King of England. His successors did this as well.

ITTL William most likely breaks his army on the series of fortifications held by larger bodies of troops that NEED to be taken in order to threaten Paris (If your not a viking sailing up the seine that is) Either that or he gets swept from the field by a much larger, better led, French Army and France asserts it's authority over Normandy much, much harder.

Hell, William had enough trouble with just the tired out, mostly fyrd, Saxons at Hastings. A force of French Knights and their men-at-arms and feudal levies is going to absolutely wreck him.
 
1. Because he knows he's not much of a warrior compared to Henry I and knows he must win? Could he win against le Roi in an actual fight?
2. William didn't have much of a claim to England in the first place, and look what he did. He refused to be ruled by some Kingdom weaker than his duchy, so he decided to take matters into his own hands and invade France.

1) I don't know, and why does he have to win? I mean, OTL he apparently got away with not taking him up on it.

2) He had something of a claim to England, so yes, look at what he did and on what grounds, and France is not weaker than Normandy.

Both of these feel like an attempt at Frenchscrew for the sake of a Frenchscrew.
 
Just trying to find radically changing ideas for, yet again, the sake of finding radically changing ideas. :p

1. How else will Henry III prevent himself from getting that may flu and dying then?
2. I was under the impression that France was at it's weakest point in history right now, that the Normans had better knights than the average Frenchie, and that William had allies in Champagne, Aquitaine, Bologne and Flanders, and that all Philip's regent had was Geoffrey Martel. But I digress...
 
Just trying to find radically changing ideas for, yet again, the sake of finding radically changing ideas. :p

1. How else will Henry III prevent himself from getting that may flu and dying then?
2. I was under the impression that France was at it's weakest point in history right now, that the Normans had better knights than the average Frenchie, and that William had allies in Champagne, Aquitaine, Bologne and Flanders, and that all Philip's regent had was Geoffrey Martel. But I digress...

1) Simply have him go to Frankfurt or get lucky or something else. Individual disease PODs are easy to have go one way or another.

2) And while France is weak, this kind of thing would see people rallying against William, not against a weak king - they want a weak king as the only king, not to replace him with someone who can push them around.
 
The kingdom of France was not Dean at that time : it was the richest and by far the most populated of western Europe. It is the french king who was weak, and that's one of the reasons why the capetian dynasty succeeded on retaining the throne. The great vassals prefered to have a rather weak king. They would never have accepted one of the other great vassals (duke of Normandy, Aquitaine or Burgundy, count of Flanders, Champagne or Toulouse) becoming king.
 
Of course, one can never say never. But I can't see how any of these great vassals could have accepted, for example, William duke of Normandy and king of England also becoming king of France.

Take for example the hundred years war. Philippe the good of Burgundy quickly realized that he did not profit much from the alliance with the Lancasters. And so he let them support most of the war effort against Charles VII. Charles VII was able to resist victoriously even though he was not seen as the legitimate king by a large part of the country.

I don't think it was a matter of claim. It was a matter of real power balance and basic politics. No great noble freely wanted a crushingly dominant king. In England, they had what they wanted through the Magna Carta and the development of parliamentary power. In France they tried armed revolt without success and had the absolute monarchy which destroyed the remnant of their power.
 
Of course, one can never say never. But I can't see how any of these great vassals could have accepted, for example, William duke of Normandy and king of England also becoming king of France.

Or even just King of France - the royal demense + Normandy is not a bad power base at all, as Philip II (with a somewhat larger demense) showed very well.

Take for example the hundred years war. Philippe the good of Burgundy quickly realized that he did not profit much from the alliance with the Lancasters. And so he let them support most of the war effort against Charles VII. Charles VII was able to resist victoriously even though he was not seen as the legitimate king by a large part of the country.
If he had truly not been seen as the legitimate king, we'd see a lot more support for whoever was seen as such.

Instead, we see most of English occupied France not terribly enthusiastic about Henry VI (using his English number as I'm not sure he's counted in France's king lists despite having been crowned).

