Posted in 52 Books in 52 Weeks 2009

Apparently I have decided to study British history.  You might recall that for Christmas I ordered myself the Usborne book Roman Britain, I just finished 1066, and now I am reading The Wordsworth Book of the Kings and Queens of Britain.  In general, this is fueled by several things: my lasting interest in all things Scandinavian (British history is inextricably linked with Scandinavian history), my fascination with genealogy (thanks to my aunt's hard work, I have one branch of my family traced back to England in 1598), my daughters' love for Scotland, and the fact that I have been reading books set in Britain for, oh, about 25 years.

1066 was fascinating!  I really didn't know anything about it beyond the fact that in 1066, Richard the Conqueror invaded England and took it over, and then the Normans suppressed the British, teaching them well so they in turn could suppress the Irish and the Scottish.  The book goes chronologically through the year, starting with the death of Edward the Confessor and ending with the coronation of William the Conqueror.  I hadn't realized that this was the story that the Bayeux Tapestry tells either; Howarth uses it as source material.

So, it seems that Edward may have promised to choose William as his heir, but then on his deathbed, seemed to indicate that Harold should succeed him.  Harold was confirmed as king by the council of wise men.  But when William heard, he got upset.  Apparently Harold may have also at one point promised to support William as king.  William spends the year planning to invade, actually does in September, and is successful.

One of the really enjoyable things about the book is that Howarth has analyzed all the facts and tries to give a psychological understanding of each of the major figures.  Why did they act the way they did?  He makes it clear that these are his suggestions, but it seems like they fit the facts very well.

Another enjoyable aspect is playing the game What If?  Howarth does a good job showing that, if even one little thing had happened differently, the outcome would have been completely changed.  William was by no means assured of a victory.  And it had never really occurred to me that no one else since has managed to invade Britain, let alone win.

I felt sorry for King Harold - he seemed like a good king.  The coincidences necessary for William to defeat him seem incredible - it makes you wonder if it was God's will.  But how could it have been?

One part I found lacking in the book was at the very end, when Howarth says, "There is no end to the arguments about the ultimate merits of the Norman conquest...The consensus is that it was beneficial in the long run. But its benefits were no comfort to the people of 1066...All they saw was a cruel foreign invader...at least three hundred thousand English people, one in five of the native population, were killed in William's ravages or starved by the seizure of their farm stock and their land."  He goes to say that William wasn't too fond of England either.  I would have liked him to explain more what he means by the consensus believing that it was beneficial - what are the reasons?  What were the effects of the Norman conquest long-term?  Obviously, that is outside the scope of the book, because it only covers the year 1066, but I would have liked at least a paragraph or so.  Now I am going to have to find the information myself!

I also thought it was very interesting that he points out that the Battle of Hastings took place before gunpowder was invented, so people even a mile away from the battle would have heard nothing.  That is hard to imagine!

A side note: it's kind of cool to see how popular the names Roger and Robert were back then!