Causes of Norman Conquest

Model answer

Harald Hardrada's claim was based on an agreement between King Magnus of Norway and Harthacnut that if either died without an heir the other would inherit his kingdom; Hardrada had succeeded Magnus, so he claimed to have inherited that right. It also drew on the tradition of Scandinavian rule in England, since Cnut and his sons had ruled England from 1016 to 1042.

Model answer

Harold's visit to Normandy was important above all because of the oath he swore there. After being captured by Count Guy of Ponthieu and handed over to William, Harold joined William's campaign in Brittany and was given arms by him. The Bayeux Tapestry then shows him swearing an oath on holy relics at Bayeux, and William of Poitiers says that he swore to support William's succession to the English throne. This gave William a second basis for his claim on top of the promise he said Edward had made in 1051.

Secondly, the oath turned the succession into a moral and religious issue. When Harold took the crown in January 1066, the Normans could present him as a perjurer who had broken an oath sworn on relics. This was important in winning the support of Pope Alexander II, who sent William a papal banner, and in persuading Norman barons and volunteers from Brittany and Flanders that the invasion was a just cause. The oath was central to Norman propaganda after 1066, as the prominent oath scene on the Bayeux Tapestry shows.

Thirdly, the visit is important because its purpose is disputed, which affects how strong William's case really was. Norman writers say Edward sent Harold to confirm the promise to William, but the English monk Eadmer says Harold went to free his brother Wulfnoth and nephew Hakon, who were hostages in Normandy, and only Hakon came home. If Harold was in William's power and swore under pressure, the oath had less force, and in England the Witan's choice and Edward's deathbed nomination mattered more.

These consequences were linked: without the oath William would have found it much harder to win papal backing and to recruit an army, so the visit did much to turn William's claim into an invasion in 1066.

Model answer

Interpretation A is convincing about Edgar's royal descent. Edgar was the son of Edward the Exile and the grandson of Edmund Ironside, who had been king in 1016, which made him Edward the Confessor's great-nephew and the last male of the house of Wessex descended from Alfred the Great. The title 'aetheling' marked him as a prince who was eligible for the throne. The interpretation is also right that Edward brought Edgar's father home: in 1054 he sent Bishop Ealdred to arrange the return of Edward the Exile, who came from Hungary in 1057, and this does suggest that Edward wanted his own family line to continue. It is also true that Harold had no royal blood, and that his family's ambition had shaped English politics since the 1040s. After Harold was killed at Hastings, the Witan in London chose Edgar as king, which shows that his right was respected.

However, the interpretation is less convincing because it assumes a rule of inheritance by blood that did not exist in Anglo-Saxon England. A new king needed royal blood, but also the dying king's nomination, the Witan's approval and the ability to rule. We cannot know that Edward recalled Edward the Exile 'precisely' to continue the line, and after Edward the Exile died in 1057 the king did not clearly name Edgar. On his deathbed, according to the Life of King Edward, he commended the kingdom to Harold instead. Edgar was only about 14, had grown up in Hungary, and had no lands, army or powerful supporters. With William and Harald Hardrada both threatening invasion, the Witan had good reason to choose an experienced war leader, so saying that 'ambitious men put their own interests first' is too simple. Even after Hastings, Edgar's supporters did not fight for him, and he submitted to William at Berkhamsted.

Overall, Interpretation A is convincing that Edgar had the best claim by blood, but unconvincing in treating blood as the only test of a lawful king and in blaming the nobles' ambition for setting him aside.

Model answer

I partly agree that Edward was responsible for the crisis of 1066, because his lack of children and the contradictory signals he gave about his heir created several rival claims. However, I do not think he was mainly responsible, because the crisis became violent through the ambitions and decisions of others, and because the Anglo-Saxon system of choosing kings made a dispute likely whenever a king died without a son.

Edward's responsibility begins with his childlessness. He married Edith, Earl Godwin's daughter, in 1045, but they had no children, so there was no son to succeed him. He then appears to have changed his mind about his heir more than once. Norman writers say that in 1051, while the Godwins were in exile, he promised the throne to his cousin William, with whom he had strong links after about 25 years of exile in Normandy. In 1054, however, he sent Bishop Ealdred to bring Edward the Exile home from Hungary; when Edward the Exile died in 1057, he did not clearly name Edward the Exile's son, Edgar. Finally, according to the Life of King Edward, he commended the kingdom to Harold on his deathbed. As a result, by 1066 William, Edgar and Harold could all claim that their right came from Edward. Edward also allowed Godwin hostages to end up in Normandy, which led to Harold's visit and oath in about 1064.

However, other factors were at least as important. The first is the system itself. There was no fixed rule of succession in Anglo-Saxon England: royal blood, the dying king's nomination, the Witan's choice and power all counted, so a king without a son was almost bound to leave rival claimants. Secondly, the Godwin family's power limited Edward's choices. After they forced their way back in 1052, Harold, Earl of Wessex from 1053, dominated the kingdom; by 1066 it was hardly possible to pass him over, especially when Edgar was only about 14.

Thirdly, the claimants' own decisions turned a dispute into a crisis. Harold accepted the crown on 6 January 1066 despite his oath to William, which allowed William to call him a perjurer and win the support of Pope Alexander II. William's ambition was crucial: he was an experienced warlord who had conquered Maine in 1063 and was determined to take the crown, building a fleet of about 700 ships. Harald Hardrada's claim had nothing to do with Edward at all; it came from an agreement between Magnus of Norway and Harthacnut in the 1030s. Hardrada was encouraged by Tostig, whose exile in 1065 came from the Northumbrians' revolt rather than from Edward's wishes - indeed Edward had wanted to fight the rebels.

Overall, Edward was responsible for creating the conditions of the crisis, because his childlessness and changing promises gave several men a claim. But he was not mainly responsible for the crisis of 1066, because the lack of clear succession rules, the power of the Godwins and, above all, the ambition of Harold, William, Hardrada and Tostig turned an uncertain succession into three invasions and three battles.