William the Bastard invades England September 28th 1066

Bayeux Tapestry, Harold with moustache swearing an oath, William with pudding basin haircut sitting down at left.

Harold II was scurrying south after almost annihilating the Viking army of Harold Hardrada, when he heard news that the Normans had landed at Pevensey. (see my post (battle-of-stamford-bridge-september-25th-1066)

William was an unlikely Duke because it is very rare for illegitimate children to take the title of their father. It was normally not even considered as an option. A legitimate cousin or uncle would be chosen instead.  But he not only got the title and survived many rebellions, but was known as the William the Bastard

He came to England in 1051 to see his distant cousin Edward the Confessor, who was the son of the English King Aethelred the Redeless (the Ill advised – more often called ‘the Unready) and Emma of Normandy.  Edward, whose marriage to Emma was not great, insofar as both made claims to be holy virgins, had no children and, according to William, offered the throne to him.

Did he, though? The Pope agreed he did.  William claimed that Harold of England agreed too. And not only that, but he agreed under Holy Oath.

The Bayeaux Tapestry, shows Harold making an oath with his hands on holy relics. But British Historians see it as inadmissible as it either never happened or, if it did, then it was not freely given as Harold had been detained on a visit in 1064 and was probably never going to get home until he took the oath.

They also say that Harold was the legitimate King because he was elected as was traditional by the Witanagemote, the King’s Council.

But was he really? He had no English Royal blood in him, only a very distant touch of Danish royalty on his mum’s side.  It is true the Witan elected Kings and often did not choose the first in line but preferred the best suited candidate be he brother, cousin or uncle. But Harold was only the brother of the King’s wife, no royal blood there.  However, Harold was so powerful that he would have prepared the ground for his election irrespective of whether this was the freely given choice of the Witan. His father, Earl Godwin, had been a disloyal and over mighty subject of King Edward, but had prepared the way for Harold to be virtual ruler of the country long before the King died.

So, there was plenty of scope for a contested succession. Harold was the English contestant who had already defeated the Norwegian claimant. Now, he was rushing to put to rest the Norman claim.

William had begun by getting Pope Alexander II’s blessing and with that, spent 10 months planning the invasion. He recruited adventurers from Normandy, France, Brittany, and Flanders. His allies collected boats for the invasion, while William had hundreds of new boats built, using thousands of carpenters, metalworkers, carters etc and cutting down a vast number of trees. 

The boats were ready by 12 August near Caen on the River Dives.  They set sail, but contrary winds blew them into Saint Valery-sur-Seine.  Winds in the summer are usually blowing south on that coast, and William had a long, frustrating wait for a north wind.

Map of the the progress of William;s fleet. Opinion suggests landing was on 28th September 1066

Meanwhile, Harold was waiting with his army and a 400 ship navy at his manor of Bosham on the South Coast.  Then he heard about the Norwegian invasion of the north and calculating that it was getting too late in the year for William to risk invasion, decided, on September 18th to go North with his army, which was the more immediate risk to his throne.

On September 27th, the north winds blew, the Normans embarked, and on the 28th of September William and his boat, given as a present to him by his wife, found themselves alone in the Channel off the English coast.

After an anxious wait, the rest of the fleet was spotted sailing towards William.  They landed at Pevensey.  Built a castle at Hastings and proceeded to ravage the land of Harold’s homeland. Harold had by now destroyed the Norwegian threat at Stamford Bridge on 25th September, and was marching South when he heard William had landed.

To be continued

John Goodricke and the Variable Star. September 17th 1764

What I really admire are people who, through their sheer brain power, can change our views of the world.  The first example that comes to mind is Newton’s insight that if the universe were infinite, the night sky would not be dark as everywhere there would be tiny pinpricks of starlight.  So, we don’t live in a infinite universe. Another one is Einstein’s thought experiment that proves that time is relative. But see below for a description of that. 

But now to Goodricke.

Yesterday in York, near the Minster, I saw the blue sign above, which I read and thought, what on earth are ‘variable stars’?  Behind me, I heard two women say something like. ‘Here it is,”variable stars”‘.  I turned around and asked them what was a variable star?

‘Donno’ they said, ‘we’ve ‘just doing this escape room walk around York.’  They showed me a booklet they had received on the internet, which was what I would call a treasure trail.  But no, they insisted, ‘this is an escape room adventure where we collect clues to decipher the code to escape’.

Such is the modern tourist!  Sadly, they showed no interest in finding out what a variable star is!

Aristotle and ancient philosophers held that the universe was unchanging and eternal. The first breach in that theory was the identification in 1638 of star Omicron Ceti by Johannes Holwarda who discovered that the start pulsed on an 11 month cycle.  This and the discovery, of supernovae (first observed in 1572), proved that the ‘The starry sky was not eternally invariable’.

John Goodricke was educated at Thomas Braidwood‘s Academy, school for deaf pupils in Edinburgh, and Warrington Academy. He returned to live with his parents who rented an apartment at the Treasurer’s Hall, near the Minister in York, and used a friend’s personal observatory to look for variable stars. He found two of the first 10, and was the first to propose a solution, which was that two stars orbited each other causing eclipses between them and the observer, and thus creating a variation in the light emitted. To be able to extrapolate from a simple observation and provide an explanation which necessitates a complete rethink about the nature of the universe seems, to me, to be awesome.

Back to Einstein, his thought experiment was something like this:

A train is travelling through a station. There is an observer on the train towards the front, another on the platform as the train goes through. There are two simultaneous lighting strikes at either end of the train. The observer on the platform sees the strikes as simultaneous as she is in the middle between the two lighting strkes and light travels at the same speed. The observer on the train who is near the front of the train will see the lighting strike at the front of the train before the light from the back of the train can reach him as it has further to go.

This is mind-boggling, and I’m never sure what to make of it but it means that time is not a constant it is relative to the observer. And yet, we see time as a constant, something that remorselessly ticks forward and which we cannot alter. But it isn’t.

For a better explanation, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity