Excerpts from a lost Papal letter suggests that Rome's support for the Norman invasion of England may have resulted from Harold Godwinson’s support for an antipope.
The Norman Conquest has largely been understood as a purely dynastic struggle sparked by the death of Edward the Confessor and rival claims to the English throne. Analysis of the excerpts from a lost letter of Pope Alexander II (who reigned from 1061-1073) suggests that he was persuaded to side with William of Normandy as the reigning King Godwin of England had supported Antipope Honorius II.
Prof Tom Licence, professor of Medieval History and Literature at the University of East Anglia (UEA) said that “1066 was not simply decided on the battlefield at Hastings” and that the resulting Norman victory “may also have been shaped by decisions taken almost a thousand miles away in Rome”.
He said: "Harold's policy on the papacy may ultimately have played into the hands of his enemies, giving William's opportunistic invasion the legitimacy of a just war.”
Prof Licence said that the entire register of Pope Alexander II’s letters is lost, but some letters survive as copies or excerpts in a medieval canon law collection held in the Vatican. Two of the excerpts from the letter in question survive in collections of papal rescripts.
The analysis reframes the Norman conquest of England as part of a wider political struggle taking place across Europe.
Written by Pope Alexander II after William's accession to the English throne, the letter reflects on the country’s relationship with the papacy before the conquest. In one passage, Alexander claimed that England had been under the protection of St Peter until people “fired with the pride of their father Satan” led the English away from “the path of truth”.
Prof Licence said: “While historians have occasionally noted these remarks, they have generally treated them as unexplained references. But they can only be fully understood in the context of a fierce dispute that divided Western Christendom during the early 1060s.
“In 1061, rival factions elected two competing popes, Alexander II and Bishop Cadalus of Parma, who became known as Honorius II. For several years the two popes and their supporters fought for control of Rome, with Honorius retaining powerful backing from the Holy Roman Empire and attracting support elsewhere in northern Europe.”
Prof Licence argued that the language used in Alexander's letter reflects the political and religious rhetoric employed against Honorius and his followers during the rift. Rather than simply condemning Harold as an oath-breaker, Alexander appeared to have been accusing England of abandoning his cause and siding with his rival.
He stated that, in the view of Pope Alexander’s supporters, “it was no longer simply a battle for a crown, but a struggle against those they regarded as followers of Satan”, arguing that the shift likely occurred after Harold came to power in January 1066.
Prof Licence, who explores the subject in his new book Harold: Warrior King, said: "Historians have traditionally explained papal support for William through Harold's disputed claim to the throne and allegations of oath breaking. What this evidence suggests is that Pope Alexander II may have had political reasons of his own for backing the Norman invasion.
"If Harold had aligned England with Alexander's rivals, it would help explain why the pope was willing to support the overthrow of a crowned king. Viewed from Rome, the conquest was not simply a succession dispute but part of a wider struggle over the future of the Church in Europe."
Prof David Fergusson, regius professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, said Prof Licence’s research on the European context of the Norman invasion offered a “perspective on the wider political currents that contributed to the events of 1066”.
“His account of the likely role of the papacy in legitimising William’s invasion illustrates the complex dynamics of the relationship between Church and monarchy throughout the period. This is a significant contribution to our understanding of the role of the medieval Church in the wider history of Europe.”
Prof Rory Naismith, professor of Early Medieval English History at the University of Cambridge, said: “This is indeed an important point. The Norman Conquest did not just involve the English and the Normans - it was tied to developments all over Europe.
“Rome in particular had long been central to England's religious identity, and to have brought out the Roman dimension of 1066 in this way is a significant contribution. Prof Licence shows what can be achieved when neglected sources are expertly brought out of the shadows.”
