FROM 1016 to 1035, England had been ruled in right of conquest by
a Danish king. Between 1035 and 1066, the country was threatened
seriously and frequently by other Scandinavians intent on conquest.
Against this background, the invasion of the Normans seems neither
sudden nor unprecedented. And, when all has been said regarding
its good and bad effects, it must be borne in mind that England, once
conquered by the Normans, was at least never conquered by anyone
else. When Duke William had the crown placed on his head on
Christmas Day, 1066, he -- and his dynasty -- had come to stay.

Historians are generally agreed that until shortly before his death
the childless Edward the Confessor, who was educated in Normandy
and had personal leanings towards French men and manners, wished
his successor to be William the Bastard, ¹ Duke of the Normans since
1035. Nominally, the Duke of Normandy, ruler of a rich and
compact region from the Côtentin peninsula to the mouth of the
River Somme, was the subject of the King of France. But ever
since the early tenth century, when the Scandinavian pirates had
become permanent settlers and had founded the duchy, Normandy
had maintained a much greater degree of independence towards the
French kingdom than normal feudal custom would have permitted,
and no Duke of Normandy would have regarded the possible
acquisition of the English throne as dependent on his nominal
overlord's consent.

King Edward's intention and the duke's acceptance were probably
signalised as early as 1051, when William paid a personal visit to the
English court. But between that date and Edward's death English
politics had become dominated by the family of the earls of Wessex,
who stood for a powerful and growing anti-foreign reaction among
the English governing class. Their head until his death in 1053 was
Earl Godwine, and he was succeeded by his son Harold, a man of

-30-