Source:

http://www.medievalists.net/2015/04/william-of-normandys-claim-to-the-english-thro
ne-examining-the-evidence/

By Jacob Deacon.

William of Normandy had no legal claim to the English throne. Edward’s deathbed
bequeathal of the kingdom to Harold Godwineson superseded his earlier promise to
William, the primary cause of which was to strengthen his rule with a Norman alliance,
not to grant the throne to a foreigner. Norman chroniclers have emphasised the
relationship between Edward and William in order to strengthen his claim, yet
discrepancies in their accounts mean they have been found wanting. However, what
ultimately mattered was not Edward’s promise but whether William had the force of
arms necessary to conquer England. In this regard the primary aspect of William’s
claim became that of right of conquest, the right he won through victory at the Battle of
Hastings.

Although there is a wealth of source material regarding William of Normandy’s claim

to the English throne, due to constraints on time and space this research will be
primarily limited to the following sources; The Gesta Guillelmi, William of Jumieges’
and Orderic Vitalis’ contributions to The Gesta Normannorum Ducum, The Bayeux
Tapestry, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and the Vita Ædwardi Regis. I have chosen to
include these and not twelfth century sources as I feel their closeness to events makes
them more qualified as ‘evidence’ for William’s claim. There are also some aspects of
the debate which, whilst I feel are relevant, have also been omitted, primarily the
legitimacy of Harold’s coronation, and the strength of William’s claim against that of
Harald Hadrada.

William of Normandy was not the first man to be promised the throne by Edward the
Confessor. In 1042 Edward seems to have given his word on this matter to Swein
Estrithson when England was under threat from King Magnus of Norway.[1] The
situation was not altogether different in 1051 when Edward had exiled Earl Godwin and
his sons and once again found himself in need of a powerful ally.[2] In this case Edward
sought out support from William of Normandy at the advice of Robert of Jumiéges, his
Norman Archbishop of Canterbury, who more than likely relayed the promise to
William.[3] The reoccurrence of granting a future crown in return for an alliance is
evidence that Edward was not genuine about either of these promises, and would later
go on to adopt other heirs as it suited him. Furthermore, the dating of both these
promises have proved problematic to historians hoping to argue that Edward wanted
William to succeed him. It is unlikely that Edward would have been preparing for his
death in 1051 when his promise was issued, as there was still a possibility that he would
produce an heir.[4] In later years when it appeared more likely that he would die
childless, he decided to entrust the throne to Edward the Æthling, who had returned to
England in 1054. If he had truly meant for William to succeed him there was nothing to
be gained by inviting the Æthling back to England; this would only cause problems
with Normandy. It seems much more likely that Edward meant for the Æthling to
succeed him, his death in 1057 transferring this inheritance to his son Edgar.

Whether or not Edward’s promise of the throne to William was genuine, it was later
certainly made irrelevant by Edward’s deathbed will. Beckerman has highlighted how
in eleventh century England it was customary that a promise relating to inheritance
made in one’s final moments was the more valid, superseding and revoking previous
promises.[5] This was different to Normandy, where tradition stated that the first grant
was `irrevocable`.[6] Although it is understandable why William, raised with this
tradition, felt as his he had a stronger claim than Harold, it would make no sense that the
issue of the English throne should be resolved using Norman traditions. One may argue
that Harold’s oath to William prevents him from accepting the crown, but Beckerman
argues that the testamentary custom also freed Harold from his promise.[7]
Furthermore, even if one was to accept Norman custom, William’s claim would still be
invalid due to the earlier supposed promise of the throne to Swein, as theorised by
Bouet and Neveux. However, a problem inherent in this argument that Edward
intended Harold to succeed him is present in Edward’s supposed final words; `I
commend all the kingdom to your protection.`[8] This is clearly open to multiple
interpretations; Harold may be designated king by Edward, or he may simply be given
the task of protecting the realm until the next king can be crowned. Either way, when
viewed in conjunction with the above arguments, it becomes clear that Edward
intended either Edgar or Harold to succeed him as king, not William.

One of the primary reasons for the longstanding arguments that William was Edward’s
chosen heir is the considerable support he enjoys from several Norman sources.
However, one must consider their motivations for writing. William of Potiers wrote his
Gesta Guillelmi in order to show William in the `best possible light`, and there are
several instances of this in his work.[9] Orderic Vitalis similarly claimed that both
William of Poiters and William of Jumiéges were writing in order to curry favour.[10]
This is clear is William’s own words, especially after he admits that he wishes in no
way to seem displeasing to his lord, who he served as his personal chaplain.[11] From
early on William is keen to show how his duke possesses the virtues required to be
king; he protects the Church, upholds the weak, and imposes laws which are not
burdensome.[12] At the same time William is eager to cast aspersions on Harold and
his claim. He is king `against law and right`, and is the `most abominable of men` after
reneging on his `most sacrosanct oath`.[13] He also stresses how William ruled by
hereditary designation, stating how it was `well known` that he and Edward were
related by `close ties`, but conveniently ignores that there were still several surviving
claimants with a closer relationship to the deceased king, such as his nephew
Ralph.[14] On the whole a praise biography such as the Gesta Guillelmi is unlikely to
provide an objective view on the issue of the succession, but does show how Norman
chroniclers emphasized the distant blood-ties between Edward and William in order to
strengthen his claim.
William of Jumieges’ Gesta Normannorum Ducum fares little better when it comes to
seeing what William’s actual case was in 1066. William states that Edward sent Harold
to William of Normandy with the express purpose of swearing fealty concerning his
crown and to pledge it by oath.[15] If Edward did this then it would be clear proof that
he did indeed intend William to become king, yet there are problems with this idea of
Harold setting out to swear fealty to William. Only Norman sources ever allude to
Harold’s oath; the issue is never raised by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, for example.
One would imagine that an issue as important as Edward designating an heir would be
recorded, and their silence suggests that this oath was never supposed to happen. One
must bear in mind that both of these sources were written in hindsight, with William
already having gained the crown; no Norman writer alluded to his claims in a source
produced before 1066.[16] The dating of the writings of Norman chroniclers would
therefore infer that their arguments were constructed after William had gained the
throne, and wanted to seem like a legitimate ruler. It was also much easier to enforce his
claim after he had defeated his main rival.

The Bayeux Tapestry is likewise vague when it comes to determining the fact of the
matter. In the first scene when Edward sends Harold abroad it is not expressly clear
what his purpose is; of course it is possible that he was sent to Duke William but there
are several reasons why this is not actually the case.[17] Mason, for example, argues
that Harold’s landing in Ponthieu is proof that he did not set out for Normandy, and that
when swearing his oath to William he was clearly under constraint; he had to take the
safety of himself, his men, and William’s hostages in to account.[18] Similar views are
shared by Lewis, who convincingly states that Edgar’s presence in England made it
unlikely that Harold was sent to swear fealty, but if this was the case, William would
have been entrusted with higher status hostages.[19]

Despite the forcefulness with which the Gestas argue William’s claim they seem to be
missing a vital piece of evidence. In the D chronicle of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle there
is a reference to `duke William from beyond the sea with a great retinue of Frenchmen`
coming to visit Edward.[20] However, this is the only source we have which mentions
this visit. Surely if this visit did take place, which historians have argued was the
occasion when Edward promised the throne to William in person, then the Norman
chroniclers would have used it as evidence of their lord’s claim to the English throne.
Although later historians have used this visit to support claims that Edward intended the
throne to go to William, its unique existence in the D chronicle would suggest that it is
in fact an interpolation, added later on by another hand.[21] Yet this allusion to
William’s visit, the true purpose of which is never revealed, is the only mention in any
of the English sources regarding William’s claim.

The silence of the various authors of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is further proof that
Edward did not intend William to wear the crown. They instead refer to William’s
landing as an `invasion`, suggesting that it was an act of a hostile foreign aggressor, not
the true king come to claim his crown.[22] The only real piece of evidence that supports
William’s claim to the throne from an English perspective comes from Edward’s
widow, Edith. According to the Gesta Guillelmi Edith `wished William to rule over the
English, since her husband had chosen him as his successor by adoption`.[23] Edith’s
motivation behind her support of William, much like that of the Norman chroniclers,
can also be called in to question. After the Battle of Hastings she was at the mercy of
William the Conqueror. If she wanted to retain her status and her wealth the best
possible way to appease the new king was to publicly support his claim to the throne of
her deceased husband.

Despite these problems with the accounts of William’s supporters, his legal claim to the
throne is not what won him the crown. In September 1066 William landed in England
with an army of 7000 soldiers.[24] From this moment on the legality of his claim
became purely academic; what mattered now was whether he could assert his claim
through force of arms. With his victory at the Battle of Hastings, William’s claim was
now primarily through right of conquest. What mattered now was might, not law.[25]
Further evidence of this comes from the fact that even after Harold had been killed in
battle William was still not the preferred candidate; the Witanagemot chose to elect
Edgar the Æthling in his stead.[26] The abandonment of his candidacy in the face of
Norman military might, however, reinforces claims that William claimed his throne
through right of conquest. Chroniclers were not unaware of this either; William of
Poitiers in his account of William’s coronation states, for example, that William held
England `through right of conquest` in addition to Edward’s bequeathal.[27] It should
however be mentioned that there was nothing unusual about this; Sweyn Forkbeard and
his descendants ruled for much of the eleventh century owing to his military
incursions.[28]

Although there are several difficulties when it comes to assessing the legal strength of
William’s claim to the English throne, these issues are not as important as historians
have argued. Between the death of Edward the Confessor and William’s coronation
what mattered the most was the ability to use military force to uphold a claim, an ability
in which William was unrivalled by his competitors. Without this, William’s claim
would have led to nothing. With it, he was able to remove all opposition to his rule,
leaving him as the only claimant. It was only after this that Norman chroniclers were
able to stress the relationship between Edward and William, emphasizing that he had
been promised the throne and Harold had usurped it. It is of course important to note
that this was not a new method of claiming the throne; several previous kings had come
to power through force of arms, and William’s claim was further made possible by
Edward’s shifting decisions about who would eventually succeed him, leaving no-one
with a solid claim to the English throne.