Alex Burghart

What the Anglo-Saxons made of 1066 and all that followed

Some fled to Scotland or abroad; others stayed to harry the invaders. But the chronicles are mostly silent, reflecting the pathos of their plight

Hereward the Wake fights against the imposition of a Norman abbot at Peterborough in 1070. [Getty Images] 
issue 05 March 2022

By any yardstick, the Norman Conquest was a ghastly business. Within two decades, the English aristocracy had been more than decimated, all of England’s cathedrals were being levelled and rebuilt, the north had been harried and the language of government changed. What made it worse was that it was utterly unnecessary. In 1066, Edward the Confessor had an heir of the blood royal – Edgar Ætheling, the grandson of Edmund Ironside (d. 1016). Had he not been shoved aside by bigger men, much fuss might have been avoided.

In her superbly adroit new history, Eleanor Parker examines how memories of Edgar and his like – the generation that straddled the Conquest – survived, or were melded to meet the needs of the time. For some this meant immortalisation; for others, oblivion. Edgar, surprisingly, has had to settle for the latter. After Hastings, he involved himself with some success in Scottish and Norman politics, fought in the First Crusade, was present at the capture of Antioch in 1098, and was subsequently entertained by both the Greek and German emperors.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in