His claim to be king, however, rested upon Edward the Confessor's alleged
deathbed conferral of the kingdom upon Harold.
Edward's alleged promises of the throne to William of Normandy and Harold of
Wessex were akin in their designative force to the anticipatory coronation
of royal heirs in France, which the Capetians practiced for several
centuries. Essentially what happened in France was that the king designated
his son as his heir; the barons signified their acceptance of that
designation and the heir was then crowned in his father's lifetime.
William and Harold in 1066 both advanced the claim that they had been
designated heirs by Edward the Confessor. Harold was on-site and immediately
got the Witan to confirm him as king, after which he was crowned on the day
of Edward's funeral. William then had to invade England to make good his
claim. Once he had defeated and killed Harold, the Witan confirmed him and
he was crowned.
So when we look at France and England the situation is roughly the same.
The reigning king designates an heir; an assembly, whether of titled
noblemen (France) or of elders (England) then confirms the king's
designation and the designated heir is crowned.
As to Edward's right to choose his heir, the king was essentially free to
make whatever disposition of the kingdom he wished, so long as the Witan
confirmed his choice. In 1066 the Witan preferred to accept Harold's
assertion that Edward had designated him.
John P.
From: GRHaleJr@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Normans
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:09:56 EDT
In a message dated 9/25/2004 10:09:36 AM Eastern Standard Time,
carmi47@msn.com writes:
A more accurate phrase here would be "is alleged," since the theory that
Edward promised William the throne in 1051 is a modern one, vouched for by
no contemporary or near-contemporary source.
We know of this promise only from Norman sources, in any case, not from
Anglo-Saxon writings.
Wasn't Harold "elected" king by a congress of the nobles of the land?
Wasn't this the "normal" manner in which people became king of England at
the time
(other than by force of arms)? Doesn't this negate any "promise" that
might
have been made by Edward, since the throne was not his to give?
Gordon Hale
Grand Prairie, Texas