The claimants to the throne (AQA GCSE History): Revision Notes
The claimants to the throne
The succession crisis of 1066
When Edward the Confessor died on 5 January 1066, England faced a major succession crisis. Unlike today, there was no clear system for choosing the next king. The process was complicated and often led to disputes between rival claimants who each believed they had the strongest right to rule.
Mediaeval succession was far more complex than modern systems. There was no automatic inheritance by the eldest son - instead, various factors including blood relationships, political alliances, military strength, and even deathbed promises all played crucial roles in determining who would become king.
What made a good king?
In 11th century England, several factors determined who could become king. The ideal candidate would possess multiple qualities that demonstrated their suitability to rule:
Family connections were crucial - being a direct blood relative of the previous monarch gave the strongest claim. However, this wasn't always possible, so being chosen by the previous king was also important.
Blood relationships in mediaeval politics
Direct family connections were valued because they suggested divine approval - mediaeval people believed God chose royal families to rule. However, when direct heirs were unavailable or unsuitable, other forms of legitimacy became essential.
Political support played a vital role, particularly approval from the Witan (the council of nobles and church leaders). Without their backing, even a strong claimant would struggle to maintain power.
Military capability was essential in this violent period. A king needed to be an experienced warrior who could defend England from invasion and maintain order internally.
Wealth and resources were necessary to fund armies, reward supporters, and run the kingdom effectively. A poor king would quickly lose support and face rebellion.
All four factors were interconnected - weakness in one area could be compensated by strength in others, but a candidate needed at least some credibility in each area to be taken seriously as a potential king.
The four main claimants
After Edward's death, four men emerged as serious contenders for the English throne, each with different types of claims and varying strengths.
Edgar Ætheling (c1051-c1126)
Edgar had the strongest blood claim as Edward's great-nephew, making him the closest male relative to the dead king. However, his youth and inexperience counted heavily against him. At around 15 years old, he lacked the military experience and political connections needed to rule effectively. The Witan rejected his claim, recognising that England needed strong leadership to face the threats from William and Harald Hardrada.
Why age mattered in mediaeval kingship
In an age of constant warfare and political intrigue, youth was seen as a serious disadvantage. A teenage king would need regents to rule for him, creating opportunities for rival nobles to seize power and potentially leading to civil war.
Harold Godwinson (c1022-66)
Harold possessed perhaps the most practical claim to the throne. As the most powerful earl in England, he had effectively ruled as Edward's deputy (sub regulus) for many years. The Witan accepted his claim because he was wealthy, experienced in warfare, and had the political support needed to govern immediately.
However, Harold's claim was complicated by the oath he had allegedly sworn to William of Normandy. The Normans claimed this oath bound Harold to support William's claim, making Harold an oath-breaker when he took the crown himself.
The oath controversy
The alleged oath between Harold and William became central to Norman propaganda. Breaking a sworn oath was considered a serious sin in mediaeval Christian society, and William used this accusation to gain papal support for his invasion.
Harald Hardrada (c1015-66)
The Norwegian king based his claim on an agreement between previous kings. He believed that when King Harthacanute died, he had inherited the right to rule England. This claim was largely ignored by the English, who saw it as a foreign attempt to seize their kingdom by force.
Despite being dismissed politically, Hardrada was a formidable military threat. Known as a fierce warrior-king, he had the resources and determination to launch a serious invasion of northern England.
William of Normandy (c1028-87)
William's claim rested on two main arguments. First, he was a distant cousin of Edward the Confessor, providing some blood connection to the royal line. More importantly, he claimed that Edward had promised him the throne in 1051, fifteen years before Edward's death.
William also argued that Harold Godwinson had sworn an oath to support his claim. When Harold took the crown instead, William declared him an oath-breaker and gained papal support for his invasion. The Pope even provided a papal banner, suggesting God supported William's cause.
The significance of papal support
Gaining the Pope's backing was crucial for William's invasion. It transformed what could be seen as a simple land grab into a holy war, making it easier to recruit soldiers and justify the conquest to Christian Europe.
Edward's deathbed promises
The question of what Edward the Confessor said before his death became central to the succession dispute. In mediaeval times, a king's final words carried enormous weight and could not be easily dismissed, even after death.
Harold Godwinson claimed that Edward had promised him the throne just before dying. This gave Harold's claim additional legitimacy beyond his political and military strengths.
However, William of Normandy insisted that Edward's earlier promise to him in 1051 remained valid. William argued that deathbed promises could not override earlier, more formal commitments, especially when witnessed by important nobles.
Medieval views on royal promises
In mediaeval political theory, a king's word was considered sacred and binding. The dispute over Edward's promises highlighted a fundamental question: which carried more weight - an earlier formal promise or a final deathbed declaration?
Harold's swift coronation
Understanding the weakness of his position, Harold moved quickly to secure the throne. He was crowned King of England on 6 January 1066 - just one day after Edward the Confessor's death.
This rapid coronation was a calculated political move. Harold knew that his rivals would challenge his claim, so he needed to establish himself as the legitimate king before they could act. By getting crowned immediately, he hoped to present his enemies with a fait accompli and strengthen his position for the coming conflicts.
The importance of coronation ceremonies
Mediaeval coronations were more than symbolic - they were believed to transform an ordinary person into God's anointed representative on earth. Once crowned, Harold could claim divine legitimacy, making it harder for rivals to challenge his rule without appearing to oppose God's will.
Timeline of key events
- 5 January 1066: Edward the Confessor dies
- 6 January 1066: Harold Godwinson crowned King of England
- 1051: William claims Edward promised him the throne
- Date uncertain: Harold allegedly swears oath to support William
Key Points to Remember:
- Four main claimants emerged after Edward's death: Edgar Ætheling, Harold Godwinson, Harald Hardrada, and William of Normandy
- Different types of claims: blood relationship (Edgar), political support (Harold G), historical agreements (Hardrada), and royal promises (William)
- Harold's quick coronation on 6 January 1066 was a strategic move to establish legitimacy before rivals could act
- The oath controversy between Harold and William became a key justification for the Norman invasion
- Medieval kingship required a combination of family connections, military skill, wealth, and political support to be successful