Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merrett, and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's lesson is looking at the Norman conquest of 1066, and by the end of the day's lesson, we'll be able to recall that the Normans conquered England in 1066 and made a number of changes to English life, such as creating the feudal system and reforming the church.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms, and our key terms for today are Normans, succession, monasteries, and feudal system.

The Normans were people who settled in Normandy in the 10th century.

A succession is the right or sequence of inheriting a title or position.

Monasteries are buildings, housing a community of monks.

And the feudal system is the social system introduced to England by the Normans, which greatly increase the power of the king.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is looking at 1066, also known as the year of crisis.

So let's get going.

Now, Edward the Confessor became King of England in 1042 upon the death of his childless half brother Hardicanute.

Edward has spent more than 25 years in exile in Normandy.

Quite simply after Cnut took over, it wasn't safe for a son of Aethelred the Unready to be in England.

But thankfully as his mother was Emma of Normandy, he had ties to the Norman court, so he was safe in his uncle's realm.

When Edward returned to England, he naturally brought with him Normans who he could trust.

However, these Normans were very unpopular with the Anglo-Saxon labels, and the most powerful of the Anglo-Saxon labels was Godwin, who Edward absolutely hated for his part in the murder of his elder brother Alfred in 1036.

Edward and Alfred had returned to England in 1036 in order to try and help Alfred take the throne.

They had been captured by Godwin, had been handed over to one of the Vikings who had blinded Alfred.

And the reason being is that by doing so, that would make him unsuitable to be king.

Unfortunately, well, even more unfortunately for Alfred, his wounds became infected and he died in agony a few days later.

But Edward never forgave Godwin for his parts in the murder of his brother.

Unfortunately, for Edward though, he absolutely needed Godwin's support if he was to rule England, and so he actually married Godwin's daughter Edith.

Under Edward's rule, Godwinsons actually also gained control of all of the earldoms of England, except for Mercia, so under Edward, the Godwins and the Godwinsons became incredibly powerful.

As Edward's reign progressed, he retreated more and more into spiritual matters, leaving the running of the kingdom to one of Godwin's sons, Harold.

Harold acted as subregulus, which means deputy king, for the final seven years or so of Edward's reign.

And he actually, he proved himself to be a popular and effective leader.

Harold was a capable military leader.

He was rich, he was powerful, and he was well-liked by both the nobles and the peasantry as well.

When Edward died on the 5th of January 1066, he supposedly entrusted the protection of England to his brother-in-law Harold, although it's not actually clear what he meant by this, or actually even if it really happens.

And this is problematic, as Edward had also reportedly made William Duke of Normandy, who was his distant cousin, his heir in 1051 when the Godwins were in exile.

William had also secured a guarantee from Harold that he would support William's claim to the throne of England.

Harold had been shipwrecked off the coast of Normandy, and again, there's a little bit confusion about actually what happened next.

Harold may well have been under duress, forced to support William's claim.

He may have done it out of a sense of goodwill and gratitude for saving his life from the shipwreck.

But either way, it would appear as though Harold did indeed swear to support William's claim.

And again, this was quite a big deal with the fact that Harold could potentially now renege on that promise.

The matter of the succession was complicated further by two other claimants as well.

There's Harald Hardrada, who was the Viking king of Norway.

He had a pretty weak claim, if I'm honest.

His weak claim to the throne was inherited from a previous Viking king.

That was his claim to the throne.

And also there was Edgar Aetheling as well, who was the 14-year-old son of King Edmund Ironside of England.

And legally, Edgar Aetheling actually had the strongest claim to the throne, but in reality, he was the least powerful of all the claimants, and as a result was never really likely to have been chosen.

The matter of the succession was decided by the witan, and the witan were the council of leading Anglo-Saxon nobles.

And as almost all of the earls of England were sons of Godwin, they were therefore dominated by the Godwinsons.

On the 6th of January, they declared that Harold Godwinson was to be crowned king of England, which happened later that day.

Right, let's a quick check for understanding first of all.

