History - What happened to King Robert I?

William Rufus was only the third son of William the Conqueror - yet he inherited England.  Why?  (Never mind that William's fourth son, Henry, eventually bagged the lot.)

In fact, William was said to have nine children.  His second son, Richard, died early (hunting, by the sounds of it - the key royal pastime of the era).  Of his five daughters, three also died early without issue, and one became a nun.  The fifth, Adela, had a son who was briefly King Stephen of England.

Oh yes, back to the kings of England.  When William the Conqueror died, he bequeathed Normandy to his oldest son Robert, and England to his next in line, William Rufus.

Why?

I've heard two contradictory reasons offered.

On the one hand, it is said that - for a number of reasons - William had an aversion to his oldest son, and was inclined to disinherit him, but was persuaded against it, instead giving him Normandy, while giving the younger William Rufus the better prize, England.  There were riches to be had by milking the people there.

On the other hand, these people are Normans, and preferred Normandy as a far more civilised land.  Where their loyalties were divided between the two lands, they frequently spent more time in Normandy than England.  And they spoke French.  Normandy was clearly the better prize; England was for the barbarians.

The alternative explanations are meaningful: the issue revolves around what the Normans valued.  I'm surprised that historians can't settle the question once and for all.

One could say that this issue of value affects the course of history for hundreds of years.  However, as it happens, Robert was not warrior-like enough to hold on to Normandy in that martial era.  Conversely, William Rufus was ruthless enough to hold on to England.  But in any case, by hook or by crook their younger brother Henry managed to bundle off both his brothers and snaffle the lot.  William Rufus died in a hunting accident - while Henry was in the area - and Robert, well, Henry imprisoned him for the last thirty years of his life.

You see, at the time it was being mean and aggressive that paid off, and there were spoils to be had for the victor.

But was Robert never king of England because he was the lesser favoured, or because England was the lesser favoured?

World: The smallest event that changed history?

I would argue that the Norman conquest fundamentally changed the nature of English – and world – history. The subsequent infusion of Norman – over Germanic and Danish – law and customs had an absolutely profound effect on the character of the English, who went on to a period of world domination, peaking in the 1750s and subsequently achieved by proxy through the U.S.

The battle of Hastings has been said to be lost when King Harold was killed in 1066. It's also been said that a chance arrow shot him in the eye.
If that hadn’t happened, would the Norman invasion have failed? Opinion varies. Yet history is largely written by the victors...

It was Harold's bad fortune to face two significant invaders in the one year. He successfully fought off the Vikings to the north, only to lose to the Normans who, as it happens, were Vikings who had only settled in that area in the previous century.

Could Harold’s army have staved off the Normans if it wasn’t for that arrow?

Maybe a more pertinent question is: did he definitely die that way?

The sources I have seen do vary. In fact the chief source of the "arrow in the eye" seems to be the Bayeux Tapestry, which is subject to interpretation on Harold’s death anyway. Careful analysis yields two possible deaths depicted, including being killed by a horseman. However, the arrow could actually be interpreted as symbolic. In medieval symbolism, liars get a weapon in the eye - and Harold apparently recanted on his promise to support William's claim to the throne. (In fact, William could lay hereditic claim to the throne as the cousin of Harold's predecessor, Edward the Confessor; whereas Harold was simply son of the Earl of Wessex. Harold, however, was anointed king by Edward, then subsequently by assembly.)


If the arrow story was literal, I would argue that this would be the smallest incident that had the biggest effect on world history.

A very interesting point - raised by Mark Maddison. Comments welcome.