Pros And Cons Of King William The Confessor

Did Edward the Confessor make William the Bastard his heir to the English throne? The circumstances leading to the ascension of William to the crown needs to be interrogated. Two different scenarios can be built one that supports William the Bastard as the true successor to King Edward the Confessor and another that depicts William the bastard as having not been the true heir but rather as having used his opportunities to force an ascend to the throne.

The battle of Hastings is perceived as the decider of the destiny of the English kingdom because is marked the end of the Anglo-Saxon era and inaugurated the era of modern England. This battle may seem to be accidental and not really planned by the warring parties. The Battle of Hastings was one of the many battles that occurred in 1066 after the death of King Edward.

An account of the Battle of Hastings narrates that William the Bastard and his army met the army of King Harold while preparing to invade England.

William had managed to seize Pevensy and was proceeding towards Hastings. However, he decided to take a short break at Hastings where he was to reorganize his troops before advancing into London to claim the throne of the English kingdom. However, it is said that King Harold arrived near Hastings where William the Bastard saw his opportunity to vanquish his rival. After a fierce daylong battle between the two troops, those of William emerged victors having killed King Harold. This battle was the end of the nickname William the Bastard and William became known as William the Conqueror. Subsequently, William the Conqueror marched into London, the city submitted to him and he was crowned King William the Conqueror on Christmas day in 1066. William the Conqueror ended the reign the Anglo-Saxons kings and ushered in the first Norman as the king of

England.
The battle at Hastings may justify Williams’s claim to be the heir of King Edward, as a fulfilment to the promise he had been given by the king during a visit to the royal courts much earlier in the king’s reign. It is possible that Earl Harold Godwinson knew about King Edward wanting to give the throne to William and therefore, he swore an oath to help William ascend to the throne in case William met any opposition. However, Earl Harold Godwinson may have changed his mind and orchestrated how he would ascend to power instead of helping William the Bastard. Using this justification, there is a high possibility that Earl Harold Godwinson imposed himself as king upon the death of King Edward by leveraging his familialr power in the English kingdom. The king’s death was sudden, and Earl Harold Godwinson was at the deathbed. Unfortunately, William the Bastard was too far from London to make his claim to the throne immediately after the death of the king. As such, William being in Normandy, which was far away from London, afforded Earl Harold Godwinson the opportunity to capture the throne hastily in full knowledge that he was not the rightful heir to the throne. In fact, it is said that on learning about Harold’s speedy ascension to the throne, William the Bastard became furious for having been betrayed. William was able to gains support from the pope to the point that the pope even provides him with the first papal banner to announce his support as William wages war with England. In addition, he solicits supports from the French and even manages to put together a 700-strong army in readiness for the attack. Consequently, William prepares to battle Harold, now king, believing that he has divine permission and blessings. From this perspective, it is not unreasonable to believe that William must have been the rightful successor to King Edward and again that king Edward must have probably made him the true successor to the throne of the English kingdom.
However, from a contrasting perspective, the king may not have made William his true successor due to his illegitimate and foreigner status. Specifically, William was of foreign blood and he had been born to Herleva, who was the mistress to Duke Robert of Normandy. This gave him a bastard status, which would have diminished his chances of being named as the heir to King Edward and thus not able to become his true successor. There are accounts that suggest that King Edward would not have wished William to come close to the throne let alone be the successor because William would have not only tarnished the reputation of the English royalty, but he was not of Anglo-Saxon decent and thus a foreigner, which would have ended the Anglo-Saxon era. The king may have found other suitable successors who would have advanced the Anglo-Saxon era without putting it to shame or ending it. In addition, William was known to be a sly man, who would do anything to fulfil his expansionist ambitions. He had a history of aggression back in Normandy, which was coupled with ruthlessness for those who opposed him. As such, it is possible that William used the same approach to claim that the throne was rightfully his and could even make the Pope and French people believe it to the point of securing their support. The speediness with which Harold was crowned king provided an opportunity to William to argue that, in fact, Harold had stolen his throne while in reality, William was just taking advantage of the situation. As such, based on the history of William since his childhood, his claim for being the legitimate and true successor to the throne as having been provided by King Edward before his demise can be perceived as a cunning plot to gain power.
Whether William was the true successor to King Edward is a question that remains controversial due to the conflicting accounts of events and circumstances. One needs to understand the English tradition and consider it against the claims to the throne made by the possible contenders. The English kingdom and other kingdoms in the Middle Ages did not have well explained succession guidelines. Specifically, the English kingdom had not designated principles to guide royal succession in the Anglo-Saxon era. However, there were certain considerations that would help determine which individual was able to ascend the throne of the English kingdom in the Anglo-Saxon era. Kingship was a pertinent consideration, in addition to support from the pope, or a strong military. It is possible that the events leading to the Battle of Hastings and the claims of having undergone ceremonies whereby the king names claimants as his heirs thus making any of them the true successor to the king remains lacking. However, the English were known to marry non-English women if it provided the opportunity to forge useful relationships with foreign monarchies. As such, being of French origin would have denied William legitimately and justifiably of his rightful inheritance and thus ascension to the throne. However, the circumstances leading to the Battle of Hastings appear opportunistic rather than planned. William may not have known that Harold was part of the army he met at this location, thus making his death accidental and opportunistic rather than as a matter of careful military strategy. William intended to march into London and only met King Harold by chance, a chance he took advantage of with pleasure. After this consideration, it is the opinion of the researcher that King Edward the confessor did not make William the conqueror his true successor before his death. However, William the Conqueror did win the Battle of Hastings, and defeated King Harold to become king. This win insured that history would remember William the Conqueror as a king of England and where he was the true successor or not is ultimately irrelevant.