2 of 3

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 4

around at the time of the battles of 1066 between those great and historically well-remebered characters Harald Hardrada, William of Normandy and King Harold II. Indeed after Harold II's death at Hastings Londoners had even made him King of England (even though he was only recognised as such in London). William burnt all the villages around London to warn of what he'd do to them if they didn't capitulate. King Edgar, after just a few days in the top job, appeared and bowed to King William (whom he recognised as such) and demoted himself to Prince Edgar (a wise move in the circumstances) and so was allowed to live. Incidentally this is why any true Londoner like me will never refer to William of Normandy as William the C- : our pride doesn't allow us to acknowledge that he conquered London, even if he did the rest of the country: we like to say he "negotiated hos way in".Edgar had no children and so the true line of succession went to his sister, Margaret, who married King Malcolm IV, King of Scots. Thereafter, therefore, the Scottish kings were the true kings of England.Now, if King Harold II had lived, he would have passed the kingdom onto either Harold Junior or his other son Ulf. There would have been a totally different line of succession. Would that line ever have re-merged with Alfred the Great's direct line? Who knows. Maybe it would have kept the true Saxon line out forever. Ironically it was the conquest by William which eventually let the true Wessex line back in again.How did that happen? Well, the true William of Normandy line ran smoothly until the Wars of the Roses in the 15th century. Richard, Duke of York was never crowned king but was the rightful heir if you follow Duke William's line down from the 11th century to the 15th. That would make his eldest son, Edward, next true "Williamite" inheritor, wouldn't it? Wrong: evidence has come to light recently that Richard, Duke of York disappeared eleven months before his "son"'s birth and didn't re-appear until far too late to have conceived him. Does this mean young Edward was in his mother's womb for eleven months? Unlikely. His "father" hardly acknowledged his birth but threw a huge party for the birth of their "second" son, George. When Edward did become king as Edward IV, even other kings referred to him, when angered, by the name of an archer who was widely believed to be his real father. So if Edward IV was illegitimate it means he wasn't the rightful Williamite heir. Neither, then, was his

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about The legacy of the Battle of Hastings?
We want to hear your view. Write now!