Alright, does anyone remember the three men that battled for the throne of England, who went through a couple of battles to get to it? No?
Those men were Harold Godwinson (whom King Edward had given the throne to), Harald Hardrada (a Norwegian king who believed he should have the throne due to his ancestor being a past ruler of England) and Duke William of Normandy (who claimed to have a 'promised' position as Edward's successor.)
Honestly, I'll just say it all out (like my title) - Godwinson deserved the throne. He was English and was directly handed the throne after Edward's death. Who could argue with that? Apparently only two men could, but barely with good evidence. Hardrada only had some old ancestor (King Cnut) who once ruled England, and tried to use that for a claim on the throne (a bad claim too, I'm sure there were quite a few with ancestors ruling England but you don't see them claiming the throne.) Now, William? He had a claim, who no one could really say was true. William claimed that he had the right of the throne as of a 'promise' from King Edward. Harold Godwinson, had been directly given the throne after Edward's death and he was a true Englishman. Which are honestly great reasons to have the throne and he already had the throne anyways. What is really the point of fighting for something taken? Yet it happens.
Alright, so out of those three men, I support Godwinson all the way. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment