He would end up facing Danish invasions and almost certainly Edgar in his attempt to win back his throne. Unlike William, Harold would probably never win acceptance from Edgar nor be able to replace the aristocracy of England to men that follow him and him alone. Harold took the throne through a coup and had no legitimacy especially while Edgar, who was Edwards chosen heir lived. One mistake would send him regime into a death spiral, so unless he was an unstoppable King there was a fairly large chance his regime would fail and Edgar would reclaim his rights. Which would also invalidate other invaders, since the main reason the attempted invasions of England happened in the first place was Harold usurping the throne and exiling Edgar.
Edgar was a literally-who with Edward the Confessor making no serious attempt to reinforce his claim as heir while he was alive; the most generous interpretation is that Edward kept Edgar around to weaken Harold's position. If any number of English magnates seriously respected Edgar's claim to the throne the Witan would've chosen him, not Harold, to succeed - and they didn't.
>Unlike William, Harold would probably never win acceptance from Edgar
Kek, it was acceptance at the end of a swordpoint. I imagine if Harold managed to pull off an upset at Hastings he would've "won acceptance" from Edgar in much the same manner
>Edgar was a literally-who with Edward the Confessor making no serious attempt to reinforce his claim as heir while he was alive
Where the hell do you get this idea? Edgars father was invited explicitly for the purpose of being Edwards heir, Edgar was the only person who was not directly the son of the King to be given the title Atheling, literally 'Throne-Worthy' which was only given to men who were designated as heirs. Edward included Edgar in his family unit when accounting on the Old Minster records. It could not be any more clear that Edgar was Edwards heir. > If any number of English magnates seriously respected Edgar's claim to the throne the Witan would've chosen him, not Harold, to succeed - and they didn't.
It's a bit hard to choose somebody who had been exiled. The Witan didn't gather to elect Harold over Edgar, Harold had already taken power and declared himself King before the Witan could even gather. The Witan for centuries in practice only confirmed a man who was already King rather than actually electing one, which is what they did for Harold. Harold had taken power as he exiled his brother after winning in a civil war and then took advantage of Edwards illness to assume more power and as soon as he died he exiled Edgar and took the throne for himself and then the Witan was gathered. >Kek, it was acceptance at the end of a swordpoint
Because William defeated Edgar and his supporters when he was hastily declared King. Why exactly would Edgar give up his right if Harold defeated the Normans? He had allies across England and in Scotland who was willing to host him in spite of Harold.
And how did Harold manage to seize power in a land where - presumably - it was common knowledge that Edgar was Edward's rightful heir? Why does not a single English source name Edgar as Edward's rightful heir? Why was it that the Witan only elected Edgar as king after William had already won at Hastings?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Can you read? I already explained nearly all of those points. English sources do claim Edgar to be Edward’s heir, offical documents as being so and unlike William or Harold all these come from when Edward was alive unlike their justifications which were all after his death.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Yeah but actually this ledger says-
Harold claimed the kingship. The Witan approved his kingship. No one rebelled against Harold to support Edgar's claim. There's no indication anyone cared about Edgar's claim until he was the only Englishman left with a claim. At which point do these arguments over whether he was the rightful king or not matter?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
You're asking as to why a man who had recently won a civil war against his only rival, proceeded to dominate Royal functionaries in the last year of Edwards life, exiled his only political rival as soon as Edward died and then proceeded to spend the majority of his short reign at the head of an army faced no military opposition for his decisions? He had quite literally eliminated his brother as a rival and in the final months of Edwards reign as he started to become incapable of rule he took a grasp on the reigns of power. There was no opportunity for immediate backlash.
Denmark was in no position to invade on their own and if he could defeat William and Harald there would have been little to fear from Edgar. Also England was dominated by two noble family of which the Godwinsons were one, short of a popular uprising (which wouldn’t happen to the king who defeated the Norwegians and Normans in rapid succession).
>Denmark was in no position to invade on their own
Denmark attempted two invasions of England during William's rule. They were capable of doing so and did so. >Also England was dominated by two noble family of which the Godwinsons were one
The Godwinsons were not a united family. Harolds largest rival was in fact his own brother Tostig who he defeated in a civil war. Tostig in exile even prepared a fleet to invade England against his brother to at the very least regain his position under Edward.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Or maybe I'm asking why any magnate in a country like 1065 England would've taken a 14 year old - who by all indications had literally no one backing him other than a handful of voices at the Witan that declared Harold king - as the rightful heir. Or why both contemporary English and Norman accounts don't seem to make any mention of Edgar being the TRUE and HONEST heir of Edward, other than the couple of months he was crowned king after William won and the surviving English magnates were scrambling for any somewhat-indigenous claimant to rally around.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Or maybe I'm asking why any magnate in a country like 1065 England would've taken a 14 year old - who by all indications had literally no one backing him other than a handful of voices at the Witan that declared Harold king - as the rightful heir
Because he was the designated heir to Edward, and that he was the only eligible member of the Royal family. The last non dynastic ruler of Wessex was over 400 years ago and it was imposed by military conquest. Never once in the history of Wessex was a non dynastic ruler ever been appointed by a King or acclaimed by the Witan. There was no tradition for it and it was clearly very important to Edward considering he spent years trying to get Edward the Exile and Edgar to England. Nor is there any problem with his age, his own father was 12 when he took the throne and nobody believed there to be a problem with a minority.
Again, you're also ignoring the fact that Harold had crushed his main opposition months before he crowned himself and exilede Edgar. How exactly was anybody going to support Edgar when he was in Scotland? The Witan was not a deciding body for who gets to be King, they only ever confirmed men who were already in practice King. It was a rubber stamp, not a debate club. >Or why both contemporary English and Norman accounts don't seem to make any mention of Edgar being the TRUE and HONEST heir of Edward
English sources do call Edgar the rightful heir to Edward, both in Edwards life and after Harolds defeat. Norman sources as to the succession of England only appear after 1066, which all attempt to justify William's claim by countering Harold's claim of 'Edward said so' with the same exact argument.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Never once in the history of Wessex was a non dynastic ruler ever been appointed by a King or acclaimed by the Witan
Which Witan was it that appointed Harthacnut king, aka the guy that made Edward the Confessor his heir? >Again, you're also ignoring the fact that Harold had crushed his main opposition months before he crowned himself and exilede Edgar
And his main opponents were actual/potential loyalists to Edward/Edgar? Or...?
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Which Witan was it that appointed Harthacnut king
Imposed by military conquest and again, a rubber stamp. There wasn't exactly any room for compromise considering Harthacnut inherited his fathers military dominance. >aka the guy that made Edward the Confessor his heir?
Harthacnut did not make Edward his heir >And his main opponents were actual/potential loyalists to Edward/Edgar? Or...?
Yes? Tostig was one of Edwards most loyal men and Edward supported him over Harold until he was forced to dismiss him after the civil war.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Imposed by military conquest and again, a rubber stamp
And there's the rub. >Harthacnut did not make Edward his heir
No, they just ruled jointly by some accounts and then when Harthacnut died Edward assumed the kingship in full - a world away from Edward deciding his nephew would be his heir while making little - if any - attempts to secure his position before he passed on (after eight years of potential) >Tostig was one of Edwards most loyal men
I've yet to see a single historian claim the Northumbrian Revolt as an attempt to restore Edgar to his rightful throne
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>No, they just ruled jointly by some accounts
Edward was in Normandy until Harthacnut died unexpectedly. There was no joint rule. The closest thing to joint rule between the English and Danes was with Cnut and Edmund when they agreed to split the Kingdom, which never happened because Edmund died before they could both assume power jointly. >I've yet to see a single historian claim the Northumbrian Revolt as an attempt to restore Edgar to his rightful throne
I don't know where you got that idea from to begin with because I wasn't suggesting that at all nor would it make any sense as Edward was still alive. Had the civil war not happened there would have been far less of a chance for Harold to take the throne considering he would not be the only major title holder left in the Kingdom in Edwards last year. Tostig was a loyalist for Edward and a rival to Harold, Harold crushed him and removed his opposition allowing him to take power militarily uncontested.
Denmark was in no position to invade on their own and if he could defeat William and Harald there would have been little to fear from Edgar. Also England was dominated by two noble family of which the Godwinsons were one, short of a popular uprising (which wouldn’t happen to the king who defeated the Norwegians and Normans in rapid succession).
nothing actually changes because the ethnic composition of Britain has always been Britons larping as whoever most recently invaded them. 2022 Study proved this, Brits are literally The Brigantes who lost to Caesar larping as everyone.
>2022 Study proved this, Brits are literally The Brigantes who lost to Caesar larping as everyone.
Yeah and the ancient Brits were sub saharan africans! This study proved it.
He would end up facing Danish invasions and almost certainly Edgar in his attempt to win back his throne. Unlike William, Harold would probably never win acceptance from Edgar nor be able to replace the aristocracy of England to men that follow him and him alone. Harold took the throne through a coup and had no legitimacy especially while Edgar, who was Edwards chosen heir lived. One mistake would send him regime into a death spiral, so unless he was an unstoppable King there was a fairly large chance his regime would fail and Edgar would reclaim his rights. Which would also invalidate other invaders, since the main reason the attempted invasions of England happened in the first place was Harold usurping the throne and exiling Edgar.
>Edgar
THE TRUE KING..
Edgar was a literally-who with Edward the Confessor making no serious attempt to reinforce his claim as heir while he was alive; the most generous interpretation is that Edward kept Edgar around to weaken Harold's position. If any number of English magnates seriously respected Edgar's claim to the throne the Witan would've chosen him, not Harold, to succeed - and they didn't.
>Unlike William, Harold would probably never win acceptance from Edgar
Kek, it was acceptance at the end of a swordpoint. I imagine if Harold managed to pull off an upset at Hastings he would've "won acceptance" from Edgar in much the same manner
>Edgar was a literally-who with Edward the Confessor making no serious attempt to reinforce his claim as heir while he was alive
Where the hell do you get this idea? Edgars father was invited explicitly for the purpose of being Edwards heir, Edgar was the only person who was not directly the son of the King to be given the title Atheling, literally 'Throne-Worthy' which was only given to men who were designated as heirs. Edward included Edgar in his family unit when accounting on the Old Minster records. It could not be any more clear that Edgar was Edwards heir.
> If any number of English magnates seriously respected Edgar's claim to the throne the Witan would've chosen him, not Harold, to succeed - and they didn't.
It's a bit hard to choose somebody who had been exiled. The Witan didn't gather to elect Harold over Edgar, Harold had already taken power and declared himself King before the Witan could even gather. The Witan for centuries in practice only confirmed a man who was already King rather than actually electing one, which is what they did for Harold. Harold had taken power as he exiled his brother after winning in a civil war and then took advantage of Edwards illness to assume more power and as soon as he died he exiled Edgar and took the throne for himself and then the Witan was gathered.
>Kek, it was acceptance at the end of a swordpoint
Because William defeated Edgar and his supporters when he was hastily declared King. Why exactly would Edgar give up his right if Harold defeated the Normans? He had allies across England and in Scotland who was willing to host him in spite of Harold.
And how did Harold manage to seize power in a land where - presumably - it was common knowledge that Edgar was Edward's rightful heir? Why does not a single English source name Edgar as Edward's rightful heir? Why was it that the Witan only elected Edgar as king after William had already won at Hastings?
Can you read? I already explained nearly all of those points. English sources do claim Edgar to be Edward’s heir, offical documents as being so and unlike William or Harold all these come from when Edward was alive unlike their justifications which were all after his death.
>Yeah but actually this ledger says-
Harold claimed the kingship. The Witan approved his kingship. No one rebelled against Harold to support Edgar's claim. There's no indication anyone cared about Edgar's claim until he was the only Englishman left with a claim. At which point do these arguments over whether he was the rightful king or not matter?
You're asking as to why a man who had recently won a civil war against his only rival, proceeded to dominate Royal functionaries in the last year of Edwards life, exiled his only political rival as soon as Edward died and then proceeded to spend the majority of his short reign at the head of an army faced no military opposition for his decisions? He had quite literally eliminated his brother as a rival and in the final months of Edwards reign as he started to become incapable of rule he took a grasp on the reigns of power. There was no opportunity for immediate backlash.
>Denmark was in no position to invade on their own
Denmark attempted two invasions of England during William's rule. They were capable of doing so and did so.
>Also England was dominated by two noble family of which the Godwinsons were one
The Godwinsons were not a united family. Harolds largest rival was in fact his own brother Tostig who he defeated in a civil war. Tostig in exile even prepared a fleet to invade England against his brother to at the very least regain his position under Edward.
Or maybe I'm asking why any magnate in a country like 1065 England would've taken a 14 year old - who by all indications had literally no one backing him other than a handful of voices at the Witan that declared Harold king - as the rightful heir. Or why both contemporary English and Norman accounts don't seem to make any mention of Edgar being the TRUE and HONEST heir of Edward, other than the couple of months he was crowned king after William won and the surviving English magnates were scrambling for any somewhat-indigenous claimant to rally around.
