Just Finished Reading: The Norman Conquest – William the Conqueror’s Subjugation of England by Teresa Cole (FP: 2016) [260pp] 

Most books on this pivotal moment in English and European history start a few years before the main event in 1066. They point out that Edward the Confessor had failed to produce an heir and that Harold Godwinson was elected to follow in his footsteps. There is often much debate as to exactly how Harold managed to be in a position to gain the throne of England – especially as it was supposed to have been promised to William, Duke of Normandy – but that’s usually the background given followed by invasion (in both the North and South), battle, defeat (or victory depending on how you look at it) and take-over. 

Interestingly, and highly informatively, this author starts by looking MUCH further back starting with Edward gaining the English throne in 1003 giving us a 60+ year run up to the cataclysm that befell the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings. This allows for a much better, much deeper, understanding as to how England ended up in the position of facing two invasions only days apart and why exactly Harold’s position was challenged so early in his reign. To be quite honest, even with my belief that I’m reasonably familiar with the era and the events covered here, not only did I learn quite a bit, but my UNDERSTANDING of things is so much better now. What made things even better, if that’s possible, was that the authors writing style and her obvious grasp of the subject was outstanding. The six-decade run-up to Hastings and the requirement of the conquering army to constantly reassert its dominance over a fractious people seemed straight out of Game of Thrones (but very much in a good way) with political manoeuvring, rather useful ‘accidents’ (it's amazing how many important people died “falling from a horse” or soon after a hearty meal/drinking session much to the immediate advantage of one group or another) [Side note: is ‘falling from a horse’ the periods equivalent of ‘falling out of a window’ or ‘shot whilst trying to escape’ that we’re more familiar with these days?] 

But let me put any false impressions in their place – this is gripping without being sensationalist. The author examines what happened, what was said to have happened (and the reasons why it happened) with a sceptical eye – after all, as we know, history tends to be written by the victors (in this case the Normans) and any pronouncements by them need to be taken with that in mind. She looks at each story, legacy or legend in turn – from the ‘arrow in the eye’ to Harold’s pledge of fealty prior to Edwards death – and critically examines each in turn, looks at the evidence (if ANY) and either decides – all too often on the balance of probabilities – which is more likely to be true. With the passing of 960 years its understandably difficult to be almost any definitive statements about the events discussed between these pages but, I think, the author makes an excellent stab at it. She didn’t let any speculation go too far but she also didn’t leave too much hanging in the air as inexplicable either. Any speculations she did make she backed up with a knowledge of how things worked – differently in Norman and Anglo-Saxon societies – plus a heavy dose of rationally informed scepticism. 

1066 and the surrounding events constantly fascinate me for understandable reasons. The Battle of Hastings that year changed the direction and fate of a whole nation. Was it for the ‘better’? That’s arguable but it would be interesting to know, rather than idly speculate, how an Anglo-Saxon nation, rather than an Anglo-Norman one, would have made its way in the world and how the present might have been different because of that. As you might be able to tell, I really enjoyed this book and will be looking forward to reading more by its author. There’s more coming on 1066 too. Very much recommended and a highlight of the year so far.