I don't think it was a matter of claim. It was a matter of real power balance and basic politics. No great noble freely wanted a crushingly dominant king. In England, they had what they wanted through the Magna Carta and the development of parliamentary power. In France they tried armed revolt without success and had the absolute monarchy which destroyed the remnant of their power.
But not having a strong claim means that there aren't even the ties and obligations to support the rightful ruler - just someone with too much power likely to get even more power.

People did care if someone had a rightful or at least seemingly rightful claim in this period - "I want this so I'm taking it." was rarely popular.

Certainly no one wanted a crushingly dominant king, but it was very difficult in the Middle Ages for a king to get in a position where he could be considered crushingly dominant when his access to men and money is primarily via the great nobles.

Either way we agree that William is without anyone who wants him to become king except possibly himself. Not a situation favorable to the Normans whether the average Norman knight is any better than the average nonNorman or not.
 
Last edited:
I do agree with you. They had to have a claim but a claim was not enough.

And you are also right on refering to king Philip II of France (Philip Augustus), who was one of the greatest kings France ever had. Probably the real founder of the power of French monarchy, the man which made France the most powerful kingdom of Europe for 6 centuries. He really succeeded a master coup when he got the support of all the great nobles of his kingdom to strip king John of almost all his territories in France.

If you know Paris, he is one of the few kings (with Francis I for culture, Henry IV for national reconciliation and religious tolerance, and a bit less the controversial Louis XIV for Versailles) who was kept of a symbol of the nation by the french republic. He has his metro station and his street in a popular part of Paris.
 
I do agree with you. They had to have a claim but a claim was not enough.

And you are also right on refering to king Philip II of France (Philip Augustus), who was one of the greatest kings France ever had. Probably the real founder of the power of French monarchy, the man which made France the most powerful kingdom of Europe for 6 centuries. He really succeeded a master coup when he got the support of all the great nobles of his kingdom to strip king John of almost all his territories in France.

Although Aquitaine is a substantial territory to be left with, it was still a masterful bit of work by Philip.

I would personally say "the" greatest king. But I'm not an expert on French history.

If you know Paris, he is one of the few kings (with Francis I for culture, Henry IV for national reconciliation and religious tolerance, and a bit less the controversial Louis XIV for Versailles) who was kept of a symbol of the nation by the french republic. He has his metro station and his street in a popular part of Paris.

Nice. :D He deserves it.

To look at where Grouchio appears to be going, I'd venture to say that without someone of Philip's ability, France will fare an awful lot like the HRE - the French kings do control a decent demensed, but it's not enough to have real power over France.

Especially not with powerful counts of Champagne or dukes of Normandy etc.

France outright crumbling is much harder, but it never centralizing - and with the southern part slipping away and what OTL was expansion east never happening - seems all too possible.
 
Alrighty new plan! We're still going to do the Investiture Controversy, the Toghrul dies at Merv PoD and Basil II having a son, but we're also going to have to change things up a bit with England. We're...going to have to use the Saxons win at Hastings PoD because 1. Edward the Exile, son of Edmund II Ironside is currently in the custody of Kaiser Henry III, (and I'm going to have Henry III avoid catching the flu that killed him in May 1056, have young Matilda of Canossa catch it and die instead, and live 15 years longer so that his son is much more successful in the Investiture controversy etc.) is a really good claimant to the throne besides William and Harold, and by having Henry III live longer, Edward will live longer as well (since he's killed 2 days after he returns to England in 1057), and manages to convince Henry to let him go back to England in 1062 with an accompaniment of a Saxon merc guard. Since we know little of his actual personality let's say he's very competent, wise and practical ruler who would no sooner question the power of the Papacy then Henry IV later would. He foils an attempt on his life by Tostig Godwinson soon after his arrival and comes back to London and King Edward with Tostig in chains, who is then executed by a convinced King Edward on charges of treason. King Edward (II) promptly gives most of his royal duties to Edward Etheling and declares him his heir. Meanwhile Harold has risen up in rebellion upon hearing of his brother's death, but only has those forces in Wessex and Essex loyal to him, so it only requires Edward to inspire his people and forces with a rousing speech on pledging the continuation of the House of Wessex that grants him a larger, more determined army than Harold's, and defeats him at the Battle of St. Albans where Harold is killed by an arrow in the eye. The remaining male figures in the House of Godwinson are then executed for high treason (to prevent any pretenders and to rid England of Godwin's filth), and Harold's wife and children are all locked up (not in the White tower, that doesn't exist yet). Such is Edward's success and claim to the throne thereafter that his only remaining challenger to his authority is William of Normandy when he succeeds Edward the Confessor in January 1066 as Edward III Etheling...
 