So why did the death of Edward the Confessor in 1066 spark a succession crisis? Was it because he had named several different heirs? Was it because he named his wife as heir? Or was it because he did not clearly name an heir? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose C, then very well done.

There was no real clear idea about who was the next choice for king.

And another quick check for understanding is a discussion based question.

I'd like you to think, why did the witan grant the throne to Harold Godwinson upon Edward's death? So see if you can come up with a list of different reasons as to why the witan would've done this.

So pause the video whilst you do this, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got okay with that task.

Let's think of what you could have said then.

So you might have said that Harold was both powerful and popular.

He had successfully been subregulus for seven years.

He was Edward's brother-in-law.

Harold was English.

He was Anglo-Saxon, so certainly was native to this land.

He was a proven military commander.

And the witan was also dominated by his brothers, by the Godwinsons.

If you've got any different answers, then that's fantastic, but hopefully you've got at least a few of those on the screen there as well.

Right, let's go for our first task for today then.

So I'd like you to think in your opinion, who had the best claim to the throne of England in 1066? And I'd like you to include one piece of evidence to support your chosen candidate, but I'd also like you to include one piece of evidence to undermine or discredit a rivals claim.

It's up to you who you choose there.

So make your choice now.

Think about how you can support their claim.

Think about how you can undermine a rival's claim as well.

Pause the video whilst you do this, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you got on okay with that task.

Let's think what you could have said then.

So you might have said that Harold Godwinson had the best claim to the throne of England in 1066 because he was related to the previous king by marriage and had already been performing the role of subregulus for seven years with great success.

Harald Hardrada had the weakest claim as he had no right himself to the throne, but instead took a claim from a previous Viking king.

Alternatively, you might have said that William, Duke of Normandy, had the best claim to the throne of England in 1066 because he was related to the previous king and had also probably been named as heir by Edward the Confessor.

Edgar Aetheling had the weakest claim as he was an inexperienced boy at a time when England desperately needed a confident and experienced leader.

If you've chosen somebody different to the examples I've given, that's absolutely fine.

It's your opinion.

The important thing is that you've justified why you hold your opinion as well.

Right, let's go for our next learning cycle for today, which is looking at the Norman invasion.

Now with the exception of the young Edgar Aetheling, all of the claimants began preparing for war.

On the 8th of September 1066, Harald Hardrada landed in the northeast and took control of the area surrounding York.

King Harold II, as he was now known, marched north at breakneck speed as soon as he heard the news, and he caught Hardrada off guard, managing to kill him in battle on the 25th of September and putting an end to the Viking invasion.

This actually also put an end to the Viking era in Europe as well.

Harald Hardrada was the last great Viking king.

Just three days later, William landed on the South Coast at Pevensey, nearly 300 miles from King Harold II.

Harold heard the news as he was already marching south.

He increased the pace of his army once again, meeting William in battle on Senlac Hill near Hastings on the 14th of October, 1066.

The battle between Harold II and William lasted a full day, which was fairly unusual for this time period.

It was a long battle by this time period's standards.

By the day's end, the Battle of Hastings was over, Harold II was dead, and William was victorious.

Victory did not immediately grant William the throne, however.

The witan actually elected Edgar Aetheling as king, much to William's anger.

The Norman army therefore continued the fight, taking control of key positions, such as the Port of Dover and the Treasury at Winchester, just to name a couple of really key locations they took.

By the time that William had advanced on London, Edgar and the witan knew they were defeated.

They met William outside of the city walls and peacefully accepted him as king.

William was then crowned in Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day.

Well, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So I've got a true or false statement here.

William, Duke of Normandy, defeated Harald Hardrada at the Battle of Hastings on the 14th of October 1066.

Is that true or is that false? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose false, then very well done, that's correct.

But let's justify that.

Why is it a false statement? Is it false 'cause actually it was Harold Godwinson who defeated Harald Hardrada at the Battle of Hastings? Or is it false because William, Duke of Normandy, defeated Harold Godwinson at the Battle of Hastings? So choose your justification now.

Okay, if you chose B, then very well done, that is the correct answer.

Another quick check for understanding now.

