Gone Medieval - Did the Papacy Support the Norman Conquest?

Episode Date: October 30, 2021

In October 1066, William the Conqueror led his army to victory over Harold Godwinson and his Anglo Saxon forces. This was to begin the Norman invasion of England, inspire the famous Bayeux Tapestry and result in thousands of deaths. Many Many have argued that William's Conquest had the pope's support, with a supposed papal banner being carried by the Normans into battle. But is this true? And why else might this have been written into history? Daniel Armstrong is a PhD student at St. Andrews and Royal Historical Society Centenary Fellow at the Institute of Historical Research. He takes us through the evidence and explores the possible reasons for such a story. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval from History Hit. I'm Matt Lewis. The Battle of Hastings looms large over medieval history. We've already spoken about the Bayer tapestry and the way in which it tells the story of the Norman conquest. But I was intrigued to be put in touch with Daniel Armstrong, who was working on a PhD at St Andrews University and has just written his thesis on a particularly interesting aspect of the Battle of Hastings that has perhaps been taken for granted.

So thank you very much for agreeing to share this with us today, Dan. Thank you for inviting me, Matt. It's a pleasure to be here. So if we dive right in, is it ever possible to overestimate the importance of the Battle of Hastings as an event in medieval Western European history? Well, I mean, seen from a purely political perspective, the battle is clearly important. Now, there is a fair bit of debate amongst historians. over the cultural, social, economic impacts of the battle. But as your question stresses, if we're seeing it from a purely political perspective,

it clearly is important. This is a violent regime change. And indeed, the second violent regime change we've had in the space of 50 years after the conquest of Canute in 1016. And I think one of the crucial points about the battle, which makes it so important, is something very rare happens, and that is a king is killed on the battlefield. And in the Middle Ages, this is a big event politically in anyone's eyes. But to really appreciate the importance of the battle, and this is stressed in your question

in terms of its importance on the European stage, we probably actually have to look outside the English and Norman evidence to really appreciate this look further afield to what other people at the time say about the battle. And it's certainly an event that turns heads. We get a mixture of both admiration for William the conqueror and condemnation, Now, particularly the perceptions of William are interesting. It really is an event that really lifts him up to the kind of centre stage of European politics. He's seen as this formidable martial individual who's no longer just Duke of Normandy.

He's also the king of England and a key player on the European stage. Persearchions from Scandinavia are also very interesting. Of course, the histories of England and Scandinavia have been intertwined for the previous couple of centuries. And there are still various individuals with their eyes on England. famously we know of Harold Hedrada and 1066 and his failed invasion, but he's not the last one either. Another invasion is launched in 1075 and another one was planned again for 1085, which never happens. But obviously, William taking over England creates some interesting scenarios there. But as I've already alluded to, one of the most crucial and shocking events of Hastings is the fact that anointed king is killed on the battlefield.

And why I'd say this is important is because in the medieval mind, a king, was seen through his anointing as God's representative on earth, and his killing is therefore a rare and serious crime which turns heads. Gregory the 7th actually notes this in a letter to England where he conveys some of the shock of various members of the papal curia of the bloodshed that occurs at Hastings. Indeed, it's notably interesting that various of the Norman propaganders tried to undermine the idea that actually Harold was an anointed king. They later try to kind of brush this under the carpet or suggest that there are various reasons why Harold wasn't properly anointed and therefore this is not regicide that's happened at Hastings.

It's an inconvenient truth that he was anointed king. It certainly is. It certainly is. And one aspect of the Battle of Hastings, I think when we were chatting earlier, we're saying it's one of those things you quite often learn at school. It's often repeated and has become accepted in the repetition is the notion that William arrived at Hastings beneath a papal banner that had been granted to him by Pope Alexander II. So what do we know about this particular element of the story? So the story originates the man named William of Poitiers, who was a chaplain of King William and was writing in the early 1070s.