Alrighty new plan! We're still going to do the Investiture Controversy, the Toghrul dies at Merv PoD and Basil II having a son, but we're also going to have to change things up a bit with England. We're...going to have to use the Saxons win at Hastings PoD because 1. Edward the Exile, son of Edmund II Ironside is currently in the custody of Kaiser Henry III, (and I'm going to have Henry III avoid catching the flu that killed him in May 1056, have young Matilda of Canossa catch it and die instead, and live 15 years longer so that his son is much more successful in the Investiture controversy etc.) is a really good claimant to the throne besides William and Harold, and by having Henry III live longer, Edward will live longer as well (since he's killed 2 days after he returns to England in 1057), and manages to convince Henry to let him go back to England in 1062 with an accompaniment of a Saxon merc guard. Since we know little of his actual personality let's say he's very competent, wise and practical ruler who would no sooner question the power of the Papacy then Henry IV later would. He foils an attempt on his life by Tostig Godwinson soon after his arrival and comes back to London and King Edward with Tostig in chains, who is then executed by a convinced King Edward on charges of treason. King Edward (II) promptly gives most of his royal duties to Edward Etheling and declares him his heir. Meanwhile Harold has risen up in rebellion upon hearing of his brother's death, but only has those forces in Wessex and Essex loyal to him, so it only requires Edward to inspire his people and forces with a rousing speech on pledging the continuation of the House of Wessex that grants him a larger, more determined army than Harold's, and defeats him at the Battle of St. Albans where Harold is killed by an arrow in the eye. The remaining male figures in the House of Godwinson are then executed for high treason (to prevent any pretenders and to rid England of Godwin's filth), and Harold's wife and children are all locked up (not in the White tower, that doesn't exist yet). Such is Edward's success and claim to the throne thereafter that his only remaining challenger to his authority is William of Normandy when he succeeds Edward the Confessor in January 1066 as Edward III Etheling...

Holy wall of text Batman! Let's break this into managable chunks to comment on.

First thing:

Edward will live longer as well (since he's killed 2 days after he returns to England in 1057), and manages to convince Henry to let him go back to England in 1062 with an accompaniment of a Saxon merc guard. Since we know little of his actual personality let's say he's very competent, wise and practical ruler who would no sooner question the power of the Papacy then Henry IV later would.

1) Why would Henry III send a Saxon (as in Saxony I presume?) merc guard with Edward?

2) Why are we assuming he's a competent, wise, and practical ruler? I mean, what basis there for this?

He foils an attempt on his life by Tostig Godwinson soon after his arrival and comes back to London and King Edward with Tostig in chains, who is then executed by a convinced King Edward on charges of treason. King Edward (II) promptly gives most of his royal duties to Edward Etheling and declares him his heir. Meanwhile Harold has risen up in rebellion upon hearing of his brother's death, but only has those forces in Wessex and Essex loyal to him, so it only requires Edward to inspire his people and forces with a rousing speech on pledging the continuation of the House of Wessex that grants him a larger, more determined army than Harold's, and defeats him at the Battle of St. Albans where Harold is killed by an arrow in the eye.

