A study from the University of East Anglia offers a renewed perspective on the events of 1066. According to the work of historian Tom Licence, a forgotten fragment of a lost papal letter, preserved in the Vatican archives, indicates that England may have backed the wrong side in a fierce religious dispute. This decision would have provided Pope Alexander II with a political argument to support the invasion of William of Normandy.
The finding is published in the book Harold: Warrior King, edited by Yale University Press. Licence argues that the outcome of the Norman conquest was not resolved solely on the battlefield of Hastings. Intrigues and alignments occurring nearly a thousand kilometers away in Rome also played a role.
During the 1060s, Western Christendom was divided. Two rival popes were vying for authority: Alexander II and Bishop Cadalo of Parma, known as Honorius II. The latter had the backing of the Holy Roman Empire and factions in Northern Europe. England, according to the researcher’s interpretation, would have leaned towards Honorius's side.
This choice would have had serious consequences. Licence explains that Harold's papal politics may have worked in favor of his enemies and granted the invasion of William the legitimacy of a just war.
The testimony of a lost letter
The complete record of Alexander II's letters has been lost. However, two excerpts from this letter are preserved in collections of papal rescripts. The letter was written after William occupied the English throne. In it, the pontiff reflects on England's relationship with the papacy before the conquest.
One passage states that the country had been protected by Saint Peter until people “inflamed by the pride of their father Satan” led the English away from the “path of truth.” Previous historians had noted these phrases without being able to fully explain them. Licence argues that they only make sense within the conflict between the two popes at the beginning of the 1060s.
The language of the letter aligns with that used by Alexander's supporters against Honorius and his followers. In this reading, the pope was not merely criticizing Harold for an alleged broken oath. He viewed England as a kingdom that had abandoned its faction and aligned with the rival.
For Alexander's supporters, it was no longer just a dispute over a crown, but a struggle against those they considered supporters of Satan. Licence places the shift in English alignment after Harold assumed the throne in January 1066.
More than a dynastic crisis
Traditionally, papal support for William was explained by the disputed legitimacy of Harold and accusations of perjury. The new evidence suggests that Alexander II also had his own political motives. If Harold had brought England closer to the pope's rivals, it better explains why he accepted to support the overthrow of a crowned king.
From Rome, the conquest was not merely a succession issue. It was part of a broader struggle for the future of the Church in Europe. Professor David Fergusson from the University of Cambridge highlights that Licence's work offers a fresh perspective on the political currents surrounding the events of 1066 and on the complex relationship between Church and monarchy.
Professor Rory Naismith, also from Cambridge, emphasizes that the Norman conquest involved not only the English and Normans. It was linked to developments across Europe. Rome, in particular, had been central to English religious identity. Recovering that Roman dimension of 1066 is, according to Naismith, a significant contribution.
The research comes at a time when the British Museum is preparing to exhibit the Bayeux Tapestry, one of the most well-known visual testimonies of the conquest. Licence's study reminds us that behind the battles and dynastic successions, papal intrigues were also at play, capable of swaying the fate of a kingdom.
