Anglo-Saxon Monarchy and Why England Fell in 1066
This essay examines the structural weaknesses of the Anglo-Saxon monarchy on the eve of the Norman Conquest of 1066. Drawing primarily on David Howarth's account and A. Daniel Frankforter's historical narrative, the paper argues that three interconnected features of late Anglo-Saxon kingship — the absence of fixed succession law, the disproportionate power of the aristocracy exemplified by Earl Godwin, and the political fragility of a geographically and culturally fragmented realm — combined to make England vulnerable to William the Conqueror's invasion. The essay concludes that Harold's need to legitimize his own coronation before the northern earldoms revealed a monarchy too weak to repel a well-organized continental claimant.
- Introduction: An Unstable Crown: Thesis: three weaknesses made England conquerable
- The Absence of Succession Law: No fixed hereditary rules; elective kingship explained
- The Power of the Aristocracy: Earl Godwin: Godwin's dynastic maneuvering exposed royal weakness
- Political Fragility and Harold's Coronation: Harold's legitimacy tour revealed a fragmented realm
- Conclusion: Why the Conquest Succeeded: Three weaknesses combined to invite Norman invasion
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It builds a clear three-part analytical framework (succession law, aristocratic power, political fragility) and applies it consistently throughout, giving the essay logical cohesion.
- The author moves beyond simple summary of sources, critically evaluating Howarth's optimism about Harold's coronation trip to York and offering a counter-reading based on how it would have appeared to Norman observers.
- Concrete textual evidence from both Howarth and Frankforter is woven into each section, grounding the argument in primary scholarly sources rather than unsupported assertion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective source-critical analysis: rather than accepting a historian's interpretation at face value, the author explicitly challenges Howarth's conclusion that Harold's journey to York showed national unity, reframing it as evidence of weakness from an outside perspective. This kind of counter-reading of secondary sources is a hallmark of mature undergraduate historical writing.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a thesis statement identifying three structural weaknesses, then devotes a focused body paragraph to each: the absence of succession law, Godwin's manipulation of dynastic ambiguity, and the political test of Harold's coronation. A brief conclusion synthesizes all three strands. The Works Cited follows MLA format with two sources.
Introduction: An Unstable Crown
At the time of the Norman Conquest, monarchy in England was an inherently unstable institution. Howarth's account of the throne in the years leading up to 1066 paints a picture of a curious institution: without fixed laws of succession, and with no more fixed governmental assembly than the witana gemot, the English Crown at this point in time seems more like a chieftaincy for a society in transition. Three aspects of the monarchy in 1066 — its lack of succession law, its closeness to the aristocracy, and its political fragility — made England a candidate for conquest.
Works Cited
Frankforter, Daniel and Spellman, William. The West, A Narrative History, Volume One: To 1660. 3rd Edition. Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. Print.
Howarth, David. 1066: The Year of the Conquest. New York: Penguin, 1981. Print.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.