Thesis Statement For William The Conqueror

At the time of Edward the confessor there were three claimants to the English throne. One of the claimants was Harold’s. He believed he should be on the throne because he was Edward the confessor’s brother; he was born in England and was the most powerful English earl. The next claimant was William duke of Normandy. William believed he should be king because Edward the confessor promised him the throne for his support and Harold swore an oath on holy relics that he would be king. The last claimant to the throne was Harald Hardraada; Harold believed he should be king because there had been Viking kings

It is at this time where early transitions and alliances started to pay off. Ancient traditions helped William maintain his ducal authority. Count William of Arques still had to pay homage to the duke. Probably the biggest reason William was able to maintain his authority was due to the Norman relationship with France. King Henry I supported William. Another break for William was the fact that King Henry didn’t take Normandy for himself. He did claim rights over Normandy and placed William under his protection. The King was exercising his rights as overlord to safeguard his kingdom. King Henry didn’t do this completely without any benefit to himself, he did take two fortresses.

William was a better leader because although Harold had the upper hand in the battle and they were losing, William managed to outwit and defeat the English. In the Bayeux Tapestry there is a scene depicting that in the days preceding the

In the book Animal Farm, by George Orwell, several themes arise, such as the inability of leadership with equity, and the necessity of citizens to be aware of their government. These themes are very applicable to several instances in the world’s history, especially the Russian Revolution.

However, Edward did something very odd—he promised the crown to William, Duke of Normandy—a cousin through Edward’s mother, Emma. This perplexingly odd promise was made even stranger when, according to the Bayeux Tapestry, Harold was shipwrecked off the coast of Normandy and brought to stay at the court of William. There he supposedly swore an unbreakable oath, giving William his loyalty and support in his path to the crown. He returned to England. Yet when the king died, his dying words seemed to be appointing Harold “protector” of England, which was interpreted as “king”. So Harold was named the king, breaking his supposed promise to William. Furious, William invaded England. Freshly crowned, Harold was not only dealing with this Norman threat, but also an invading Norwegian Viking army, led by Harald Hardrada, who, like William, also believed he had a claim to the throne. Harold easily defeated Harald’s forces at the Battle of Stamford Bridge (near York), but then was forced to drive his tired, bedraggled army to Hastings to confront the invading Norman troops. There, at the famed Battle of Hastings, William became William the Conqueror, decisively defeating the English, killing Harold, and winning the crown.

William the Conqueror: a powerful man who was taking what was rightfully his, or an illegitimate son thirsty for power, only history can tell if his actions were an act of justice. This debate contains a lot of confusion between promises, traditions overlapping, the support of the people, and proven powerful enough to rule. After understanding the conflicts at the time, history has proven that William the Conqueror proved to have a legitimate claim to the throne, much more than his competition at the time. In order to understand history, we have to look back and see how we got to this point, starting with the set-up for this situation.

Of William I’s (1066-1087) sons, William the II (1087-1100) was a better king than his younger brother Henry I (1100-1135). William I’s was the first Norman king to rule England. He split his heritance between his three living sons. Robert received the rule of Normandy, William II received England and Henry I received five thousand pounds. In early medieval England a good king was a heroic soldier and a strong leader who was fair but enforced the law. It was also important that they were Christian and unsinful. William II “The Rufus”-because of his red face or temper, was true to himself and what he believed in while Henry I “Beauclerc”-because of his high level of education, was a brutal and selfish king, not only to his people, but also

King Charles IV had no heir to the throne as a result of having no male children. King Edward III of England believed he should be king, while the French believed that King Charles IV’s cousin Philip IV should be king. Edward stated that he was the closest heir, due to the fact his mother is the sister of King Charles IV. The French said because King Edward III was connected through a female, he had no right to be king. The quote from Edward

land in the north of England after both the Earl and Anne died. He was

After constantly being attacked he was forced to seek king henry of France who molded him and made him to the ruthless leader he was to become. After leaving Normandy for so long, William made his return back in 1047 and asserted his authority destroying all of the rebels after that making the claim as the undisputed Duke of Normandy. William of Normandy matured into a tall man with red hair. During this time The Duke of Normandy went to visit his cousin Edward the confessor, It was during this visit that he would be promised William the kingdom should he die. The true heir was Edgar Atheling who is Edwards great nephew, but he was still a child who knew very little about England, but Edward who was appointed the king in 1042 promised him in that right.

This source also uses the word 'men' to refer to humanity as a plural, where instead, a universal term such as 'people' could be used. It also has a rather victorious perspective, shown by the way that it only lists the positive qualities of William the Conqueror, not once commenting on any flaws he had when he ruled England. It also fails to mention the people unhappy with William the Conqueror claiming the crowns, who were mostly Anglo-Saxon supporters of the previous King of England, Harold II. The writer obviously believes that William the Conqueror was the best king yet, better than any of his predecessors, as he was, in his opinion, honorable, honest, and

William I became known as William the Conqueror through his will and determination. William gained power through his father and soon he climbed high enough to conquer England and become its new king.

William 1 had a poor childhood, but a successful king's life.When he was a child, he was being known as "William the Bastard" for his enemy because his parents never get married. When he grows up, he was always very successful and he had a professional and skillful army. The most important business was happening in Norman Dynasty is when William the first ruled the England was the Battle of Hastings.

There is a critical difference between the two countries that seems to have heavily contributed to the reason William won, and Harold lost. Although his troops were fighting on their home soil, they simply were not as warlike and aggressive as the Normans, and were doomed to failure.

The young man calls himself an English duke while the old man calls himself the dauphin from Louis