Did the Papacy Support the Norman Conquest?

Hello, I'm Matt Lewis. And I'm Dr. Eleanor Janaga. And we're just popping up here to tell you some insider info. If you would like to listen to Gone Medieval ad-free and get early access in bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With the History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries. Such as my new series on everyone's favourite conquerors, the Normans. Or my recent exploration of the castles that made Britain.

There's a new release to enjoy every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com forward slash subscribe or find the link in the show notes for this episode. of my life From building timelines to assigning the right people and even spotting risks across dozens of projects, Monday Sidekick knows your business, things ahead, and takes action. One click on the star and consider it done.

And I owe it all to you. Try Monday Sidekick, AI you'll love to use, on Monday.com. You've worked hard to build your business. SimpliSafe helps you protect it. With Simply Safe for Business, AI-powered cameras watch over your entry points and instantly alert live monitoring agents. They can deter intruders before they get inside. It's protection built for growing companies.

24-7 monitoring, no contracts, and a 60-day money-back guarantee. To get 50% off your new system, go to simplisafe.com slash podcast. That's simplisafe.com slash podcast for 50% off. There's no safe like SimpliSafe.

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 is 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 stressing your question

in terms of its importance on the European stage, we probably actually have to look outside of 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. Persetions 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. Now, of course, famously, we know of Harold Hedrada in 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 an anointed king is killed on the battlefield. And why I 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 VII 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 propagandas try 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. Is it inconvenient truth that he was an anointed king? It certainly is. It certainly is.

And one aspect of the Battle of Hastings, I think when we were chatting earlier, we were 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 of a 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. Now 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.

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 of Poitier's narrative it's been important fact that shaped our thinking about the conquest and also wider things, particularly the origins of the idea of crusading. Lanners granted by the papacy are often seen as precursors to Urban's call to crusade at Clermont in 1095.

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 inverted commas, 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 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's... as we mentioned before, maybe not being a legitimately anointed king, or at least that he'd purged 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 propagandists throw mud at, 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 motives 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 then your cause seems

a more legitimate one. You're almost doing the Pope a 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 sponsor his 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 we'll 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. And I know you touched on this with your chat with David.

about the bio-tapestry, 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... 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 and 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 Williams apologists and his biggest cheerleader. As I said, he was Williams' 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 are a man named William of Jumiege.

and Bishop Guy of Amiens. Neither of them mentioned the 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 bio tapestry there are of course banners on the bio tapestry we don't actually know what a paper banner looked 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 a man named Anselm 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 support to help the reformed 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...

Anselm 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 reformed papacy at the time, Anthem of Luca makes no mention of any papal sponsorship of William's invasion or 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 VII which does refer to the conquest, but 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 reference to the papal banner in the 12th century, but all of these sources are reliant actually on William of Poitiers. They've all read William of Poitiers' text. They're all drawing upon him, so they're not independent witnesses. to the papal banner so basically one William F. Poitiers is not a very trustworthy individual two

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 papal 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 Poitiers 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 Willian? 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...

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 has to be presented as providential and sanctioned by god and therefore

People were willing to basically lie, construct fictions and distort in order to justify actions as pleasing and 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 William's knights or someone who's fought with him 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 Susanna 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. This episode is brought to you by Royal Kingdom, the latest puzzle game from the creators of Royal Match. When I first heard about Royal Kingdom, it seemed too good to be true.

Royal Kingdom is a relaxing yet challenging puzzle game with high quality graphics and beautifully animated cut scenes. You can download Royal Kingdom for free, play without being interrupted by ads and even without Wi-Fi too. So it's the ideal companion. for holidays and long trips, as well as sneaking in a couple of rounds in the evening.

The levels vary and different types of challenges are woven in to keep it engaging. Completing levels lets you build your kingdom, so I'm already interested. But what do you know, one of the main characters is King Richard, who's battling the Dark King to save his realm. I mean, was this game just made for me? So download Royal Kingdom for free on the App Store or Google Play today.

You've worked hard to build your business. SimpliSafe helps you protect it. With SimpliSafe for Business, AI-powered cameras watch over your entry points and instantly alert live monitoring agents. They can deter intruders before they get inside. It's protection built for growing companies, 24-7 monitoring, no contracts and a 60-day money-back guarantee.

To get 50% off your new system, go to simplisafe.com slash podcast. That's simplisafe.com slash podcast for 50% off. There's no safe like SimpliSafe. Monday Sidekick, the AI agent that knows you and your business, thinks ahead and takes action. Ask at anything, seriously. Monday Sidekick, AI you'll love to use. Start a free trial today on monday.com. History has made this world of ours

I'd like to tell you about my show, Dan Snow's History Hit, that really explains everything that's ever happened. The origin stories of the cities we inhabit, or of what's in our kitchen cupboards. Why we've always been drawn to dictators. the greatest discoveries, inventions, and mistakes ever made. For curious stories, check out Dan Snow's 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 William's papal 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. So there's one that's been claimed to have been president at the Battle of...

Civitate in 1053. Now, the only reason why this has been claimed is because the Pope was leading the army in the battle. So we presume a banner was present, but actually no one actually claims this. And then other banners, the evidence for them is very late.

There's one that is claimed to have been granted to a man named William of Montreux, but the evidence for that comes from the 12th century. And we're talking about a banner that was meant to be granted in the 1060s. So the gap between its recording and actual existence is quite... 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 sanction 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 favoring orderly succession peace was god-given and violence amongst christians was an aberration and not something to be courage let alone

and 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 Anjou during this period in the form of the conflict between Folklorachan 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 Barthelmy of Tours.

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 Anjou to assess the situation there. By the time they arrive, Falk, Geoffrey's brother, has revolted and taken Geoffrey prisoner.

It appears, however, that despite Geoffrey's reputation, Alexander condemns the actions of Folk, 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. Indeed, they really portray a sense of caution on his part, demonstrating his belief in reconciliation and ordered succession.

The situation does change again in 1068 in Anjou. Geoffrey does get restored, but then Falk rebels again, and this time he is successful in deposing 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 VII, 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 out in 1081, where he eventually sides with the rebels against Henry IV.

These two case studies, I guess, suggest 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 Anjou 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 seem... 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 License has suggested that he may have had some connections to a previous anti-pope along with Stigand. 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 VII, not Alexander II, 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 or 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 popes 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 Dimitris Zonomir, 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 VII 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 paper 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 paper 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 a time.

And there'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, totalizing 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... 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 claim 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. doing this quite a lot and they still keep coming back. So he needs to essentially bolster perceptions of his legitimacy. So like actually Demetrius Zonomir 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 William's 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.

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 wanting 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... 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 Poitiers 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 biotapestry 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 papal sponsorships 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 tried to dissuade Henry II from doing just that. So there are some interesting parallels elsewhere to this case.

of Poitiers 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 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 Poitiers 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 earth 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.

The first point is the one we've just been discussing, 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 tens. 66, whilst having a bearing upon how Williams' 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 bestowing favour 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 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 the third

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 poitier 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. No, there are all these sorts of reasons that intermingle why this is an appealing narrative about which to present the Norman conquest of England with this papal 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 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.

While 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 More 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 and 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 Hit.

Make money predicting football. Now you can. Now in Texas with Calci. Calci is the only platform that lets you legally trade on real world events in all 50 states from football to Bitcoin, the Oscars, and even politics. If it matters, you can trade on it. Trade on who wins each game, props, spread, and more. Legally, now in Texas. Don't miss your shot. Download the Kalshi app or go to Kalshi.com. Use code PODCAST and get $10 when you trade $100. This is an investment that carries risk.