Determining whether William the Conqueror deserved the English throne is a complex matter with lots of cogent arguments. Some argue that his claim to the throne was justified based on several factors but it really depends on who you believe. Firstly, William claimed that he had been promised the English throne by his cousin, King Edward the Confessor (see the Seeds of Odin). Additionally, William had the support of influential European nobles and the Pope, who regarded William’s invasion as a legitimate enterprise. After all, he was allowed to recruit and fight beneath the papal banner. This support was much more available once the charges of consanguinity (marrying your cousin) had been dropped by the Holy See.

On the other hand, there were opposing views regarding William’s claim to the English throne. One major argument against his claim was that he was a foreign invader who came from Normandy, France, and not from England. He is often regarded as an opportunist who saw the prize and took it with both hands. Some Anglo-Saxon nobles and supporters of Harold Godwinson, who was also a contender for the throne, believed the English throne should remain within the native Anglo-Saxon ruling line. Did King Edward really recant his promise of the English throne to William on his deathbed in favour of Harold?

Ultimately, the question of whether William the Conqueror deserved the English throne is subjective and depends on one’s perspective. The Norman conquest and the events surrounding it continue to be subjects of historical debate and interpretation. Did the Conqueror deserve the Saxon kingdom or did he just ‘get lucky’?