My thoughts on 1066 events

Edward - Will the real Edward stand up?   In my previous posts on Edward ( Edward - Confessor or Con parts 1 to 3) I discuss the 4 main reasons why I think that Edward post-1030 was a con. In this post I'm going to look at some of the things that happened in the life of Edward post 1030 and before 1042.  In doing so I would also like to introduce my candidate for the person who actually sat upon the throne of England between the years 1042 and 1066.  Here's a recap of my 4 main reasons :-             1. Ignorance of the way that a King is selecting in England.               2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married.           3.   The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.          4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey.  A few dates and background f...

Edward - C onfessor or Con ( Part 3)  Now we come to the character of Edward having dealt with his actions.  Could an insight into the character of Edward be gained from looking at reasons 2,3,4 listed below?         2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married.           3.   The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.          4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey. Let's consider reason 2. Now this comes from the hagiography written by St Ælred of Rievaulx and repeated by R.F Jerome Porter in his text of the 17th cent. No real reason is given by Ælred in his hagiography other than Edward wanted to preserve his pious resolve. It is as though Edward had made a vow to God and the one reason I can think of is that Edward had become a monk during his exile and wanted to keep those vows. Now, it would be completely understand...

 Edward Confessor or Con? (Part 2) So let's start with my main reason I consider King Edward a fake.  Ignorance of the English way of selecting a King For many hundreds of years since the Norman invasion of 1066 and until recently, the eldest male child  automatically inherited the throne. This method of selecting a King is so baked into folk that most think it was always so - it wasn't.  For a lot of early kingdoms in the isles of Britain the method of selecting a king relied on a select band voting - yes voting for the man who they thought was going to be best at the job. My own family name "Casey" comes from Ireland where it was part of the Dalcassian tribes from which petty kings were elected. So, the principle of "electing" a King was established on both sides of the Irish Sea.  A remarkable thing about the Catholic Church is how they elect a new Pope and how it mirrored the practice in Anglo-Saxon England. Since Cardinals and Popes are supposedly celib...

Edward - Confessor or Con ? (part 1) I am strictly a 1066 Battle of Hastings enthusiast but while things are happening in the background with my choice of battlesite I have looked into the life and times of Edward the Confessor. What I found was curious and when looked at as a whole, pointed to some rum goings on. It could be that I'm making 2 plus 2 equal 5 but in Edward's case, I'm sure the answer isn't 4.  There are 4 main reasons why I think that it is not Edward that is buried in Westminster            1. Ignorance of the way that a King is selected in England.               2. Continuance of a vow of chastity even when married.           3.   The use of poison as a means of getting rid of opponents.          4.  The hyper-focus of Edward in completing the building of Westminster Abbey.  There are other things that require a...