Who Should Be the King in 1066 Out of the Candidates That Fought for the Thrown.

541 Words3 Pages
Who should be the king in 1066 There was a dilemma in England in 1066; who is to be king? Edward the confessor has died suddenly and hadn’t appointed an heir to take over the British throne, the people needed a ruler and four people were quite happy to volunteer; Harald Godwinson, Edgar Aetheling, Harold Hardrada and William duke of Normandy. But obviously people needed to choose one, these are the following reasons why the men are good and bad choices for the throne. This is the dilemma: Edward the confessor has died and he hasn’t had an heir to the British throne so we need to find a successor we have four claimants to the throne but not one of them is perfect we need to choose one. First of all we’ll look at Harald Godwinson. He had a strong claim to the throne because he was a blood relative of Edwards. He also had experience of power and he was very popular with the English. But when Edwards died Godwinson was expected to mourn his dead relative, instead he rushed to fight for the throne, instead of respecting his loss he was rude and disrespectful in his race for power and people were not happy with this. This section is all about Harald Godwinson! As the other three claimants he had a good claim and many strengths here they are; he had experience, he was a blood Relation of king Edward the Confessor, he had support, he was English and popular! As the others ,Harold’s claim wasn’t all good, here is his down fall; when the king died Harold was expected to mourn for months but instead he rushed he skipped mourning and decided to start begging for the throne. Edgar Aetheling has, as the others had many strong points here they are; he was the nephew of the recently deceased king and he had support from other important nobles, but all is not as it seems here are his weak points; his dad died in
Open Document