Now, he mentions the idea that a papal banner was granted to William for his conquest three times. The first comes when he records an embassy being sent to Pope Alexander II. before the invasion. The second occurs in his text when he relates how the Norman army lines up behind the banner at the battle. And then the third comes when he alludes to the banner with William basically reciprocating the gifts that Alexander has given him in terms of his support for the invasion. Now, as you said, it's generally accepted as part of our standard narrative of the invasion, indeed. An amusing aside to the bit you talked about learning at school is if you go to Battle Abbey and you go up into the kind of dressing up section of Battle Abbey,

there is actually a papal banner there. So when I actually discovered this, I thought I found the papal banner is actually here. But if we return to more serious points, it's been really important, although that it's a minor detail in terms of William McPoacier's narrative, it's been an important fact that shaped our thinking about the conquest and also wider things,

particularly the origins of the idea of crusading. Banners granted by the papacy are often seen as precursors to Urbans call to crusade at Clermont in 1095. And indeed, the Victorian historian Edward Freeman and his multi-volume history of the Norman conquest argued that we probably should describe the Norman conquest of England as the first crusade. But if it existed, and you might notice from my tone that I've put if in adverted commerce, it has, as I say, big implications for our understanding. For example, it frames our understanding of William's relationship with Rome,

the Norman claim to the throne, ideas around William's legitimacy, the conditions, condition of the English church, ideas around violence and the legitimacy of rulers during this period. So there's lots of things that actually, although it's only a minor detail, it has implications for. And I guess viewing the Norman conquest as in any way the First Crusade relies on viewing the English church as being somehow in serious trouble at the time. And Harold, as we mentioned before, maybe not being a legitimately anointed king, or at least that he'd perjured himself so much that he was basically a heretic. So you have to view England as a non-Christian state in order to go on a crusade against it.

Yes, so we get various ideas come around that particularly get latched onto the Archbishop Stigand during this period. He's often the man that the Norman propagandist fro mud up, basically trying to stick these ideas of Harold's not being anointed as king and the English church as being basically a thing off to the side of Europe that needs to be brought into line with changes that are occurring elsewhere. And do you think perhaps that was an easier argument to make than the idea that Harold wasn't a legitimate king in some ways, that heresy is almost easier mud to throw? Because if Harold's undergone a coronation, he's an anointed and legitimate king in most people's eyes. So you almost need another excuse.

So does this become a subsidiary excuse or maybe even the primary excuse for going to war is a religious one? Yeah, so religious reasons for going to war are often the strongest ones by which you can present your motive. and your acts as legitimate because killing and warfare at the time is sinful. So therefore, if you can basically claim your opponent is not conforming to the Christian values that they should be at the time, and your cause seems a more legitimate one. You're almost doing the Pope of favour by going to war. Exactly. Exactly. You're doing his work for him, basically. And so I think we guess from your tone that you're less than convinced that the papal banner in 1066

was real, that it didn't really appear at the Battle of Hastings. Yes and no, I think is the answer. I think there are a number of reasons why we should question William of Poitiers' claim that William was granted a banner in 1066 to sponsors' invasion. But I do believe that it is possible that William may have been granted a banner by the Pope in 1070 for other reasons, which I think will come back to later on. So why aren't you convinced by William of Poitiers' claim? He's pretty clear that there was a papal banner and that it was at the Battle of Hastings. As you say, he talks about Norman Knights forming beneath it. Why are you not convinced by his testimony? There's a number of reasons.

And I think the first thing I'd stress is that my view on a specific subject of the papal banner is part of a wider and new approach to the evidence surrounding 1066 and the Normans. I know you touched on this with your chat with David Musgrave about the biotapestry how various propagandists constructed the Norman narrative of the conquest afterwards. And essentially the view that is increasingly advocated by a number of historians now is that the Norman apologists after Hastings are constructing a sort of insidious propaganda campaign to rewrite the invasion and an attempt to cast William as the legitimate claimant to the throne

and challenge the idea that he's guilty of basically regicide in genocide. As I've already stressed killing was a pretty grave sin at the time. And indeed, those who fought at Hastings had to do penance after the battle. And this is outlined in an intriguing document known as the penitential ordinance. And the penance that each person had to fill was dictated by actually what they did specifically at the battle, and precisely when they did it as well, because there were certain times when killing was more legitimate, whereas after the battle had taken place, it was not such a legitimate act. But returning to the point about Poitiers and why I don't trust him, well, he's basically the most notorious of William's apologist and his biggest cheerleader. As I said,

he was William's chaplain and seemed to be writing in the early 1070s, and he's trying to present the invasion in a very positive light, seemingly in reaction to some of the criticism that William is receiving at the time. In doing so, he's quite ready, essentially, to deploy fictions in an attempt to justify William's violence and proclaim his legitimacy. But crucially, he, as I've already stressed, is our only contemporary evidence for the paper banner. We have no other evidence at all from the 11th century that a banner was granted to William. Now, this is striking in a number of cases. The other two main apologists, essentially, for the Norman invasion,

that are writing close to the time, a man named William of Jumeege, and Bishop Guillaume of Amiens. Neither of them mentioned a banner at all, despite having ample opportunity to do so, and we'd think it would suit their narratives. This doesn't mean they should mention it. We can't presume that, but it's a detail that's interesting that it's not there. We also don't know if there was one on the biotapestry.

There are, of course, banners on the biotapist. tapestry. We don't actually know what a papal banner look like. So trying to identify one on there is a futile exercise. So you can't say it is there, but you can't say it isn't there. Yeah, precisely that, precisely that. There are various banners on that. But a particularly interesting silence that I identified doing the research was in a letter by man named Anselma of Luca, who was a bishop at the time and a prominent member of the papal court. Now, he writes William the conqueror a letter in the 1080s, basically asking for William's supports to help the reform papacy at the time in their conflict with the Emperor Henry IV of Germany.

Now, what is quite striking about this letter is that letters in the Middle Ages, by convention were meant to be quite succinct, short pieces. This letter is very long, and crucially, Ansela of Luca is the nephew of Pope Alexander II. Now, in all his attempts to convince William the conqueror to come to the aid of the reform papacy at the time, Antam of Luka makes no mention of any papal sponsorship of William's invasion of the papal banner, which would have been a convincing argument to try and persuade William, basically to come into support of them at the time. It would have been an easy way for them to say you owe us one. It's time to return that favour from Hastings. Precisely that, and it's very odd that it's not there if that was the case. So it is an intriguing silence in our evidence there.

And there's been other attempts by some other historians to link other pieces of evidence to the papal banner. But none of these quite stack up. They're often too ambiguous to pinpoint. For instance, there's a letter. by Gregory the 7th, which does refer to the conquest, or the actual tone of the letter perhaps suggests that William tried to get papal support for his conquest in 1066, but wasn't actually successful in doing so, which is very interesting. Now, in the 12th century, this picture does change. We do have some references to the papal banner in the 12th century,

but all of these sources are reliant actually on William of Pochis. They've all read William of Poitiers's text. They're all drawing upon him, so they're not independent witnesses to the papal banner. So basically, one, William of Pochers is not a very trustworthy, where the individual, too, there is no other evidence for the papal banner. And that silence is very interesting. It even implies, in my view, that it didn't exist. Or there is an alternative argument to the one I've made is that the paper banner wasn't seen as very important by contemporaries.

Hence, they don't mention it, but I think the former explanation is a more convincing one. And it's interesting that you mention that William of Poitier may have written his piece in response to some pressures and criticisms that William was under by the 1080s. It's almost like a defensive move. So are we dealing here with a really early example of some fake news to try and defend William. There's certainly some sort of Orwellian twinge to the writings about the Norman conquest, especially as I think we've already flagged in some of the treatments of the English church, Stigand and Harold. These are individuals that could get condemned and even written out of history in some ways.

I think probably the key to understanding what's going on here is the idea of truth that people in the middle ages had. they had a different concept of truth to us. History wasn't a distinct discipline as it is for us nowadays. Back then, it was a branch of rhetoric and it operated according to various standards of truth informed by God's will. The construction of an image and the meeting of expectations was as important as relating what actually happened at the time. And conquest in particular was a difficult thing to justify and explain. It has to be presented as providential and sanctioned by God. And therefore, People were willing to basically lie, construct fictions and to distort in order to justify actions as pleasing in the legitimate in the eyes of God. And audiences for various reasons were actually willing to accept this.

Is it to some extent a comfortable lie that people are happy to take because it gives a strong justification for things that people can get behind, something they can understand and appreciate and sympathise with? Well, precisely that, I mean, if you put yourselves in the shoes of one of Williams' knights or someone who's fought with them at Hastings, and you've been guilty of a lot of bloodshed and crime, which the church tells you is not good for your soul, for your salvation. You probably sleep a little bit more comfortably at night if you kind of pretend to yourself that the invasion was sanctioned by the Pope. You're probably quite happy to buy into that

because it's good for how you think about yourselves and the way other people think about you too. And then by extension, all of the stories that Harold was not a legitimate king and was a perjurer and deserved what he got would again be a comfort to those people and a good way for them to excuse what they've done. Exactly precisely that. What did Tudor men like their women to look like?

They should have broad shoulders, fleshy arms, fleshy legs and broad hips. What did 17th century Londoners think of coffee? A syrup of soot and the essence of old shoes. And what did executioners wear? A lot of these guys, they were clothes horses because it's a big public spectacle. All the eyes are on you. I'm Professor Suzanne Lipscomb, and in my podcast, not just the Tudors, We talk about everything from monasteries to the Medici, sex to spying, wardrobes to witch trials.

Not in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. Subscribe from History Hit, wherever you get your podcasts. And there's often claims that the discussion of the papal banner at Hastings in 1066 is part of a pattern of papal banners being issued around the same time as the Norman Conquest. So do you accept the existence of these other banners, the argument that it was part of a pattern? So, yeah, one of the reasons I think why we have often believed in Williams paper banners is seen as part of this wider pattern that you've mentioned. But there is a real problem with these banners that actually if we dig into each one individually,

there's question marks about each one of them now. Some of these banners that have been identified, there's about seven of them. There's actually no evidence for them at all. There's one that's been claimed to have been president at the Battle of Chibitarte in 1053. Now, the only reason why this has been claimed is because the Pope was leading the army at the battle. So we presume a banner was present, but actually no one actually claims this. And then other banners, the evidence for them of it's very late. There's one that is claimed to have been granted by, to a man named William of Montreou,

but the evidence for that comes from the 12th century. And we're talking about a banner that was meant to be even granted in the 1060s. So the gap between its recording and actual existence is quite big. So this pattern is not as coherent as has been. made out, essentially. But I think one of the crucial points here is the idea that Pope Alexander II was granting banners to sanctioned warfare doesn't really actually fit with his views on violence or actions as Pope. He was a man who seems to revert compromise to conflict. The papacy, in general, actually during this period, was keen to encourage peace, compromise and reconciliation

amongst rulers in Christendom, favouring orderly succession. Peace was God-given and violence amongst Christians was an aberration and not something to be courage, let alone sponsored against an anointed king. And I think actually, if I may, it might be useful to demonstrate this point by making a couple of comparisons. Now, there's a really interesting one that comes from enjou during this period in the form of the conflict between folklore aches and Geoffrey the bearded in the mid-1060s. Now, the ruler at the time, Geoffrey, was not seen as a particularly good man. He was excommunicated by Archbishop Bartolme of Tors, who describes Geoffrey as the Nero of our time, and he actually appealed to the Pope for the confirmation of this excommunication.

Now, Alexander receives this letter and does eventually send some papal legates north to Enjou to assess the situation there. But the time they arrive, folk Geoffrey's brother has revolted and taken Geoffrey prisoner. It appears, however, despite Geoffrey's reputation, Alexander condemned, the actions of Falk, excommunicates him, and orders the restoration of Geoffrey to his position. The actions of Alexander here are hardly that of a man who is ready to sponsor the invasion of a Christian kingdom across the English Channel, and indeed they really betray a sense of caution on his part, demonstrating his belief in reconciliation and ordered succession. The situation does change again in 1068 in Anjou.

