RE: The Norman Conquest of England is a bs narrative
September 3, 2021 at 10:59 am
(This post was last modified: September 3, 2021 at 11:07 am by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(September 2, 2021 at 10:29 pm)theablekingathelstan Wrote: This is something I've been thinking for a few years.
I don't get the common narrative of the Norman Conquest, since there are holes in it.
The Bayeux Tapestry (which is actually an embroidery) was commissioned by the Normans. Like it's gonna be objective, right?
William said that King St. Edward the Confessor promised him the throne. I say bullshit. It wasn't his to promise, because the throne passed to the next eligible male relative of the king in the Anglo-Saxon system.
And the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles contradict the Tapestry. So which is right or wrong?
just a concocted narrative really.
What specific conflicts between the depictions on the Tapestry and the story in the Chronicle are giving you trouble?
Incidentally, while royal Anglo-Saxon succession generally was by primogeniture, there are instances of the Witenagemot both electing and deposing kings (although both systems necessarily take a backseat to an angry Frenchman with a sizable army).
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