How did the Anglo-Saxons respond to William's victory at the Battle of Hastings? Did they immediately accept him as their king? Did huge numbers flee to other countries? Or did they continue to fight against him? So choose your answer now.

Okay, if you chose C, then very well done.

That's the correct answer.

Just to explain this a little further, that answer B, huge numbers fled to other countries.

There were indeed some Anglo-Saxons who did flee abroad.

Many of the leading Anglo-Saxon nobles were cut down at the Battle of Hastings, and some others choose to flee abroad.

But I would never go as far to say that there was huge numbers.

It was just a few that fled abroad, and they served in armies as far away as Byzantium as well.

Right, let's go for our next task for today.

So how useful is source A, which I'm gonna show you in just a moment, to an historian studying William's actions during the Battle of Hastings? I'd like to discuss one aspect of the content of the source and one aspect of the provenance of the source.

So how useful is the source I'm just about to show you? So here is the source.

So source A says that, "William dominated this battle.

He called on his men to come with him, more often than he ordered them to go in front of him.

At the mere sight of this wonderful knight, many of his enemies lost their courage even before they received a scratch.

His knights, seeing him fight, were filled with wonder, and although many were wounded, they took new hearts." That's the content in terms of the provenance.

It says here that this is an extract from William of Poitiers "Gesta Guillelmi," recounting Duke William's actions during the Battle of Hastings.

William of Poitiers was Duke William's personal priest.

He had trained as a soldier before entering the church.

However, William of Poitiers was not present at the Battle of Hastings.

So how useful is this source to an historian studying Williams actions at the Battle of Hastings? So think about one thing from the content you could talk about, and one thing from the provenance.

Pause the video while you do this and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

Let's think of what you could have said then.

So you might have said that source A is fairly useful to an historian studying William's actions during the Battle of Hastings.

The source suggests that William was an excellent soldier, as it says that William dominated this battle.

The source also suggests that William was brave, inspiring, and helped the Normans to win the battle.

As it says, "Although many were wounded, they took new hearts when they saw him fight." However, source A is limited as its author William Poitiers was not present at the Battle of Hastings.

And so he would've been relying on secondhand information to write his account.

Similarly, as William of Poitiers was Duke Williams's personal priest, it is likely that he exaggerated William's actions during the Battle of Hastings as he would've wanted to please William.

This can also be seen in the source itself where it states that members of Harold's army fled at the mere sight of this wonderful knight, implying that William was so feared as a fighter that his enemies did not even attempt to battle against him.

As the Battle of Hastings lasted a full day, this is unlikely and suggests that the author is using flattery in his account.

So hopefully your answer follows a similar sort of format to mine there as well, even if you think it's of a differing utility to what I've said, hopefully your format is similar.

Okay, let's move on now into our third and final learning cycle for today, which is looking at changes under the Normans.

Under Norman occupation, England saw an incredible amount of change in a very short space of time.

Arguably, the most dramatic change was in land ownership.

Prior to the Norman conquest, England was shared amongst roughly 4,000 Anglo-Saxon landholders, and William replaced almost all of the major Anglo-Saxon landholders with Normans.

So that by in 1086, there were only two tenants-in-chief two landholders who were Anglo-Saxons.

William also concentrated the number of large landholders, making them easier to control.

In 1086, there were fewer than 200 large landholders in England.

And again, as a reminder, that's down from roughly 4,000 to just 200 or so.

William also introduced what was later known as the feudal system.

Under this system, the king owned all of the land and gave it out to his followers in exchange for their loyalty and service.

Prior kings of England had only owned what they had owned before they became king, and they effectively ruled by consents for the other earls.

Williams said, "No, that is not the case anymore.

I own every rock, every blade of grass in England, and you only have control of that because I say so, and if I don't say so, then I'm taking it back." Now, the benefit of this from William's perspective is that it allowed him to redistribute land if some of his followers were disloyal, which therefore of course greatly increases power.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So how was the amount of land held by Anglo-Saxons affected by the Norman Conquest? Did it decrease? Did it increase, or did it stay the same? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose A, then well done, that is indeed the correct answer.

Now, another major change enacted by the Normans involved the English church.

