A lost papal letter may offer a new explanation for why Pope Alexander II supported William of Normandy’s invasion of England in 1066. Historian Tom Licence argues that the conquest was connected to a bitter struggle between rival popes, transforming a dispute over the English crown into part of a wider conflict over the future of the medieval Church.
The findings appear in Licence’s new biography, Harold: Warrior King, published by Yale University Press. They suggest that Harold II may have damaged his standing with Rome by supporting the wrong side in a papal schism, giving Alexander a political and religious reason to legitimise William’s invasion.
The Norman Conquest has traditionally been presented as a dynastic struggle following the death of Edward the Confessor in January 1066. Harold Godwinson took the throne, but William of Normandy claimed that Edward had previously promised the kingdom to him and that Harold had sworn an oath supporting his succession.
William’s campaign subsequently received papal backing, reportedly including a banner sent by Alexander II. Historians have long debated why the pope would support the violent overthrow of a crowned and anointed king. Licence believes the answer may lie in a political and religious struggle that divided Western Christendom during the early 1060s.
“Harold’s policy on the papacy may ultimately have played into the hands of his enemies, giving William’s opportunistic invasion the legitimacy of a just war,” he said.
Two Rival Popes
Depiction of Pope Alexander with cardinals – Wikimedia Commons
The crisis began in 1061, when rival factions elected two competing popes. Alexander II was chosen in Rome with the support of the reform movement within the Church, while another faction selected Bishop Cadalus of Parma, who took the name Honorius II.
Both men claimed to be the legitimate pope. Honorius received powerful support from within the Holy Roman Empire and attracted backing elsewhere in northern Europe. Their supporters struggled for control of Rome for several years, turning the papal election into a wider contest involving some of medieval Europe’s most powerful political factions.
Licence’s new interpretation centres on previously overlooked excerpts from a letter written by Alexander after William’s conquest of England. Although the original letter has disappeared, parts of it were copied into medieval collections of papal legal decisions now held in the Vatican.
“The Pope’s whole register of letters is lost,” said Licence. “But some survive as copies or excerpts. Two excerpts from this particular letter survive in collections of papal rescripts.”
In one surviving passage, Alexander claimed that England had once enjoyed the protection of St Peter, but that people “fired with the pride of their father Satan” had led the English away from “the path of truth”.
“While historians have occasionally noted these remarks, they have generally treated them as unexplained references,” Licence said. “But they can only be fully understood in the context of a fierce dispute that divided Western Christendom during the early 1060s.”
Licence argues that Alexander’s language closely resembles the religious and political rhetoric directed against Honorius and his supporters. The letter may therefore refer not simply to Harold’s alleged violation of an oath to William, but to England’s abandonment of Alexander’s faction during the papal schism.
“In the eyes of Pope Alexander’s supporters, it was no longer simply a battle for a crown, but a struggle against those they regarded as followers of Satan.”
Why Did the Pope Support William?
William of Normandy receives news about King Harold beside a cross-bearing banner commonly identified as the papal standard sent by Pope Alexander II. Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry.
Licence believes England’s shift towards Alexander’s opponents probably occurred after Harold became king in January 1066.
“Historians have traditionally explained papal support for William through Harold’s disputed claim to the throne and allegations of oath breaking,” Licence said. “What this evidence suggests is that Pope Alexander II may have had political reasons of his own for backing the Norman invasion. If Harold had aligned England with Alexander’s rivals, it would help explain why the pope was willing to support the overthrow of a crowned king. Viewed from Rome, the conquest was not simply a succession dispute but part of a wider struggle over the future of the Church in Europe.”
The interpretation does not remove the importance of William’s claim to the throne, Harold’s disputed oath or the military events of 1066. Instead, it places them within a much broader European context involving the papacy, the Holy Roman Empire and rival religious and political alliances.
David Fergusson, Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, described the research as an important contribution to the history of medieval Europe: “Tom Licence’s research on the European context of the Norman invasion offers us a fresh perspective on the wider political currents that contributed to the events of 1066. His account of the likely role of the papacy in legitimising William’s invasion illustrates the complex dynamics of the relationship between church and monarchy throughout the period. This is a significant contribution to our understanding of the role of the medieval Church in the wider history of Europe.”
