image by Nadine Doerle on pixabay
I don’t suppose the average Joe in the street gives thought to this, far more concerned with football results, rising prices, Climate Change, the increase in positive Covid tests and whether Blundering Boris will fall off a figurative cliff before or after the next election.
But for a few of us this endures, exquisitely, annoyingly totally unanswerable: Did William (the Bastard) Duke of Normandy truly have right to the English throne?
The ink, the paper, the hours, the reputations this question has cost us.
84 words written for Sammi’s Weekend Writing Prompt: Question
crispina kemp 
Ok, I haven’t thought about that, so did he?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know. No one does. The evidence used to prove his right is exactly the same evidence as that used to disprove it. In other words, the evidence is inconclusive
LikeLiked by 2 people
😕
LikeLike
Harsh words about undeniable truths then and now
LikeLiked by 1 person
Harsh? Academic words only
LikeLike
William the conqueror?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Won Battle of Hastings in 1066 to become the English king despite he had no real legitimate claim
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since when has that ever stopped anybody? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have read his account, fictionalized in Georgette Heyer’s book by this name.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That he was promised the throne by Edward Confessor. Yet no note was made of this at the time, not either side of the Channel. And English law required that the Witan approved the choice. Nothing was recorded. That’s the major argument against. His lineage for the throne was through his grandfather’s sister who had been Ethelward’s queen, and mother of Edward
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very complicated situation
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which has fired so many discussions. And people do get very heated on it. Myself included.
LikeLike
Haha! Lot of heat over bygone issues
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of interest only to historians
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, but even if they reach a decision, it won’t change anything. History is full of humungous mistakes
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s true. And there’s even a question over whether our present queen is legitimate because of events during War of Roses back in C15th
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s probably 50 years too late! Perhaps a few centuries.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few centuries. The *real* heir to the throne has been traced to a chap in Australia. Who doesn’t want the position, thank you very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha! Very wise of him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
What kind of annoys me is since William Conqueror took the throne no English person has owned their land. All is on freehold from the Crown. Not a lot of people realise that. The Crown owns England… thanks to William; it was a change he brought in
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s time for people to get rid of royalty and covert to a simple democracy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet our royalty brings in foreign exchange, and a hell of an income, and contrary to popular misconceptions the British taxpayer doesn’t pay for them. They have sufficient real estate and investments to be thoroughly self sufficient… AND pay taxes. Moreover, they are our defence against a non-Christian takeover.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well as long as you guys are happy with your queen or king, who are we to say otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh there are lots are not. But that’s cos they’re uninformed
LikeLiked by 1 person
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
An afterthought, we are a democracy. The Queen might *open Parliament* and agree changes, but to date there’s been no interference. The queen does not rule in any form, except to maintain Church of England as the main religion of the country,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh I know that. We inherited that system from the British when the left subcontinent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmmm …. never thought about it …. then again, I’m in the US. Should I have pondered this question?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was told by an American (with PhD) that in American schools they’re taught that William I was the first English king. Not so. Not so by 200 yrs. But then we Brits are crap on American history, and that doesn’t start till 500 yrs ago
LikeLiked by 2 people
🙂
LikeLike
Yup, absolutely. Only history buffs would ask this question. Like anyone interested in a special subject would muse and deeply think about questions only interesting to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Such as me. Me first experience of Twitter back in 2018 was to debate/discuss/argue this question with a *recognised authority* on the subject. That is how to make an entrance!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ohoho, that must have been something! 😀 Frankly, Twitter scares me. I mostly lurk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I try not to get into arguments these days!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s actually a question I do ponder living as I do near the place Willy the Conc’s army came ashore and close to Battle of Hastings battlefield! There are reminders everywhere, Norman castles, churches et al!
LikeLiked by 2 people
But evidence of the Norman settlement… which no one denies… is not evidence of his legitimate claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A legitimate question and every once in a a while it haunts me: actually no, being the philistine that I am. I like your take on this prompt though. I never did like his treatment of Matilda.
pax,
dora
LikeLike
So many more questions to be asked, eh? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
A most excellent question, Crispina! Which has now given everyone homework to do, lol! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like to be thought provoking!
LikeLike
A question for those who love to dig deep… Most interesting response, Ms Crisp!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. And you know, I do love to dig & delve
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes. I lie awake many nights wondering and worrying. The true facts will certainly change everything. 🙂
LikeLike
The true facts will not change a thing. Unless it’s that a portion of the English population won’t sneer so often at the French. Old grudges linger and dig deep
LikeLiked by 1 person
None sneer with heartfelt sincerity and bitter passion of the French. 🙂 Why do I love them so? Stay well, Crispina.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you, Bill
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was reported by Fox News. Make of that what you will!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh well, it can’t be true, then 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
When Mike Ashley did his encyclopedic “British Kings & Queens” back in 1998, it was obvious that he judged the reigns of the earlier rulers by whether they held power, the later by whether they had a legitimate right. Willy-boy comes in the middle grade: Ashley didn’t date his reign from Hastings but vaguely from “late November/early December,” apparently treating the submission of the Atheling as the start of William’s legitimacy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hastings wasn’t the real decider. There were many rebellions. The English did not want him. He wasn’t exactly voted in on a majority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Strictly speaking, neither was Boris Johnson. Which got me wondering. Turns out, unless I’ve overlooked something, the last time a Prime Minister was elected with over 50% voting for his party was in 1935, and that was Baldwin’s coalition government.
LikeLike
Pingback: Exquisitely, Annoyingly, Totally Unanswerable – Nelsapy