Why would Tostig try to kill him? Why would Edward the Confessor give Edward Atheling most of his royal duties to Edward? Why would Harold rise up in rebellion on hearing of his brother's death?

The remaining male figures in the House of Godwinson are then executed for high treason (to prevent any pretenders and to rid England of Godwin's filth), and Harold's wife and children are all locked up (not in the White tower, that doesn't exist yet). Such is Edward's success and claim to the throne thereafter that his only remaining challenger to his authority is William of Normandy when he succeeds Edward the Confessor in January 1066 as Edward III Etheling...

"Godwin's filth"?! :confused:

Meanwhile, Edward would not be known as Edward III Atheling - firstly, referring to a king by Roman numerals is a (OTL) post conquest thing, secondly Atheling is a title equivalent to prince, so if he became King he'd be something like Edward the Old (He'd be fifty in 1066).
 
Holy wall of text Batman! Let's break this into managable chunks to comment on.

First thing:

Edward will live longer as well (since he's killed 2 days after he returns to England in 1057), and manages to convince Henry to let him go back to England in 1062 with an accompaniment of a Saxon merc guard. Since we know little of his actual personality let's say he's very competent, wise and practical ruler who would no sooner question the power of the Papacy then Henry IV later would.

1) Why would Henry III send a Saxon (as in Saxony I presume?) merc guard with Edward?

2) Why are we assuming he's a competent, wise, and practical ruler? I mean, what basis there for this?

He foils an attempt on his life by Tostig Godwinson soon after his arrival and comes back to London and King Edward with Tostig in chains, who is then executed by a convinced King Edward on charges of treason. King Edward (II) promptly gives most of his royal duties to Edward Etheling and declares him his heir. Meanwhile Harold has risen up in rebellion upon hearing of his brother's death, but only has those forces in Wessex and Essex loyal to him, so it only requires Edward to inspire his people and forces with a rousing speech on pledging the continuation of the House of Wessex that grants him a larger, more determined army than Harold's, and defeats him at the Battle of St. Albans where Harold is killed by an arrow in the eye.

Why would Tostig try to kill him? Why would Edward the Confessor give Edward Atheling most of his royal duties to Edward? Why would Harold rise up in rebellion on hearing of his brother's death?

The remaining male figures in the House of Godwinson are then executed for high treason (to prevent any pretenders and to rid England of Godwin's filth), and Harold's wife and children are all locked up (not in the White tower, that doesn't exist yet). Such is Edward's success and claim to the throne thereafter that his only remaining challenger to his authority is William of Normandy when he succeeds Edward the Confessor in January 1066 as Edward III Etheling...

"Godwin's filth"?! :confused:

Meanwhile, Edward would not be known as Edward III Atheling - firstly, referring to a king by Roman numerals is a (OTL) post conquest thing, secondly Atheling is a title equivalent to prince, so if he became King he'd be something like Edward the Old (He'd be fifty in 1066).
1 and 3.
Edward, who had been in the custody of Henry III, the Holy Roman Emperor, finally came back to England at the end of August 1057. But he died within two days of his arrival. The exact cause of Edward's death remains unclear, but he had many powerful enemies, and there is a strong possibility that he was murdered, although by whom is not known with any certainty. It is known, though, that his access to the king was blocked soon after his arrival in England for some unexplained reason, at a time when the Godwins, in the person of Harold Godwinson, were once again in the ascendant. This turn of events left the throne of England to be disputed by Earl Harold and Duke William, ultimately leading to the Norman Conquest of England.
I suspect that the Godwinsons had something to do with the untimely death of Edward Etheling OTL, so I decided to use this ploy to get rid of the Godwins. Don't they want the Throne to themselves? I also decided to give Edward an entourage with guards included in order to prevent his assassination ITTL.

