The Trauma Of 1066 By Elisabeth Van Houts

In her essay, The Trauma of 1066, Elisabeth van Houts draws parallels between contemporary historiography on the Norman Conquest of England and the collective sentiments of shock and horror shared by European nations after emerging from the first and second world wars. With this seemingly unrelated analogy, van Houts is trying to articulate how traumatic of an event the Conquest would have been for those living through it, both English and Norman alike. In consideration of the lack of English literature surrounding the first generation after the Conquest in 1066, it has been suggested that the English were at first too unsettled to attempt to write histories on the events and nature of their conquering. As a result, Norman perspectives unsurprisingly

For example, some of the very first sources relating to the Conquest of England, the Gesta Normannorum Ducum (the Deeds of the Dukes of the Normans), written in 1071 by Norman monk, William of Jumièges, and the Gesta Guillelmi ducis Normannorum et regis Anglorum (History of William the Conqueror), written in the late 1070s by Norman knight and cleric, William of Poitiers, both emphasize the legitimacy of the duke’s succession to the English throne and the justification of William in all his acts and policies. Writing one of the first accounts of the Conquest, William of Jumièges made sure to explicitly mention the events that had prompted Duke William of Normandy to meet the English in battle and seize the throne. Both Jumièges and Poitiers, along with virtually every other contemporary Norman historians, assert that the incitement of William’s conquest was triggered by Harold Godwinson’s failure to uphold the oaths of fealty he allegedly swore to William of Normandy. Because king Edward had not produced an heir to the English throne upon his death, succession claims were highly contended between Duke William, the first cousin of Edward once removed, and Earl Harold Godwinson, the most powerful earl in England at the time. According to opposing Norman and English sources, both these men had a

This is not to say that these events did not happen, though it is of note that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle makes no mention of Harold swearing fealty to William nor even of his journey to Normandy. Rather, whether these events are true or not, the report that Harold swore Christian oaths to William and subsequently broke them by usurping the kingdom is a crucial component of the Norman narrative because it gives William fair reason to conquer the English. We see this narrative of Harold’s treachery and William’s validation accentuated in Poitiers history as he mentions, “Harold will fight not to lose what he has unjustly seized; we seek what had been given to us, which we have gained in return for the services we have rendered.” Moreover, not only does William have just cause, as Harold purportedly robbed him of his rightful inheritance, but Norman authors also make sure to express that William also had God’s own justice on his side, “especially as his intention was not the increase of his own wealth and glory but the reform of Christian practice in that land.” Therefore, much of the early historiography surrounding the Conquest focused on explaining and justifying the actions of Duke William, and condemning the guilt of Harold Godwinson and his individual role he played in “bringing so