Rory Naismith, Professor of Early Medieval English History at the University of Cambridge, similarly noted that the conquest cannot be understood solely as a conflict between England and Normandy.
“This is indeed an important point. The Norman Conquest did not just involve the English and the Normans – it was tied to developments all over Europe,” Naismith comments. “Rome in particular had long been central to England’s religious identity, and to have brought out the Roman dimension of 1066 in this way is a significant contribution. Prof Licence shows what can be achieved when neglected sources are expertly brought out of the shadows.”
Rethinking Harold and 1066
The discovery forms part of Licence’s wider reassessment of Harold’s life, reign and reputation. In a recent paper published in Anglo-Norman Studies, he argued that versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were edited after the Norman Conquest to favour Haroldand remove politically uncomfortable details from the years leading up to his accession.
The gaps include Harold’s journey to Normandy, the arrival of papal legates in England and the death of Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia. Licence suggested that later chroniclers constructed a narrative that strengthened Harold’s legitimacy while concealing divisions within late Anglo-Saxon politics. The newly examined papal letter may provide evidence for precisely the kind of omitted political controversy that he believes historians should seek in sources produced outside England.
More recently, Licence challenged the traditional account of Harold’s march to Hastings. He argued that Harold may have transported much of his army south by sea after defeating the Norwegian invasion at Stamford Bridge, using England’s fleet as part of a coordinated land-and-sea defence against William. That interpretation has prompted debate among historians.
Together, these studies present Harold as a more complicated political and military figure than the defeated king familiar from traditional accounts of 1066. They also demonstrate how overlooked documents, omissions in chronicles and later historical assumptions can continue to reshape understanding of the Norman Conquest.
Harold: Warrior King is part of the English Monarchs series and is published by Yale University Press.
An authoritative life of Harold II from Tom Licence.
“A gripping, incisive and thought-provoking study of Harold by a brilliant historian.”—David Woodman, author of The First King of England
A lost papal letter may offer a new explanation for why Pope Alexander II supported William of Normandy’s invasion of England in 1066. Historian Tom Licence argues that the conquest was connected to a bitter struggle between rival popes, transforming a dispute over the English crown into part of a wider conflict over the future of the medieval Church.
The findings appear in Licence’s new biography, Harold: Warrior King, published by Yale University Press. They suggest that Harold II may have damaged his standing with Rome by supporting the wrong side in a papal schism, giving Alexander a political and religious reason to legitimise William’s invasion.
“1066 was not simply decided on the battlefield at Hastings,” said Licence, Professor of Medieval History and Literature at the University of East Anglia. “The outcome may also have been shaped by decisions taken almost a thousand miles away in Rome.”
The Norman Conquest has traditionally been presented as a dynastic struggle following the death of Edward the Confessor in January 1066. Harold Godwinson took the throne, but William of Normandy claimed that Edward had previously promised the kingdom to him and that Harold had sworn an oath supporting his succession.
William’s campaign subsequently received papal backing, reportedly including a banner sent by Alexander II. Historians have long debated why the pope would support the violent overthrow of a crowned and anointed king. Licence believes the answer may lie in a political and religious struggle that divided Western Christendom during the early 1060s.
“Harold’s policy on the papacy may ultimately have played into the hands of his enemies, giving William’s opportunistic invasion the legitimacy of a just war,” he said.
Two Rival Popes
The crisis began in 1061, when rival factions elected two competing popes. Alexander II was chosen in Rome with the support of the reform movement within the Church, while another faction selected Bishop Cadalus of Parma, who took the name Honorius II.
Both men claimed to be the legitimate pope. Honorius received powerful support from within the Holy Roman Empire and attracted backing elsewhere in northern Europe. Their supporters struggled for control of Rome for several years, turning the papal election into a wider contest involving some of medieval Europe’s most powerful political factions.
Licence’s new interpretation centres on previously overlooked excerpts from a letter written by Alexander after William’s conquest of England. Although the original letter has disappeared, parts of it were copied into medieval collections of papal legal decisions now held in the Vatican.