Jeffrey does get restored, but then Fulke rebels again, and this time he is successful in opposing him. his brother. And the other example is actually the succession dispute from Germany, where there is a conflict between Henry IV and his nobles, essentially. And the Pope at that time was Gregory the 7th, Alexander II, the successor. And he, during the initial four years of this conflict, really tries to ensure there's a peaceful reconciliation between the two sides. He's trying desperately hard to prevent violence between the two sides, despite the fact that Gregory has fallen out with Henry. He doesn't want him to be deposed. He sees him as a legitimate king and he doesn't want Christians to be fighting. This does change having 1081,

where he eventually sides with the rebels against Henry IV. But these two case studies, I guess, suggests the idea that the papacy was ready to sponsor the invasion of a Christian kingdom doesn't really add up at the time. And interestingly, I guess, in addition to what I've just described, the only two papal banners recorded in papal sources from this period are not granted for warfare at all. That's really interesting. I think the example in on Ju, is telling because it's contemporary to the Battle of Hastings, it's the same Pope. And if Alexander isn't even willing to depose a count who's behaving incredibly badly, it should make us have a pause for thought, I think, about the idea that he would depose an anointed king who's not recorded

as doing anything particularly badly. He's not been behaving poorly, according to the records, before the Normans arrive and maybe start to throw a little bit of mud at Harold. But there's not this long history of Harold being a problem that Alexander May have felt he had to deal with. and so his actions in Anjou kind of suggest if he wouldn't depose a count who was behaving badly, why are we so quick to believe that he would back the position of a king who wasn't necessarily behaving badly? Yeah, exactly that, because the actions of Geoffrey seemed quite so bad that it is a surprise in some ways that Alexander doesn't act against him. Now, there are some possible problems that the papacy may have had with Harold. Tom Leicen says suggested that he may have had some connections to a previous anti-Pope along with Stig.

and. But the idea that the papacy were ready to make a strong move against him in that regard seems unlikely, especially based on some papal legates get sent to England in 1062 or 1063, but they don't really bring up any of these problems. And again, they're still not strong enough to suggest that an invasion should be sanctioned against an anointed king of a Christian kingdom. And it would also have been a fairly swift move, given that Harold only comes to the throne at the start of the year and is deposed by the end of it. So, it would be an almost immediate decision by the papacy that Harold is a completely unacceptable incumbent

as a Christian king in England. Exactly, a very quick and a very rash decision, which doesn't seem to add up with what we know of Alexander. And you mentioned there that there were two documented papal banners that we know definitely existed. So what do we know about those, particularly if they weren't used for warfare? So these two banners, one is from 1076

and one is from 1078. Now, admittedly they're both from the pontificate of Greg the 7th, not Alexander the second, but there is a reason that we shouldn't be too concerned about that, is that more evidence survives for Gregory's pontificate than most of his predecessors' successors in a close space of time to him because his papal register survives, which is a collection of his letters. So we have a lot more evidence for Gregory than most of the other Pope surrounding him, which is a great source and it's really useful for some comparative work, but we must be wary essentially of attributing new practices to him. They quite plausibly

predated him. Now the two banners themselves, one is from 1076, as I've said, that was given to the Croatian ruler Demetrius Zonimir, who was a man who was in quite a precarious position on the throne. He was faced with internal and external threats to his position. He had no hereditary claim, so he's a ruler that's in basically a lot of trouble. And he appeals to Gregory the seventh for some help. Gregory sends some legates who crown him and celebrate a council, and during this as part of that crowning and council celebration, he is given a papal banner, which is very interesting. And the second case comes from Serbia in 1078, where King Michael of Zeta also appears to have requested papal blessing for his rule, siding with the papacy against Byzantium. Legates are also sent here and a council is celebrated.

And crucially, actually, and this is really interesting, Michael requests a papal banner in his letter to the Pope, as part of his confirmation, demonstrating that there was a perception amongst rulers that the possession of a banner from the Pope was an important token of papal approval at the time. Therefore, from these two examples, it seems papal approval is something that is seen as worthwhile seeking for vulnerable rulers at the time. And it's an intriguing possible parallel from England, actually, in 1070. Now, we often think of Hastings as this decisive final moment with William's conquests as, you know, totalising after the battle.

But William really had many struggles in holding on to power in England and none more serious than in 1069 to 70 when he's confronted with a series of revolts across England, most notably in the north. There's an uprising in Maine. And there's attacks on England from Scotland and Denmark. And actually, interestingly, I was listening to the podcast you did with David Musgrove talking about the effing Edgar there. Edgar is, of course, still alive at this time. And he's also a threat to William at this moment. So there's that added complication. there's a rival claimant to the throne that's still alive. Now, William does manage to suppress these uprisings, but it's clear to him, I think, that he feels that he needs to do more than just defeat his enemies in the field. He's been doing this quite a lot and they still keep coming back. So he needs to essentially bolster perceptions of his legitimacy. So like, actually, Demetius Sonomir, and like Michael of Zeta, he appeals to Alexander

for further affirmation of his rule in order to restore the Christian peace in his kingdom. is sent free papal legates who celebrate a council with him, where there is some sort of crown wearing or second coronation. And there are really some striking parallels here between the actions in 1076 and 1078 with what happens with William in 1070. So it sounds to me like the two banners that we do know about for certain were also much more of a defensive mechanism.

So it was for rulers who were in trouble to have themselves accepted as legitimate and to bolster their position, whereas relying on the papal banner being at Hastings in 1066 is an offensive move by the papacy, giving a banner for someone in order to depose another ruler. So it seems to me like perhaps those early banners were used for supportive, defensive reinforcement reasons, which would be at odds with the idea of one being at Hastings supporting Williams' conquering of England. Exactly. These seem to be symbols of papal affirmation for rulers who need their support.

declarations that the Pope sees them as legitimate and they have this banner granted by him to prove that. And so if we swing all the way back round to William of Poitiers' source, why do you think he's so explicit in placing the banner at Hastings in 1066? Why does he not place it maybe around the 1070 rebellions? Well, he's trying to present William's act of violence as a legitimate accession to power. The central truth of his narrative being that William was the rightful king of England as ordained by God. And now a way of doing this is essentially to claim that the invasion was sponsored by the Pope. So what he's doing here is elevating the invasion from what was pretty much an opportunistic land grab to one in the cause of God and the church,

led by a perfect Christian prince who sought papal and divine approval for his actions. But I think there's also some very personal reasons why Poitiers might do this too. He was William's chaplain and therefore responsible for the king's salvation. and therefore he was basically seeking to justify his sins. This was important for him too, because as a chaplain, if you failed to correct or absolve the sins of someone who you are responsible for, you share in them too, so he would also be damned through association there. So there's a very spiritual reason that Poitias might be trying to do this.

And also placing the banner in 1066, rather than 1070, might have been designed to downplay the contemporary problems. William continued to face. It presents an idea of stability. around William's rule, which actually doesn't appear to have been there at the time. But essentially, these factors are all united in constructing a perception that William acted justly and was a legitimate claimant to the throne at the time. And it was pretty believable, too.

There were many banners at Hastings, as the bi-tapestry shows itself. And it's merely transforming Alexander's maybe early hesitancy about the invasion into active support there. And it's not, the paper banner is not a sole case of someone shifting around paper sponsor. ships or sanctions. There's an interesting parallel to this that comes in the 12th century with Gerald of Wales, who essentially, through quite canny interpolations of a papal letter, presents the papacy as sponsoring the invasion of Ireland there, when actually the papacy tries to dissuade Henry II from doing just that. So there are some interesting parallels elsewhere

to this case. William of Poit is not alone in shifting a later papal applause for something into a sanction of it from the very start. So is it almost like after the event saying, well, if the Pope said it was okay, then who's going to complain about it now? How could the Pope be wrong? Exactly. Well, he's the highest spiritual authority on earth