2. There isn't any basis because I don't know what his reign would accomplish, so I gave him that personality to achieve his means. Is that improper storytelling and logic?
4. Medieval Propaganda at it's finest. :p
 
1 and 3. I suspect that the Godwinsons had something to do with the untimely death of Edward Etheling OTL, so I decided to use this ploy to get rid of the Godwins. Don't they want the Throne to themselves? I also decided to give Edward an entourage with guards included in order to prevent his assassination ITTL.

2. There isn't any basis because I don't know what his reign would accomplish, so I gave him that personality to achieve his means. Is that improper storytelling and logic?
4. Medieval Propaganda at it's finest. :p

1 & 3: Suspect based on what?

The Godwinsons were a powerful family, but I don't know why they'd necessarily murder or attempt to murder Edward the Exile.

And why you would give him an entourage is not the question. Why is Henry concerned to? Does he have reason to suspect Edward would be assassinated without one (and that such would be bad in some way he'd care about)?

2: Yes. Yes it is.

We're talking about a historical figure here. There's nothing wrong with "what if Edward the Exile was a potentially strong ruler?", but having him be one needs a basis other than "I want to write a timeline like this" - by the time he returns from exile, he's been in exile for most if not all of his life, which is rarely something that produces the qualities needed for a strong and capable ruler.

4: Propaganda put about because . . .

Seriously, this reads like "this is the kind of timeline I want to write, however much I have to run roughshod over in terms of people and events and ideas to do so".

An alt history writer can choose what course he takes at the forks of the river, but he doesn't control the river itself, so to speak. Things happen based on how the people in those positions would handle them, not how "If I was Edward the Confessor I'd have hot, steaming sex with Margaret (Edward's daughter) every night." - which makes only marginally less sense than having him all but abdicate in favor of Edward.
 
Auugh my head hurts so much from trying to piece this all together.

1. So you're implying that Edward merely caught the plague and died as soon as he left the ship? Wouldn't the Godwinsons try to pry the throne away from him?
2. So how would you go about writing this?
4. If I remove the part about Tostig getting executed and have Harold try to fight Edward over the Throne after his ascension (or not), this would become irrevalent.

This is really mind-tasking for my brain at the moment. It's hard.
 
Auugh my head hurts so much from trying to piece this all together.

1. So you're implying that Edward merely caught the plague and died as soon as he left the ship? Wouldn't the Godwinsons try to pry the throne away from him?
2. So how would you go about writing this?
4. If I remove the part about Tostig getting executed and have Harold try to fight Edward over the Throne after his ascension (or not), this would become irrevalent.

This is really mind-tasking for my brain at the moment. It's hard.

1: I'm implying that, according to your own freakin' source:

"The exact cause of Edward's death remains unclear" with no more than a "strong possibility" that he was murdered at all.

There are a dozen ways he could die that don't require anything more violent than a physician's ignorance of how to treat his illness. I'm not saying he wasn't murdered - just that having Tostig try it TTL needs a damn good reason.

And why would the Godwinsons try to pry the throne away from him?

2: Find out what the actual Edward was like as much as possible for starters.

4: Yes. And I would seriously hope you would.

The Godwinsons being the power behind the throne is much more interesting than wiping them out.
 
1: I'm implying that, according to your own freakin' source:

"The exact cause of Edward's death remains unclear" with no more than a "strong possibility" that he was murdered at all.

There are a dozen ways he could die that don't require anything more violent than a physician's ignorance of how to treat his illness. I'm not saying he wasn't murdered - just that having Tostig try it TTL needs a damn good reason.

And why would the Godwinsons try to pry the throne away from him?

2: Find out what the actual Edward was like as much as possible for starters.

4: Yes. And I would seriously hope you would.

The Godwinsons being the power behind the throne is much more interesting than wiping them out.
Hmmm...... that is interesting. You know what? That sounds better.