“The Pope’s whole register of letters is lost,” said Licence. “But some survive as copies or excerpts. Two excerpts from this particular letter survive in collections of papal rescripts.”
In one surviving passage, Alexander claimed that England had once enjoyed the protection of St Peter, but that people “fired with the pride of their father Satan” had led the English away from “the path of truth”.
“While historians have occasionally noted these remarks, they have generally treated them as unexplained references,” Licence said. “But they can only be fully understood in the context of a fierce dispute that divided Western Christendom during the early 1060s.”
Licence argues that Alexander’s language closely resembles the religious and political rhetoric directed against Honorius and his supporters. The letter may therefore refer not simply to Harold’s alleged violation of an oath to William, but to England’s abandonment of Alexander’s faction during the papal schism.
“In the eyes of Pope Alexander’s supporters, it was no longer simply a battle for a crown, but a struggle against those they regarded as followers of Satan.”
Why Did the Pope Support William?
Licence believes England’s shift towards Alexander’s opponents probably occurred after Harold became king in January 1066.
“Historians have traditionally explained papal support for William through Harold’s disputed claim to the throne and allegations of oath breaking,” Licence said. “What this evidence suggests is that Pope Alexander II may have had political reasons of his own for backing the Norman invasion. If Harold had aligned England with Alexander’s rivals, it would help explain why the pope was willing to support the overthrow of a crowned king. Viewed from Rome, the conquest was not simply a succession dispute but part of a wider struggle over the future of the Church in Europe.”
The interpretation does not remove the importance of William’s claim to the throne, Harold’s disputed oath or the military events of 1066. Instead, it places them within a much broader European context involving the papacy, the Holy Roman Empire and rival religious and political alliances.
David Fergusson, Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, described the research as an important contribution to the history of medieval Europe: “Tom Licence’s research on the European context of the Norman invasion offers us a fresh perspective on the wider political currents that contributed to the events of 1066. His account of the likely role of the papacy in legitimising William’s invasion illustrates the complex dynamics of the relationship between church and monarchy throughout the period. This is a significant contribution to our understanding of the role of the medieval Church in the wider history of Europe.”
Rory Naismith, Professor of Early Medieval English History at the University of Cambridge, similarly noted that the conquest cannot be understood solely as a conflict between England and Normandy.
“This is indeed an important point. The Norman Conquest did not just involve the English and the Normans – it was tied to developments all over Europe,” Naismith comments. “Rome in particular had long been central to England’s religious identity, and to have brought out the Roman dimension of 1066 in this way is a significant contribution. Prof Licence shows what can be achieved when neglected sources are expertly brought out of the shadows.”
Rethinking Harold and 1066
The discovery forms part of Licence’s wider reassessment of Harold’s life, reign and reputation. In a recent paper published in Anglo-Norman Studies, he argued that versions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were edited after the Norman Conquest to favour Harold and remove politically uncomfortable details from the years leading up to his accession.
The gaps include Harold’s journey to Normandy, the arrival of papal legates in England and the death of Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia. Licence suggested that later chroniclers constructed a narrative that strengthened Harold’s legitimacy while concealing divisions within late Anglo-Saxon politics. The newly examined papal letter may provide evidence for precisely the kind of omitted political controversy that he believes historians should seek in sources produced outside England.
More recently, Licence challenged the traditional account of Harold’s march to Hastings. He argued that Harold may have transported much of his army south by sea after defeating the Norwegian invasion at Stamford Bridge, using England’s fleet as part of a coordinated land-and-sea defence against William. That interpretation has prompted debate among historians.
Together, these studies present Harold as a more complicated political and military figure than the defeated king familiar from traditional accounts of 1066. They also demonstrate how overlooked documents, omissions in chronicles and later historical assumptions can continue to reshape understanding of the Norman Conquest.
Harold: Warrior King is part of the English Monarchs series and is published by Yale University Press.
Top Image: Eustace II of Boulogne carries a banner sometimes identified as the papal standard. Detail from the Bayeux Tapestry.
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts