The Battle of Hastings

Because William's half brother Bishop Odo wanted to be Pope and he had a major falling out with William but he needed his support so he wrote it about the Norman Victory

The Battle of Stamford Bridge took place at the village of Stamford Bridge, East Riding of Yorkshire in England on 25 September 1066, between an English army under King Harold Godwinson and an invading Norwegian force led by King Harald Hardrada of Norway and the English king's brother Tostig Godwinson. After a stubborn battle, both Hardrada and Tostig along with the majority of the Norwegians were killed. Although Harold repelled the Norwegian invaders, his victory was short-lived: he was defeated and killed at Hastings less than three weeks later.

The Norman conquest of England began on 28 September 1066 with the invasion of England by William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy and his victory at the Battle of Hastings on 14 October 1066 over King Harold II of England. Harold's army was badly depleted in the English victory at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Northern England on 25 September 1066 over the army of King Harald III of Norway. By early 1071, William had secured control of most of England, although rebellions and resistance continued to approximately 1088. And with claims of being a part of royal blood, he was a little lucky.

The Battle of Hastings took place on 14 October 1066. It was the decisive Norman victory in the Norman Conquest of England, fought between the Norman army of Duke William II of Normandy and the English army of King Harold I. The battle took place at Senlac Hill, approximately 6 miles northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex.

Edgar the Etheling. He reigned for two months after the Battle of Hastings until William the Conqueror was crowned on Christmas Day.

Answer 1

If you mean William the Conqueror (a nickname he hated, believing he had been entitled to the throne all along), he was crowned at noon on Christmas Day, 1066, in London.
Answer 2

WILLIAM I - 1066 (Also known as William the Conqueror)
WILLIAM II - 1087 (Son of William I, also known as William Rufus)
WILLIAM III - 1689 (William of Orange)

England was a country closely connected to it's Nordic roots before the unwelcome oppression of William and his mercenaries. The history that followed was one of wars of attrition with France over territories which had at best little legal substance and relied on rule of force rather than right. This went on from the 11th to the 16th century till these claims were finally relinquished. Huge amounts of money, not to mention lives were wasted in this post Norman grudge which was carried on by the same lines of aristocracy who had held land originally from William.

The ill harvest of class division was sown during this period , and William's excursions into Ireland created a disaster for both England and Ireland that still exists. The thirst for foreign conquest that was to mark English history and create the Empire is merely a continuation of this same desire for subjecting foreign peoples. The Anglo Saxons maintained what they had won by force but were contented with the wealth produced by England's land and trade. The ill will produced by hundreds of years of martial conquest has made England's name less attractive than would have been the case had we remained a nation within the Nordic mould. Our reputation for honest, fair dealing would have been similar to Norway or Denmark. Take a look at this article:http://www.englandandenglishhistory.com/battle-of-hastings-Harold-William/AN ENGLISH VICTORY.aspx

That's going back a long way so it is impossible to even speculate about what *would* have happened in that event but it is possible to say definitively what would *not* have happened. Every King or Queen of England that you have ever heard of never would have lived. Nothing that any of them did, militarily, politically, spiritually, would have happened. A great deal of the History of the centuries after the Norman conquest was drivien by the fact the the English kings were also French nobleman and owed allegience to the French kings for their french possessions. They were always trying to get out of that somehow, usually by trying to gain the French throne for themselves. Had Harold won at Hastings that basis for conflict would not have existed so nothing that came out of it would have happened. Michael Montagne

Michael is correct, once the Normans claimed the throne of England they still had large land holdings over large portions of France. Specifically this was the basis of the Hundred Years War. The Norman Conquest is so far removed from today that it is definitely impossible to foresee all the consequences of the English throne NOT having any claim to French land. One thing is for certain, the Norman influence on the English language probably wouldn't have occured, thus English as a language would be much different than it currently is.

I agree that there's not really any point in guessing what would or might have happened if Harold had won. Instead, I'll make two points.

1. Before 1066 England was often very disunited and had difficulty defending itself (for example, against the Vikings).

2. The Norman Conquest turned England into a fairly large area with a central government. There were civil wars later, but the framework for a united England was firmly established by 1070-75, and was re-established after every civil war, such as the Wars of the Roses.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, I'll stress that I'm _not_ saying that without the Norman Conquest England would have remained disunited. (For all one knows, if William had failed, someone else might have successfully conquered England a little later). I'm just drawing attention to what many regard as William the Conqueror's most significant achievement.

Joncey

I may be wrong here, but I think that Joncey has made an error in saying that England was disunited at the point of the Norman conquest. Before the Vikings it had been very diunited, with all the warring kingdoms like Mercia and Wessex etc., but remember that this lack of defence was no longer so obvious, as Harold II managed to defeat the army of Harald III 'Hard-ruler' of Norway, earlier in the year at Stamford Bridge, and William was almost defeated at Hastings. England had been united to much the same borders as today, and it was not weak, just unfortunate to be attacked by two invasion forces in the space of a few months.

Joncey certainly has made an error.England as country was first united under the rule of Alfred the Great, his decendents went on to further unify the country and retake Viking lands in the Danelaw.

I think you are wrong on that last point. You should note that Harold marched against the Normans with only the Men of Wessex. The Earls of Mercia and Northumbria did not send any troops to help. The "northern earls" had traditionally been highly sceptical about the concept of a united England and demonstrated this during the reign of Harold's predecessor, Edward the Confessor, when they had revolted and thrown out Tostig Godwinson who had been appointed by Edward as Earl of Northumbria. Also, after the Norman Conquest, Edwin and Morcar (the earls of Northumbria and Mercia respectively) joined the revolt against the new King William of England.

Going back to the original question, England would have had a very different language without so many French influences, probably much more like Dutch or Danish. It would also have developed a different type of government, perhaps more participatory from an earlier stage. The class divisions in the country may also not have been so acute. Wales may have remained independent, at the time of the Norman Conquest the frontier with Wales had been agreed at Offa's Dyke for some 250 years and there were no attempts by the English to incorporate Wales into England.