>Or maybe I'm asking why any magnate in a country like 1065 England would've taken a 14 year old - who by all indications had literally no one backing him other than a handful of voices at the Witan that declared Harold king - as the rightful heir
Because he was the designated heir to Edward, and that he was the only eligible member of the Royal family. The last non dynastic ruler of Wessex was over 400 years ago and it was imposed by military conquest. Never once in the history of Wessex was a non dynastic ruler ever been appointed by a King or acclaimed by the Witan. There was no tradition for it and it was clearly very important to Edward considering he spent years trying to get Edward the Exile and Edgar to England. Nor is there any problem with his age, his own father was 12 when he took the throne and nobody believed there to be a problem with a minority.
Again, you're also ignoring the fact that Harold had crushed his main opposition months before he crowned himself and exilede Edgar. How exactly was anybody going to support Edgar when he was in Scotland? The Witan was not a deciding body for who gets to be King, they only ever confirmed men who were already in practice King. It was a rubber stamp, not a debate club.
>Or why both contemporary English and Norman accounts don't seem to make any mention of Edgar being the TRUE and HONEST heir of Edward
English sources do call Edgar the rightful heir to Edward, both in Edwards life and after Harolds defeat. Norman sources as to the succession of England only appear after 1066, which all attempt to justify William's claim by countering Harold's claim of 'Edward said so' with the same exact argument.
>Never once in the history of Wessex was a non dynastic ruler ever been appointed by a King or acclaimed by the Witan
Which Witan was it that appointed Harthacnut king, aka the guy that made Edward the Confessor his heir?
>Again, you're also ignoring the fact that Harold had crushed his main opposition months before he crowned himself and exilede Edgar
And his main opponents were actual/potential loyalists to Edward/Edgar? Or...?
>Which Witan was it that appointed Harthacnut king
Imposed by military conquest and again, a rubber stamp. There wasn't exactly any room for compromise considering Harthacnut inherited his fathers military dominance.
>aka the guy that made Edward the Confessor his heir?
Harthacnut did not make Edward his heir
>And his main opponents were actual/potential loyalists to Edward/Edgar? Or...?
Yes? Tostig was one of Edwards most loyal men and Edward supported him over Harold until he was forced to dismiss him after the civil war.
>Imposed by military conquest and again, a rubber stamp
And there's the rub.
>Harthacnut did not make Edward his heir
No, they just ruled jointly by some accounts and then when Harthacnut died Edward assumed the kingship in full - a world away from Edward deciding his nephew would be his heir while making little - if any - attempts to secure his position before he passed on (after eight years of potential)
>Tostig was one of Edwards most loyal men
I've yet to see a single historian claim the Northumbrian Revolt as an attempt to restore Edgar to his rightful throne
>No, they just ruled jointly by some accounts
Edward was in Normandy until Harthacnut died unexpectedly. There was no joint rule. The closest thing to joint rule between the English and Danes was with Cnut and Edmund when they agreed to split the Kingdom, which never happened because Edmund died before they could both assume power jointly.
>I've yet to see a single historian claim the Northumbrian Revolt as an attempt to restore Edgar to his rightful throne
I don't know where you got that idea from to begin with because I wasn't suggesting that at all nor would it make any sense as Edward was still alive. Had the civil war not happened there would have been far less of a chance for Harold to take the throne considering he would not be the only major title holder left in the Kingdom in Edwards last year. Tostig was a loyalist for Edward and a rival to Harold, Harold crushed him and removed his opposition allowing him to take power militarily uncontested.
Denmark was in no position to invade on their own and if he could defeat William and Harald there would have been little to fear from Edgar. Also England was dominated by two noble family of which the Godwinsons were one, short of a popular uprising (which wouldn’t happen to the king who defeated the Norwegians and Normans in rapid succession).
Reminder that Edgar was 'technically' King for two months but that was just a formality before William took the throne.
>What if he had managed to cast out the Normans
But he didn't. Dumb question
You must be a big hit at parties 🙂 go back to your fedora tipping threads.
nothing actually changes because the ethnic composition of Britain has always been Britons larping as whoever most recently invaded them. 2022 Study proved this, Brits are literally The Brigantes who lost to Caesar larping as everyone.
>lost to Caesar
Caesar failed in Britain
>2022 Study proved this, Brits are literally The Brigantes who lost to Caesar larping as everyone.
Yeah and the ancient Brits were sub saharan africans! This study proved it.