2. As said here, almost nothing is known about Edward's stay on the Continent, what he did, etc.
In spite of their importance for British history – and, due to Edward's marriage in exile, for the roots of the present royal family – virtually nothing is known about Edmund's and Edward's Continental tribulations or how they escaped with their lives in 1017. Yet the drama of saving the lives of the two tiny royal princes – Edmund was about one or two, Edward an infant – after their father was murdered, greatly exercised the imagination of chroniclers who rated it among the most momentous events of the eleventh century. It was left to this present investigation to uncover their trail and piece together their amazing career in exile.

Canute, aware of the political consequences of having the sons of the popular Ironside murdered in their own country, opted for the old Nordic tradition of murder by proxy. The sending of an embarrassing heir abroad with a 'letter of death', ordering his destruction on arrival at his destination, was a stratagem well known in the Middle Ages in Northern Europe. In the case of Canute, who had just taken over the whole of England, it offered a neat solution to possible succession troubles. Furthermore, it had already been tried out by Canute's own family: another king of Denmark, immortalised by Shakespeare, used a similar ploy when he sent Amleth (Hamlet) to England with a 'letter of death'.


Most of the twenty-nine near-contemporary Anglo-Norman chroniclers seem agreed that the Swedish king refused to play the role of executioner. So the aethelings escaped with their lives and, under the tutelage of Earl Walgar, a kindly Dane originally entrusted by Canute with the delicate task of disposing of the children, their odyssey in exile began.
And then it goes on a tangent about how impossible it would be for Edward to come to the court of Solomon, who wasn't even born yet, and similar inconsistencies on their rumored travels to Kiev. So let's say that Edward was under the custody of Henry III. Furthermore, he didn't have that much of a personality based upon his very long period of exile, so let's say he would make a moderately weak King.

1. As for Edward dying in 1057, I'm going to say it's probable that he simply died of an illness from his trip to England. So having Henry III living longer means that he'll stay in Germany longer, and that he'll come back to England later, per-say 1061. He doesn't die this time. He's proclaimed heir to the English throne, and succeeds his uncle Edward the Confessor upon his death in 1066. He may now be King Edward "The Old" of England, but the real power behind the throne is now in the hands of Harold Godwinson, whose family will dominate English politics for the next 50 years or so.

