Washington Named Britain's Greatest Foe

[crazy canuck]

and that's in the "official" Norman version. 

I guess there were enough people in England who would have realized Harold would never have sworn such an oath that the Normans realized some story had to be created to explain such rather odd behaviour.

[grumbler]

You don't rule Normandy by being fair.

  Normandy was part of the realm of the Philip the Fair.  Can't get much more fair than having "the fair" as your nickname.

[Valmy]

I guess there were enough people in England who would have realized Harold would never have sworn such an oath that the Normans realized some story had to be created to explain such rather odd behaviour.

The story was concoted though for French and Papal consumption not English consumption.  It was the reason William was able to get his support.

I am not clear why you seem so determined to show the story was concoted later to justify something to the Saxons.

[Valmy]

  Normandy was part of the realm of the Philip the Fair.  Can't get much more fair than having "the fair" as your nickname.

Different sort of fair

[garbon]

For what it is worth here is what wiki has to say about it

Historians have puzzled over Edward's intentions for the succession since William of Malmesbury in the early twelfth century. One school of thought supports the Norman case that Edward always intended William the Conqueror to be his heir, accepting the medieval claim that Edward had already decided to be celibate before he married, but most historians believe that he hoped to have an heir by Edith at least until his quarrel with Godwin in 1051. William may have visited Edward during Godwin's exile, and he is thought to have promised William the succession at this time, but historians disagree how seriously he meant the promise, and whether he later changed his mind.

And Harold's page says this, so clearly wiki isn't very useful on this:

In 1064, Harold was apparently shipwrecked in Ponthieu. There is much speculation about this voyage. The earliest post-conquest Norman chroniclers report that at some prior time, Robert, Archbishop of Canterbury had been sent by King Edward to appoint as his heir Edward's maternal kinsman, William of Normandy, and that at this later date Harold was sent to swear fealty. Scholars disagree as to the reliability of this story. William, at least, seems to have believed he had been offered the succession, but there must have been some confusion either on William's part or perhaps by both men, since the English succession was neither inherited nor determined by the sitting monarch. Instead the Witenagemot, the assembly of the kingdom's leading notables, would convene after a king's death to select a successor. Other acts of Edward are inconsistent with his having made such a promise, such as his efforts to return his nephew Edward the Exile, son of king Edmund Ironside, from Hungary in 1057. Later Norman chroniclers suggest alternative explanations for Harold's journey, that he was seeking the release of members of his family who had been held hostage since Godwin's exile in 1051, or even that he had simply been travelling along the English coast on a hunting and fishing expedition and had been driven across the channel by an unexpected storm. There is general agreement that he left from Bosham, and was blown off course, landing on the coast of Ponthieu. He was captured by Count Guy I of Ponthieu, and was then taken hostage to the count's castle at Beaurain, 24 1/2 km up the River Canche from where it meets the English Channel at what is now Le Touquet. Duke William arrived soon after and ordered Guy to turn Harold over to him. Harold then apparently accompanied William to battle against William's enemy, Conan II, Duke of Brittany. While crossing into Brittany past the fortified abbey of Mont St Michel, Harold is recorded as rescuing two of William's soldiers from the quicksand. They pursued Conan from Dol de Bretagne to Rennes, and finally to Dinan, where he surrendered the fortress's keys on the point of a lance. William presented Harold with weapons and arms, knighting him. The Bayeux Tapestry, and other Norman sources, then record that Harold swore an oath on sacred relics to William to support his claim to the English throne. After Harold's death, the Normans were quick to point out that in accepting the crown of England, Harold had perjured himself of this alleged oath.

[grumbler]

The story was concoted though for French and Papal consumption not English consumption.  It was the reason William was able to get his support.

I am not clear why you seem so determined to show the story was concoted later to justify something to the Saxons.

Indeed.  One wonders what the motive was for including the "hidden relics" tidbit; it seems unnecessary.

[mongers]

When I learned about the battle of Hastings as a child, the story about the oath didn't ring true, it reminded me of the sort of lie other children told to 'justify' them stealing something or that it always/really belonged to them. 

[Valmy]

When I learned about the battle of Hastings as a child, the story about the oath didn't ring true, it reminded me of the sort of lie other children told to 'justify' them stealing something or that it always/really belonged to them. 

Well the Godwin family had a similarly weak story.  Really the only person that, by monarchy standards anyway, had a good claim to the throne was Edgar Atheling but he was young and had no soldiers to back him up.

[crazy canuck]

I guess there were enough people in England who would have realized Harold would never have sworn such an oath that the Normans realized some story had to be created to explain such rather odd behaviour.

The story was concoted though for French and Papal consumption not English consumption.  It was the reason William was able to get his support.

I am not clear why you seem so determined to show the story was concoted later to justify something to the Saxons.

I am not sure why you think Saxons who new a more blatant story was untrue would not have influenced French or Papal opinion.  Even a big lie has to have some grounding in plausability.  If even the most easily influenced would have understood a person in Harold's position would never have willingly sworn the oath then of course some trick needs to explain all that away.

[Valmy]

I am not sure why you think Saxons who new a more blatant story was untrue would not have influenced French or Papal opinion.  Even a big lie has to have some grounding in plausability.  If even the most easily influenced would have understood a person in Harold's position would never have willingly sworn the oath then of course some trick needs to explain all that away.

So if Hardrada had won he would have felt the need of inventing some story to win over the Saxons?  Besides the Saxons did not need a convincing story, they accepted the Godwin's claim that Edward had appointed Harold his successor on his deathbed.

[CountDeMoney]

You don't rule Normandy by being fair.

That's Ed Anger's approach.

[crazy canuck]

So if Hardrada had won he would have felt the need of inventing some story to win over the Saxons?  Besides the Saxons did not need a convincing story, they accepted the Godwin's claim that Edward had appointed Harold his successor on his deathbed.

I have no idea what you are on about.  This is either the worst analogy since the last time Marti posted here or you have lost the thread of the conversation.

Focus on this part.   The Norman's themselves say Harold was tricked.  Why was that?

[Malthus]

So if Hardrada had won he would have felt the need of inventing some story to win over the Saxons?  Besides the Saxons did not need a convincing story, they accepted the Godwin's claim that Edward had appointed Harold his successor on his deathbed.

I have no idea what you are on about.  This is either the worst analogy since the last time Marti posted here or you have lost the thread of the conversation.

Focus on this part.   The Norman's themselves say Harold was tricked.  Why was that?

Well, to be fair, he was "tricked" about there being relics, not into making the oath in the first place (according to the "Offical Norman" version).

I guess the Normans' point being he was willing to swear falsely - and the Normans knew it - but they "tricked" him into making a much more solemly-religiously binding oath than he intended.

A sort of 'if he had nothing to hide, he shouldn't be bothered by it' approach.

Anyway, it is pretty obvious that if he made such an oath it was hardly willing. 

[Valmy]

I have no idea what you are on about.  This is either the worst analogy since the last time Marti posted here or you have lost the thread of the conversation.

Focus on this part.   The Norman's themselves say Harold was tricked.  Why was that?

I was not making an analogy at all.  My whole point was that there was no need, once he won, to justify anything.  He only had this oath thing to get the French and the Church on his side.

They did so to show how clever William was to fool the dastardly Harold, who was going to lie to him, to seal his false oath with holy relics.

[crazy canuck]

My whole point was that there was no need, once he won, to justify anything.  He only had this oath thing to get the French and the Church on his side.

Wait a minute, he didnt have to justify anything but he had to get the French and Church "on his side".  Seems to me that requires him to produce a justification.