The Normans were heavily involved in a reform of the church led by the Pope in Rome, and they introduced this reform to England.

A major rebuilding project commenced, which resulted in every major Anglo-Saxon Cathedral, with the exception of Westminster Abbey, being knocked down and rebuilt in the Romanesque style.

And there's an example of the Romanesque style cathedral on the screen in front of you there, Rochester Cathedral.

These cathedrals were far, far grander than Anglo-Saxon structures, and featured architectural styles based on those of ancient Rome, which demonstrated the capabilities of the Normans.

New cathedrals were also built in important towns, such as Winchester, to allow for the shift of bishops from rural areas to urban centres.

Bishops were also replaced starting at the top.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York were replaced with Normans, and by 1087, only two Anglo-Saxon bishops remained.

The Normans dramatically increased the number of monasteries in England, as well as tightening up the rules for monks living there.

The number of monasteries in England rose from 60 before the Normans to 250, and the number of monks rose from roughly 1000 to between 4 to 5,000.

So a dramatic increase in the number of monks in England.

Just as with landholders and bishops, Anglo-Saxon abbots were also removed from their positions, and by 1086, only three Anglo-Saxon abbots remains.

There were many other dramatic changes to England brought about by the Norman conquest.

Roughly 1000 castles were built in the motte-and-bailey style in order to defend against Anglo-Saxon rebellions.

And although most were built of earth and timber at first, fortifications were gradually replaced by stone as Norman rule continued.

With all of these changes, though, what's probably most surprising is that comparatively few Normans actually migrated to England.

There were roughly 20,000 Normans who absorbed themselves into a population of roughly two and a half million Anglo-Saxons.

So just by the numbers, very, very small drop in an ocean there.

Having said that, though, most of the immigrants made up the elites in England society.

So as a result of that, these 20,000 had a hugely disproportionate, a hugely outsized impact on Anglo-Saxon society.

The Normans introduced a huge number of new words, which filtered into everyday vocabulary such as mansion, pork, and justice.

Actually, more than 50% of the English words used today derived from Anglo-Norman.

Right, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So pick two types of buildings that the Norman's built extensively after their conquest of England.

Was it banks, castles, factories, or monasteries? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose B and D, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

Right, our final task for today now then.

So I'd like you to choose two of these aspects of the Norman Conquest and explain why they're important.

So you could choose landholding, the feudal system or the church.

So pause the video whilst you do this task and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay.

Welcome back.

Hope you got okay with that task.

So let's think what you could have said then.

So you could have said that one aspect of the Norman Conquest that was important was the redistribution of land holdings.

4,000 Anglo-Saxon landholders had their land confiscated and given to roughly 200 Normans.

This is important 'cause it immediately affected the wealth and importance of many Anglo-Saxon families, and instantly made some Norman families very wealthy and important.

Another aspect of the Norman conquest that was important was the changes made to the church.

The Normans dramatically increased the number of monasteries in England from 60 to 250, meaning their English monasteries had a far greater influence over the country for the next few centuries.

Churches were also demolished and rebuilt in stone in the Romanesque style, which meant that many Norman churches have survived and still stand today.

You might have also said another aspect of the Norman conquest that was important was the introduction of the feudal system in England.

Under this system, the king owned all of the land and gave it to his followers in exchange for their loyalty and service.

The system gave William and his successors the power to take land away from any landholders who were disloyal to him.

This greatly increased the power of the king in England.

So hopefully, although you might have, I've given you three options there.

You've only done two.

But hopefully you're following a similar structure to what I've exhibited there as well.

Right, let's summarise today's lesson then.

So when Edward the Confessor died in 1066 without naming an heir, it led to a succession crisis.

William, Duke of Normandy, had a strong claim to the throne and defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings after he declared himself king.

The Norman conquest led to dramatic changes in a variety of areas.

Almost all Anglo-Saxon lords lost their land to the new Norman Lords, although all land was now owned by the King, due to the introduction of the feudal system.

And the Normans built a significant number of castles, churches, and monasteries, completely altering the landscape of England.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself, hopefully you learned something, and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-bye.