As for Tostig Godwinson...
Tostig appears to have governed in Northumbria with some difficulty. He was never popular with the Northumbrian ruling class, a mix of Danish invaders and Anglo Saxon survivors of the last Norse invasion. Tostig was said to have been heavy handed with those who resisted his rule, including the murder of several members of leading Northumbrian families. In late 1063 or early 1064, Tostig had Gamal, son of Orm and Ulf, son of Dolfin, assassinated when they visited him under safe conduct.[2] Also, the Vita Edwardi, otherwise sympathetic to Tostig, states that he had 'repressed [the Northumbrians] with the heavy yoke of his rule'.
He was also frequently absent at the court of King Edward in the south, and possibly showed a lack of leadership against the raiding Scots. Their king was a personal friend of Tostig, and Tostig's unpopularity made it difficult to raise local levies to combat them. He resorted to using a strong force of Danish mercenaries (housecarles) as his main force, an expensive and resented policy (the housecarles' leaders were later slaughtered by rebels). Local biases probably also played a part. Tostig was from the south of England, a distinctly different culture from the north, which had not had a southern earl in several lifetimes. In 1063, still immersed in the confused local politics of Northumbria, his popularity apparently plummeted. Many of the inhabitants of Northumbria were Danes, who had enjoyed lesser taxation than in other parts of England. Yet the wars in Wales, of which Tostig's constituents were principal beneficiaries, needed to be paid for. Tostig had been a major commander in these wars attacking in the north while his brother Harold marched up from the south.
On 3 October 1065, the thegns of Yorkshire and the rest of Yorkshire descended on York and occupied the city. They killed Tostig's officials and supporters, then declared Tostig outlawed for his unlawful actions and sent for Morcar, younger brother of Edwin, Earl of Mercia. The northern rebels marched south to press their case with King Edward. They were joined at Northampton by Earl Edwin and his forces. There, they were met by Earl Harold, who had been sent by King Edward to negotiate with them and thus did not bring his forces. After Harold, by then the king's right hand man, had spoken with the rebels at Northampton, he likely realized that Tostig would not be able to retain Northumbria. When he returned to Oxford, where the royal council was to meet on 28 October, he had probably already made up his mind.
Harold Godwinson persuaded the King Edward the Confessor to agree to the demands of the rebels. Tostig was outlawed a short time later, possibly early in November, because he refused to accept his deposition as commanded by Edward. This led to the fatal confrontation and enmity between the two Godwinsons. At a meeting of the king and his council, Tostig publicly accused Harold of fomenting the rebellion. Harold was keen to unify England in the face of the grave threat from William of Normandy, who had openly declared his intention to take the English throne. It was likely that Harold had exiled his brother to ensure peace and loyalty in the north. Tostig, however, remained unconvinced and plotted vengeance.
Tostig took ship with his family and some loyal thegns and took refuge with his brother-in-law, Count Baldwin V. He even attempted to form an alliance with William. Baldwin provided him with a fleet and he landed in the Isle of Wight in May 1066, where he collected money and provisions. He raided the coast as far as Sandwich but was forced to retreat when King Harold called out land and naval forces. He moved north and after an unsuccessful attempt to get his brother Gyrth to join him, he raided Norfolk and Lincolnshire. The Earls Edwin and Morcar defeated him decisively. Deserted by his men, he fled to his sworn brother, King Malcolm III of Scotland. Tostig spent the summer of 1066 in Scotland.
He made contact with King Harald III Hardrada of Norway and persuaded him to invade England. One of the sagas claims that he sailed for Norway, and greatly impressed the Norwegian king and his court, managing to sway a decidedly unenthusiastic Harald, who had just concluded a long and inconclusive war with Denmark, into raising a levy to take the throne of England. With Hardrada's aid, Tostig sailed up the Humber and defeated Morcar and Edwin at Gate Fulford.
It seems we'll be getting a Norwegian invasion of England after all...

When William hears that Edward Etheling has come back from exile, has become Edward's legitimate heir, and then proceeds to become King, he realizes that his chances of claiming the English throne are now minimal at best, and gives up his claim to that throne. Instead, he focuses his energy southwards and westwards and attacks Geoffry Martel of Anjou, his bitter rival and foe, and manages to depose him/kill him in battle, overrun Anjou and places his second son William as the new Duke. (plausible?) Further Norman energy is spent in Italy, where their hostility towards the pope will be crucial in the outcome of the Investiture Controversy...

So howabout now? Am I making progress?
 
Hmmm...... that is interesting. You know what? That sounds better.

2. As said here, almost nothing is known about Edward's stay on the Continent, what he did, etc.

And then it goes on a tangent about how impossible it would be for Edward to come to the court of Solomon, who wasn't even born yet, and similar inconsistencies on their rumored travels to Kiev. So let's say that Edward was under the custody of Henry III. Furthermore, he didn't have that much of a personality based upon his very long period of exile, so let's say he would make a moderately weak King.

Makes much more sense than a strong one.

When William hears that Edward Etheling has come back from exile, has become Edward's legitimate heir, and then proceeds to become King, he realizes that his chances of claiming the English throne are now minimal at best, and gives up his claim to that throne. Instead, he focuses his energy southwards and westwards and attacks Geoffry Martel of Anjou, his bitter rival and foe, and manages to depose him/kill him in battle, overrun Anjou and places his second son William as the new Duke. (plausible?) Further Norman energy is spent in Italy, where their hostility towards the pope will be crucial in the outcome of the Investiture Controversy...

So howabout now? Am I making progress?

Anjou at this time is a county, not a duchy. And I suspect there'd be a reaction to William placing his second son, Richard (William is his third son) as count.

And why is there more Norman migration down south? Not sure I follow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top