Battle of Hastings - bbc 2 now

Tom Holland ....what a w*nker !

was in Bayeux on Friday saw the tapestry

Looks like Harold stabbed William in the back, Harold had sword allegiance to William after he paid a ransom  to get Harold released from prison in France

sword ! sworn

William the Conqueror did some terrible things to defeated English which must not be forgotten....french ***** !

There : William had the hands and feet of 32 men cut off......hope he suffers forever in Hell !

Dan Snow has married into the Grosvenor family....what a move !

Part 2 now

I thought William the Conqueror was the bastard son of a Viking King?

Did you watch the programme? They explained it pretty clearly. He was a descendent of Rollo.

No  I'm afraid II didn't,but Rollo was a Viking who became the first ruler of Normandy so like I said he was not a Frenchman and still is the barstard son of a Viking King or am I missing something here and by the way check out Harolds history and you will find he was very unlucky that his makeshift army of farmhands did follow his orders to stand their ground and defend the hill,instead consume by blood lust charged after the Normans and ran into the trap.

Rollo was a couple of centuries before , but it's fair to say the Normans weren't French really .

Though Harold's family got to where they were by selling out to the Danes.

Well i think the descendants of Harold's farmhands
deserve reparations from Europe for the hardship
caused to them since this awful day.

digdeep
23 Jul 17 00:33

No  I'm afraid II didn't,but Rollo was a Viking who became the first ruler of Normandy so like I said he was not a Frenchman and still is the barstard son of a Viking King or am I missing something here and by the way check out Harolds history and you will find he was very unlucky that his makeshift army of farmhands did follow his orders to stand their ground and defend the hill,instead consume by blood lust charged after the Normans and ran into the trap.

Hinges of battle.

What would have happened to Engerland if The Normans were vanquished. Would we be the greatest country the world has ever seen? The greatest Empire? I think not. The Normans were a cruel people. We learnt a lot off them.

What would have happened if the Nazis won? Fascinating but ultimately my aunty is not my uncle.

It always puzzles me when people say the Normans beat US.They beat the Anglo Saxons 900 years ago,not US.

Has anyone worked out who would be king if the Normans had lost?

i_agree_with_nick 25 Jul 17 20:39
Has anyone worked out who would be king if the Normans had lost?

I read something about this... think it was Alan Shearer.

sorry Roquebrune

But I do wonder what would have happened if the Duke of Normandy was defeated and died in battle. What would have become of England?

What would have happened if the Nazis won?


I think we can get a pretty good idea by looking at the countries they invaded during WW2.

Jul 25, 2017 -- 2:39PM, i_agree_with_nick wrote:

Has anyone worked out who would be king if the Normans had lost?

If William had been defeated he would very likely have been killed . In 2017 it is near impossible to find anyone in Britain not directly descended from him . So none of the people alive here today would ever have existed if the battle had gone the other way.

Tobe - have you got a source for that?

I can believe there will be many people descended from him but surely there will be millions descended from other males from that era?  (I suspect I'm not a direct descendant.)

Yes you will be a direct descendant .

Yes of course there will be millions today descended from other men of that time , but it is not an either/or thing : the majority of people alive in England in 1066 will be your direct ancestors , peasants alive back then will be the Queen's ancestors... there are simply too many ancestors for us at that time for this not to be so

If someone who fought at the battle of Hastings is not your direct ancestor then it probably means they had no descendants at all .

This is the clearest source

https://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php

Note that it is about descent from Edward III ,and concludes 99% of modern English at a minimum are his direct descendants ( but closer to 100% more probable)

And Edward III was 8 generations after William I ! , so what will that make it ? 99.99999999999999999.... ?

Yes of course there will be millions today descended from other men of that time , but it is not an either/or thing : the majority of people alive in England in 1066 will be your direct ancestors... peasants alive back then will be the Queen's ancestors... there are simply too many ancestors for us at that time for this not to be so


Yes, I understand that: we have 32 great-great-great-grandparents (five generations) so clearly, going further back, we must all have many shared ancestors.

What surprises me is your statement that nearly all of us would be descended from William. I could imagine it might be 20% but I'll do a bit of research.

The link i posted factors in cousin marriages.

Mathematicians have figured this out and i've read a fair bit about it so i'd be surprised if anyone finds a link that casts any doubt.

Conclusion: there is an extremely high probabilty that a modern English person with predominantly English ancestry descends from Edward III, at a very minimum over 99%, and more likely very close to 100%. The number of descendants of Edward III must therefore include nearly all of the population of England, and probably much of the populations of the rest of the UK and Eire, as well as many millions in the USA, former British colonies and Europe, so 100 million seems a conservative estimate. Documenting one's own descent from Edward III is, however, another matter!


Very interesting.  It is possible that I'm not a descendant though: on my mother's side, I'm of Welsh ancestry.  My great granparents on my father's side came to England about 120 years ago from Russia,

1,000 years ago, or about 40 generations.
Number of ancestors in the 40th generation is 2^40 or 1,099,511,627,776
and add in your ancestors from generations 1 to 39, another 1,099,511,627,774.

You are probably also a descendant of Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Louis XIV, and any other famous person from 1066 to 1900 you name.

Genghis Khan for sure - the prophet Mohammed too ! - much less likely for Louis XIV though as too recent.

IAWN : England and Wales too closely bound up to make any difference i'd say . Even with a Russian grt grandad that is still only 1/8th of the ancestry unless that side of the family kept on marrying within the same immigrant community .

And in any case a large proportion of Russians will have William as an ancestor.