so that you really shouldn't be questioning him. And I think it's quite striking as well in what you were saying then, that if William of Plattier is seeking to almost absolve William, the conqueror, and himself of his sins for involvement in the conquest, that he seems to believe that you can do that by convincing everybody else

that what you did was right. So this isn't necessarily about a conversation with God or feeling that you've got genuine spiritual justification for what you did. It's almost like you can be redeemed by public opinion. Yeah, and I think public opinion is very important. You want to be perceived as pious and a good person in the eyes of God. And also it is about God's purpose on a, William clearly won the Battle of Hastings. Therefore, he was supported by God in doing this. They're just trying to work out how this went and the reasons behind it. And I suppose I probably shouldn't be so surprised when you place it in the context of the idea that people would build churches to show how pious they were and how much they deserved to be saved and go to heaven, irrespective of what they may be doing in their private lives or personal lives or how many people they've killed on a battlefield. It was all about show. Yeah, precisely that. It's a useful parallel to draw.

And so do you think that your belief that the papal banner may not have been at Hastings in 1066, does this have wider implications for our general understanding? of 1066, the Norman invasion, the Battle of Hastings and everything that was going on in that period? Yeah, I think it does. And I think the first point is the one we've just been discussinging, is the idea that convenient fictions are often more powerful than the reality of what happened. But in terms of the ramifications for the things that happened, well, it significantly reframes our understanding of Anglo-paper relations either side of 1066, whilst having a bearing upon how William's legitimacy and rule was perceived. And it also has implications for appreciation of the relationship between the papacy and rulers in the mid-11th century.

It calls into question the ideas that the papacy was granting banners as sanctions of conquest in the 11th century, instead drawing attention to the use of banners in pursuing favor upon rulers in a precarious position. Paper recognition was clearly something that was seen as worth seeking by rulers at the time. And it's an important lesson also in how we read the evidence around the conquest that we should question the details of our narratives. I think as we were discussing at the start, we as historians are kind of detectives in some ways. We're solving a problem. And this has been one that's been a case closed for a while. But actually, if we go back and kind of re-examine the evidence, there are a number of question marks about it that means it should

be debated a bit more as we've been discussing here. Yeah, and I think I've mentioned to you when we were chatting, and I'm sure everyone that's listened to this podcast before knows that I'm a Ricardian. I'm interested in Richard III. And so those arguments are an easy sell to me, that there are lots of things that we tend to accept because they've been repeated so many times, when if you actually lift up a couple of stones, look at a little bit of evidence, you can very quickly pick those things apart. And in the case of this papal banner, you can trace it all back to one source in William of Poitiers. All of the later certainty can be traced all the way back to him.

And he clearly has very obvious reasons for positioning it the way that he did. And I guess not least is covering up some of the weakness that William was suffering in 1070 if he did need a papal banner then. So if you shift that to 1066 as support for a conquest, it kind of deflects attention from 1069, 1070 vulnerability and weakness in which William needs bolstering by the Pope, which was doubtless good at the time. But looking back at it, you might think, well, that doesn't make William look great if he needed the Pope's help in that time. Yeah, exactly that. There are all these sorts of reasons that intermingle that why this is an appealing narrative about which to present the Norman Conquest of England with this paper sponsorship.

Thank you so much, Dan, for sharing the fruits of your research with us today. I think it just goes to show that there's always a little bit. bit more to discover and maybe that there's nothing new under the sun, not even the fake news that dogs us today. Thank you for having me, it's much appreciated. Well, I've got you, I'd like to recommend an episode of not just the Tudors, also from History Hit. There's an episode on Sir Thomas Moore that covers one of the 16th century's most interesting and often paradoxical figures. You can join Dr Kat Jarman again on Tuesday for another fantastic brand new episode of Gone Medieval. So don't forget to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts and tell all your friends

family that you've gone medieval. Anyway, I'd better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis, and we've just gone medieval with history hits.