I know in his biography and the Bayeaux Tapestry he seems to be pro-Norman, wishing that his distant cousin William would take the throne but why the many claimants? Why didn't he just simply make it clearly known who he wanted as successor? And why did the Witan choose Harold after Edward's death if William wasn't the actual named successor? Was Eddy just trolling everyone? What was the truth with 1066?
>>18703573>but why the many claimants? Why didn't he just simply make it clearly known who he wanted as successor?It was likely just a balancing act to keep himself on the throne. The threat of William getting the throne keeps Godwin and his sons in line until he can figure out something better (either his own heir or what eventually happened his brother/nephew).>And why did the Witan choose Harold after Edward's death if William wasn't the actual named successor? He was (by what records survive) the most wealthiest and powerful man in England (apparently even wealthier by landholdings than Edward himself), and not only that an accomplished warlord in his own right.
>>18703573> why did the Witan choose HaroldYou answered it here:>he seems to be pro-NormanThe Anglo-Saxon nobles were well aware of Edward the Confessor's (who was half-Norman himself) sympathies towards Normans and everything Norman. So they picked the Anglo-Saxon who they thought could prevent Normans from taking over. To say it was William le Bastard who Norman-ized England would be a lie, because the process was begun with Edward.>why the many claimants?England was Europe's oldest unified kingdom, was the only kingdom to completely repeal viking invaders, and was very rich and taxable, so everyone wanted to sit on that throne. >Was Eddy just trolling everyone?I fully believe Edward wanted William as his heir and told William outright, because Edward was already in the process of putting Normans in positions of power, like the Archbishop of Canterbury. I fully believe Edward knew this would anger the Anglo-Saxons earls, possibly leading to civil war. I think he died without wanting to piss either side off and let them figure it out
>>18703573Wasn't he a homo?
>>18703573>What was the truth with 1066?The Godwins had no royal blood, therefore no legitimacy to be king, unless Edwards wife (a godwin) had given birth (very difficult as Edward had taken a vow of chastity)William, despite being a Bastard, had royal blood and more importantly had the backing of the Pope making him the most legitimate candidate for King of England.
>>18703780William didn't have royal blood either.
>>18703732It's either that, he was genuinely religious, or he was seething about Godwin's potential role in his dumbass brother being blinded that he abstained from fucking Godwin's daughter to mess with Godwin
>>18703780If Godwinson had been secured and the Witan was cemented as being above dynastic blood, English and all European institutional development would be catapulted more than half a millennium forward
>>18703573Dormit? Minime! Defunctus est.
>>18703786William was the Duke of Normandy because he had royal blood, they dont just hand over feudal possessions to any bastard.
>>18705177Which specific English king founded the duchy of Normandy
>>18705191Only Charlemange, Emperor of Western Rome and GermanyUnlike the Godwins who were minor landed gentry.
>>18705198Nope, try again
>>18703573>Why didn't he just simply make it clearly known who he wanted as successor?He did, multiple times in fact. He openly named Edgar his heir and his son on multiple occasions. >And why did the Witan choose Harold after Edward's death if William wasn't the actual named successor?The Witan hadn't had any real elective power for over 200 years by that point, nor have they ever elected a non-dynastic heir. Even Harold didn't care for the opinions of the Witan, he proclaimed his legitimacy based on Edward calling him king. Harold had effectively usurped the throne during Edwards last days and he had no real competition that could oppose his usurpation as he had amassed extreme amounts of power and exiled all of his rivals, including Edgar. The truth of the matter is more likely that both Harold and William were lying, why would Edward sideline his heir, secretly and at the very last moment for either of them? Both of their claims are based on Edward secretly telling them they were his heir and only show up after his death. >>18703732No. He actively tried to have a child, and at one point they were expecting one and donated heavily to the Church for prayers for children. Only after years of trying and failing did Edward 'give up' in a sense to invite his relatives back to England to continue the line for him.>>18703780>(very difficult as Edward had taken a vow of chastity)There is no evidence he did this.>William, despite being a Bastard, had royal blood William was unrelated to the Wessex line. He had about as much legitimacy as Harold did, that is to say none.
>>18705224>had about as much legitimacy as Harold did, that is to say none.The Pope had called out for William, he had the backing of the medieval supreme court
>>18705242The papacy never determined the legal succession of even the Frankish kings, the English never sent legal matters to Rome, the Pope did not make somebody more legitimate by any measure of English custom. It hardly did even when these disputes were sent to them when the Normans ruled.
>>18705250William secured a papal bull from Pope Alexander II, framing the invasion as a righteous cause against a perjurer (Harold)
