New research from the University of East Anglia (UEA) suggests that a lost papal letter could reshape historians’ understanding of the events surrounding 1066 and the Norman Conquest of England.
Excerpts from surviving letters preserved in the Vatican Archives indicate that a major political and religious power struggle in Rome may have influenced England’s fate. The evidence suggests that King Harold may have weakened his position before the Battle of Hastings by supporting the wrong faction during a bitter dispute between two rival popes.
If this interpretation is correct, the outcome of 1066 may have been determined by more than the fighting at Hastings. Political and religious decisions made in Rome could also have helped shape William of Normandy’s successful invasion of England.
The findings appear in Harold: Warrior King, a new book by UEA historian Professor Tom License, published by Yale University Press.
The research comes as the British Museum prepares to open a major exhibition featuring the Bayeux Tapestry, the most famous surviving artifact associated with the Norman Conquest.
Two rival popes divided medieval Europe
During the 1060s, Western Christendom was divided by a major papal schism in which two rival popes claimed authority. New research suggests that England’s support for one side of the dispute may have influenced Pope Alexander II’s decision to back William of Normandy’s invasion.
England’s choice of allegiance may therefore have had consequences far beyond the conflict in Rome.
Professor Tom License, Professor of Medieval History and Literature at UEA, said: “1066 was not simply decided on the battlefield at Hastings. The outcome may also have been shaped by decisions made almost a thousand miles away in Rome.”
The Norman Conquest has traditionally been viewed as a dynastic crisis that intensified after the death of Edward the Confessor, with rival claimants competing for the English throne.
Professor License argues that papal letters from the period reveal wider political and religious conflicts extending across medieval Europe.
He said: “Harold’s policies toward the papacy may ultimately have played into his enemies’ hands, giving William’s opportunistic invasion the appearance of a justified war.”
Lost Vatican letters offer new evidence
The research focuses on overlooked excerpts from lost papal letters preserved in the Vatican’s collection of medieval canon law.
“The complete papal correspondence has been lost,” Professor License said. “However, some letters survive in the form of copies and excerpts. Two excerpts from this particular letter are preserved in a collection of papal bulls.”
Pope Alexander II wrote the letter after William had taken the English throne. In it, Alexander reflected on the relationship between England and the papacy before the Norman Conquest.
One passage states that England was once protected by St. Peter but that its people “burned with the pride of their father Satan” and turned the English away from “the path of truth.”
“Historians have occasionally noted these statements, but they have generally treated them as unexplained references,” Professor License said.
“However, they can be fully understood only in the context of the bitter controversy that divided Western Christendom in the early 1060s.
“In 1061, rival factions elected two competing popes: Alexander II and Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, who became known as Honorius II.
“For several years, the two popes and their supporters fought for control of Rome. Honorius received strong backing from the Holy Roman Empire and gained support in other parts of Northern Europe.”
Professor License argues that the language of Alexander’s letter closely reflects the political and religious rhetoric used against Honorius and his supporters during the papal conflict.
This interpretation suggests that Alexander may not have been criticizing Harold solely for breaking an oath. Instead, the pope may have viewed England as abandoning its original faction and aligning itself with his rivals.
Professor License said: “In the eyes of Pope Alexander’s supporters, the conflict was no longer simply a struggle over the English crown. It was also a fight against those they regarded as followers of the devil.”
Why did the pope support William’s invasion?
Professor License believes that England’s change in its relationship with the Holy See may have occurred after Harold became king in January 1066.
“Historians have traditionally explained the pope’s support for William through Harold’s disputed claim to the throne and his alleged violation of an oath,” he said.
“This evidence suggests that Pope Alexander II may also have had political reasons for supporting the Norman invasion.
“If Harold had aligned England with Alexander’s rivals, this could help explain why the pope was willing to support the overthrow of a crowned king. From Rome’s perspective, the conquest may not have been merely a succession dispute, but part of a broader struggle over the future of the church in Europe.”
Professor License says this interpretation could help resolve a long-standing historical question: why did the pope support the violent removal of an anointed English king?
Did Rome help shape the Norman Conquest?
Pope Alexander II may therefore have supported William for reasons that extended well beyond Harold’s claim to the English throne. His decision may have been connected to a wider political and religious struggle unfolding across Europe.
Professor License’s research suggests that England’s support for the rival papal faction may have helped persuade Alexander to endorse the Norman invasion.
Viewed in this broader context, the Norman Conquest was not simply a struggle for control of England. The events of 1066 may also have formed part of a wider conflict involving the papacy, the Holy Roman Empire and competing centers of power across medieval Europe.
Professor David Ferguson, Regius Professor of Theology at the University of Cambridge, said: “Tom License’s study of the European context of the Norman invasion provides a new perspective on the wider political forces that contributed to the events of 1066.”
“His analysis of the role the papacy may have played in justifying William’s invasion illustrates the complex relationship between the medieval church and monarchy. It is an important contribution to understanding the church’s role in the wider history of Europe.”
Professor Rory Naismith, Professor of Early Medieval English History at the University of Cambridge, said: “This is certainly an important point. The Norman Conquest was not just about England and the Normans; it was connected to the development of Europe as a whole.”
“Rome had long been central to England’s religious identity, and highlighting the importance of Rome in the events of 1066 is a valuable contribution.
“Professor License shows what can be achieved by skillfully bringing neglected historical sources out of the shadows,” he added.
Source: www.sciencedaily.com