William the Conqueror

[steepholm]

All I knew of English history before the age of 10 I learned from the Ladybird Adventures from History series, mostly written by Lawrence du Garde Peache (1890-1974). We've had quite a lot of fun with his Julius Caesar and the Romans while working on our history book, but the other day I got my hands on what is (to me) his most notorious work: William the Conqueror (1956). How did it come to pass that a mild-mannered contributor to Punch could write, so soon after the defeat of Hitler, a fascist apologia for the worst war criminal in England's history? One that is also a systematic calumny against Anglo-Saxon society? And then see it reprinted time after time over the next two decades?



The Opening Paragraph; or, Making the Carts Run on Time

For a hundred and fifty years after the time of Alfred the Great, people were continually fighting one another all over England. What the country needed was a strong King who could keep order.

Ubi Solitudinem Faciunt, Pacem Appellant

There were, of course, still people in England who did not like being ruled by a foreign King.

In the North of England there were many such people. Several times William had to march all the way from London with his army, to put down rebellions.

Then came the destruction of York. The men of Northumbria killed the Norman Governor and all his soldiers. Once more William brought his army to restore order.

This time he determined that he would put an end to it. He ordered his men to burn every house and destroy everything they could find, between the Humber and the Tees. This part of England remained wilderness for more than fifty years.

Criticism Where It's Due (but don't worry, we're back to arse-licking by the next page)

William was very fond of hunting. In those days wild deer, and even boars, were to be found in England.

William decided that he would set aside a part of his new kingdom as a hunting ground. He marked out an area nearly a hundred miles round, lying between the River Avon and Southampton Water, containing more than fifty parishes. Then he sent his men to pull down all the houses and churches and villages, and drive away all the people who lived there. This was one of the occasions on which William broke his promise to be a kind lord.

Athelstan? Who's Athelstan?

William the Conqueror, now called William I, was the first real king of all England.

There's Nothing Like a Brutal Foreign Occupation to Stop You Fretting About, er, Being Invaded

By means of the Domesday Book he knew exactly where everyone lived, and how much property they owned. This meant that for the first time in the history of England, it was possible to ensure that all the people paid their correct taxes to the King.

And by the means of the castles which were built all over the country by his Norman knights, William was able to keep the King's peace.

All this took a long time to do, but it meant in the end that after more than six hundred years of fear and uncertainty, the people of England were once more able to live their lives and work at their trades in safety.

Comments

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Ah! Ladybird books :o)

They are entirely responsible for the fact that I ended up as a historian! Hubby and I collect them these days as a fascinating example of historiography.

Peache misses the fact that not only Athelstan but Alfred the Great (and indeed Harald II Godwinsson) can be seen as kings of all England. I think his rather Heugenot name may be a giveaway.

He'll always be William the Norman cobbler's bastard to me-but then, I am a Maid of Kent! Invicta!

I often wonder if it might have been better had Harald Hardrade won at Stamford Bridge...........

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

I often wonder if it might have been better had Harald Hardrade won at Stamford Bridge...........

Even if he had, Roman Abramovich would have sacked him the following season. ;)

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Oh, hardy ha! :oþ

He'd have been good at the front though- he was well over six feet tall!

[fjm.livejournal.com]

What is odd is that I cannot think of a single Alternate History which takes this as its Jonbarr point. I have told chilperic that it is his duty to write it.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Presumably there are ones where Harold won at Hastings?

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Not that I know of.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Maybe tell him to write that, then. Preferably in Anglish.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

Baxter's Conqueror has people trying to ensure this outcome, but failing.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

Uchronia has three: "What if-" by Franklin Hamilton (pseudonym for Robert Silverberg), Timeswitch by John Gribbin and "Repulse at Hastings, October 14, 1066" by Cecila Holland, which is a counterfactual historical essay rather than a story. All these are Godwinson winning - there seems no trace of Hardrada winning.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

The problem is that Britain essentially slid south in 1066 and became part of European history instead of Scandinavian history. Without that it would likely have had the same kind of impact on the world that the Scandinavian countries have had. So working out what would happen is complicated and the answer doesn't give you anything very interesting in the longer term.

[sheenaghpugh]

I think it was Tim Brooke-Taylor who described Harold as the last Englishman ever to take the field at Stamford Bridge.

I wish Hardrade had won. Next fave Harold. William was a bloody disaster. Nasty piece of work.

That writer is also an adherent of A Strong King Is The Answer To Everything, isn't he? - very monarchist. He'd have loved LotR.

Suggested antidote

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Although that makes his book on Protector Oliver rather interesting (I'm a civil war specialist) as he can't treat him in quite the usual way. he even included the old myth about the young Oliver and the young Prince Charles meeting as kids, having a fight and Oliver coming off best. Shame it isn't true really :o)

He wasn't sexist/misogynist though as so many historians of that era appear to have been. He did one on Budicca (Boadicea as he called her) Elizabeth I and Joan of Arc amongst other women and that was unusual in school texts back then.

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

It's not my period, but to be honest, I'm not convinced that Hardrada could have pulled together a credible defence of southern England, though he would probably have tried and got himself killed. William would probably have had a much easier time initially, but might have found the north an even tougher nut to crack.

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

It's probably true that Harald II Godwinsson was a better general than Harald Hardrade and knew the ground better. Without the need to make that forced march back from the north picking up fresh levies on the way (and that in itself was a remrkable enough achievement having already done it once going north) he'd almost certainly have thrown William back into the sea and that would be an intriguing place to start a novel :o)

[drasecretcampus.livejournal.com]

"The Time Meddler" tries for it, as I recall

[swisstone.livejournal.com]

This is what I thought, so I checked, and actually not quite. At one point it is thought that the Monk's plan is to help Hardrada win, but actually he intends to destroy the Viking fleet so that Godwinson will not worry about it and so be able to defeat William.

[endlessrarities.livejournal.com]

Aw, bless! Dear old Ladybird!!

I prefer the Simon Schama version, myself...

But you've got to admit - the artwork was good!!!