Supporting New Games

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Right :soap: it is then :)

Harold was hardly a usurper Paul having been elected by the Highest Moot in the country (think it was the Witten or Wotten Moot), a collection of the most powerful Earls & Thaigns in England, even Earls Edwin (Mercia) & Morcar (Northumberland) supported his election, + he was universally popular with the people of England.

To expand somewhat on that point it was Harold Godwinsons military prowess that had kept England free from Celtic invasions; St. Edward owed his throne to the support of the Godwinson family. Edward by comparison (except amongst the pious), was regarded as a Normophile, dotard, fool, cuckold and worse; his saintly activities etc. may have given him a good press in Rome but in England they waited for him to hurry up a die, not least of his sins in English eyes was his supposed promise to William to let him have the throne after his death, being childless it was not his to give, that would be decided by the Moot.

There was one other candidate for Englands throne at the time of Edwards death, Edgar the Athling, but as he was a 10 yr old child who was living in Hungary or Bohemia it was not practical, given the threats to England from Norway, Normandy & and of course, as always, the Celts, for the Moot to consider him, England needed a strong popular King now, they got that in Harold.

So yes I do consider Harold II in the ‘Line of Kings’, when you get time read up on him, Warrior & diplomat he would have made a good and popular king, something ‘the Bastard’ was not.

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

A nice story Peter, and although factual, it does leave out the interesting bits.

About how the "English" viewed and vilified poor Edward...blame the Godwins, it was they who put him on the throne. In the 11th century I suspect the "press in Rome" was of considerably more import than local feelings. We are centuries removed still from any real sense of nationalism.

As for the spotless and noble Harold II...you are leaving out the fact that he swore a religious oath to support William's claim to the throne. Oath breakers, or usurpers by another name, usually get their due, and Harold got his within less than a year's time. King he may have been, mercifully brief as it turned out, but William made a proper Fuedal Society of England, to it's ever lasting Glory! ;)

[Ricky B]

...
As for the spotless and noble Harold II...you are leaving out the fact that he swore a religious oath to support William's claim to the throne. Oath breakers, or usurpers by another name, usually get their due, and Harold got his within less than a year's time. King he may have been, mercifully brief as it turned out, but William made a proper Fuedal Society of England, to it's ever lasting Glory! ;)

Read a reasonably good book recently, Paul: "1066: The Year of the Three Battles", full of historical detail on the intrigues involved, and the author did a pretty good job, I thought, of debunking William's claim to have a binding oath from Harold regarding the throne. Not 100% convincing, but I thought he did a good job with it. I am not at home so I can't summarize the author's full argument on the oath issue, but it was well done.

Rick

[Steel God]

Read a reasonably good book recently, Paul: "1066: The Year of the Three Battles", full of historical detail on the intrigues involved, and the author did a pretty good job, I thought, of debunking William's claim to have a binding oath from Harold regarding the throne. Not 100% convincing, but I thought he did a good job with it. I am not at home so I can't summarize the author's full argument on the oath issue, but it was well done.

Monday morning quarterbacking. Destiny and the time honored tradition of trial by combat have proven Harold to be the slimey, underhanded, usurper I know him to be. The outcome supports the fact that he broke the oath.

[Ricky B]

Good point, the results reflect the truth perfectly, LOL :). And actually, William can close to death that day also, so destiny was with him, and against the Godwinsons as Harold's brothers all died before Harold, I believe.

[Steel God]

Good point, the results reflect the truth perfectly, LOL :).

Now if I could just get Peter to see logical as well, I could sleep easier. :P

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

Logic!? Me!? the well know supporter of Lost causes, Royalist (1642), Reb, Montrose, Harold II etc. as stated elsewhere though, at least my hearts in the right place

The Godwinsons didn't actually put Edward on the throne, he was brought back from exile in Normandy by his half brother Harthacanut, but again, it was the choice of the Moot that Edward took the throne, and in fact Edward wasn't long in exiling the entire Godwin family.

However England needed the Godwinsons more than Edward so they were eventually reinstated, it is reputed that Edward in a moment of pure malice married Earl Godwins daughter Edith just to gloat over the fact that Godwin would never be the Grandfather of a royal heir (Edward was celibate/impotent, or both).

As to the oath breaking, that has long been questioned, there being so many different and contradictory versions prior to 1066, and now largely rests on the evidence from the Bayeux tapestry, which was of course done after the event; William, apart from his dubious claim to the Ducal title was not only an inept general, a thief, a wife-beater and what in this part of the world is known as a ‘Bad egg’ (remember what happened at his Funeral Paul? ... See, we know these things :) ) but also a liar. The Oath taking was probably added to the tapestry to help bolster his claim after his usurpation of the English throne ... so there! :cheeky:

Ricky, please, please don’t give him escape lines like, Good point, the results reflect the truth perfectly, LOL. Paul is as slippery as an Eel, on one hand acknowledging “A nice story Peter, and although factual “, he then wanders off into the realms of Medieval superstitions to bolster his arguments, if you want to see some convoluted logic check out our discussion re William on the Great commanders thread, cop this, making surfs of a free people was a, ‘Good thing’ !? Aghh! :hissy: . Mmmm, I am beginning to think it’s the Norman part of Pauls Sicilian ancestry that that is prompting all this pro William stuff.

A useless snippet re ‘Trial by Combat’, apparently the last recorded case of that in England was in what was known as the Birmingham clocks trial of 1818, :chin: well that’s the story I read anyhow.

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

Mmmm, I am beginning to think it’s the Norman part of Pauls Sicilian ancestry that that is prompting all this pro William stuff.

LOL, truth be told my Sicilian heritage does trace to Norman lines, and despite the almost undiluted Sicilian ancestors blue eyes, light hair and fair skin dominate. But I admired the Normans and especially William I long before I found that out. ;) I perhaps am genetically predisposed to see their point of view. You know....the view that his actions were preordained by the Almighty. The evidence is clear as is the nose on your face.

And about those serfs...Freedom is over rated. Monarchy is such a superior form of Government. Don't believe me? Ask a King.

[Kingmaker]

HiHi

And about those serfs...Freedom is over rated.

Agh! by extention then, that explains where we went wrong with our American colonies, insted of asking them to cough up some brass for all the costs of the wars against France & the Indians etc we should have just made them all Surfs!

All the Best
Peter

[Steel God]

And about those serfs...Freedom is over rated.

Agh! by extention then, that explains where we went wrong with our American colonies, insted of asking them to cough up some brass for all the costs of the wars against France & the Indians etc we should have just made them all Surfs!

From our PoV we believe you tried that. We did the trial by combat deal as well...more destiny and divine providence. ;) Personally, hindsight being 20/20 and all that, serfdom would be preferable to this codswallop that passes for Government in the US today. A two party system where both parties suck. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, but you have to pick one. But I stray into forbidden territory on that one, so I shall tactfully withdraw