The Battle of Hastings: the Fall of Anglo-Saxon England

Author Q&A: Harriet Harvey Wood

The Battle of Hastings: The Fall of Anglo-Saxon England 

Published in 2009. 

Harriet Harvey Wood’s book challenges conventional wisdom on 1066 by arguing that rather than bringing culture and enlightenment to England the Normans’ aggressive and illegal invasion destroyed a long- established and highly developed civilisation.

What is the basis of your claim that England in 1066 was ahead of other European people in its political institutions, art and literature?

The evidence. Much has been lost from all Dark Ages European countries, but in England we know there was poetry of a high quality, because some of it survived. We also have the law codes of the English kings from the very early 7th century to the 11th century available that show that even kings were not above the law in England. There were no law codes in Normandy. For art, look at the Lindisfarne Gospels, the Sutton Hoo jewellery and the Benedictional of St Athelwold. That’s not to say however that there wasn’t fine art work elsewhere in Europe.

What was the basis of William’s claim to the throne of England? None. He claimed that the previous king, Edward the Confessor, had promised him the succession but there is no independent proof of this.

His only blood claim was that his great-aunt had married Edward’s father. In any case, England was an elective monarchy: the previous king could say who he would like to succeed him, but the Great Council were free to disregard his suggestion – and in the case of William, they did and elected Harold.

Can you say a little about the battle of Stamford Bridge that occurred days before the Battle of Hastings?

The King of Norway Harold Hardrada invaded, claiming to be the King of England, a claim even weaker than William’s, but both were ultimately relying on force, not right. Hardrada was the most celebrated warrior of his age, and was considered unconquerable. To the English, Hardrada would have seemed the greater threat and his defeat at Stamford Bridge finally ended the Viking threat to Western Europe. However, Stamford Bridge undoubtedly reduced Harold’s strength and he arrived with fewer men at Hastings than might have been the case. It’s entirely possible also that if Harold had not been at Stamford Bridge, William would not even have managed to land.

Why did Harold choose to fight at Hastings rather than draw William forward?
With hindsight, one can only say God knows! William had caused devastation in Sussex while Harold was up north. The first duty of a king at that time was to defend and avenge his people. He had to challenge William. The point to remember is that if his defensive

tactics had worked, and they should have worked (in fact they nearly worked, as even Norman chroniclers admit), William would have lost.

It was Harold’s death that finished it.

Considering most accounts were written long after the battle took place then how much is conjecture? There aren’t many first-hand descriptions of Thermopylae or Marathon. William of Poitiers and Guy of Amiens were writing about it very soon after the event, using the accounts of those who had fought in it. From the Norman point of view, the evidence is as good as you’re likely to get in the 11th century. From the English point of view, of course, yes, it has to be largely conjecture, since there was no surviving testimony. Even the English chroniclers were reporting hearsay well after the event.

What changes did William introduce after his victory?
The most fundamental change was in land tenure laws. There was land held by the king and land held by the people (folkland). One could hold land as a gift from the king (bookland) in return for certain services, or one could hold it by “folkright” – this was probably family land, the inheritance of which may have gone back to the period of the original 5th century Anglo-Saxon settlements. William made all land the property of the king, granted by him to the holder. A man sitting on land that had been the property of his family for generations suddenly found it belonged to William.

Interview with author Lance Hardy on his 1973 FA Cup final book

STOKOE, SUNDERLAND AND ‘73

The Story of the Greatest FA Cup Final Shock of All Time

Lance Hardy

With football today dominated by money it is almost inconceivable that in 1973 Second Division Sunderland beat Manchester City and Arsenal before facing Don Revie’s mighty Leeds United in the FA Cup Final. Yet the Wearsiders, helped by the greatest save seen at the famous old stadium, thrilled the nation by taking the cup.  

Why did you write this book? 

It was the story I always wanted to write. I fell in love with football and Sunderland AFC on 5 May 1973.  It was hard work though. There were so many sub-plots concerning Bob Stokoe, Don Revie, Brian Clough and Alan Brown - and they were just managers! Sunderland were near the bottom of the old Second Division at Christmas 1972 and Leeds United were the best team in the country. So how could it happen? 

Were Leeds playing the whole nation? 

Leeds were pretty unpopular at the time and Sunderland were the romantic underdogs. It was David and Goliath stuff. If you had no association with Leeds, you supported Sunderland.

What made it the greatest FA Cup Final shock of all time?   

Sunderland had no internationals whilst Leeds had ten. So there was no way they could win it, but they did. They also knocked out Manchester City and Arsenal earlier in the competition. Other Second Division teams later won the Cup but they don't compare in my opinion. This remains the greatest and I believe it will never be repeated. 

But surely winning the FA Cup is no big deal?   

In 1973 it was a very big deal. It was the only domestic club match

shown live on television in those days - and both BBC and ITV covered it. When the Sunderland players returned to the North East 750,000 people lined the streets welcoming them home. The match touched the hearts of the nation like none has done since. It also gave the area a great sense of pride and honour in what was a very bleak time up there.   Production in the mines and the shipyards rose tremendously during the whole Cup run. People were so happy in their work. The mood around the area was joyous.

 You suggest the Sunderland fans played a big part in their sides success?

The incredible team spirit within the players was carried along by the fans on the terraces. Sunderland had a great history but little success leading up to 1973. The whole thing came together with such momentum on that Cup run. The players acknowledged the importance of the support to me and the fans there at the time genuinely felt they played a part in the triumph. The support was awesome; the semi-final win against Arsenal at Hillsborough provided the most emotional post-match scenes I have ever seen.    

    

 Leeds lost many cup finals and important league games in the 1960s and 1970s - any reason why?

There is a great quote from Peter Lorimer in the book when he talks about the famous 7-0 thrashing of Southampton in 1972 and the difference in how the Leeds players approached that game from how Revie preferred them to play. Fixture build-up is mentioned a lot too. Squads were smaller and Leeds were often challenging on all fronts and couldn't cope. Lorimer cites losing the 1973 FA Cup final as perhaps complacency and under-rating Sunderland. He gave a really honest interview.           

The match wasn’t the greatest, but there was a moment that has stuck in people’s memories as ‘Wembley’s greatest save.’ 

That involved Peter Lorimer! He had the hardest shot in the game and was faced with placing the ball into an open net from six yards out but the Sunderland goalkeeper Jim Montgomery flung himself off the ground to somehow turn it on to the crossbar. Peter said if he had the same chance again he would have hit the ball exactly the same. Montgomery made the save due to sheer instinct and his superb reflexes. His upper body strength to get himself up from the floor and to get anything on that shot was truly remarkable. Every time you watch it you think it has to be a goal. That won Sunderland the Cup, really.  

Prescott is a laughing stock

To: Letters page

Tribune magazine

I bet Paul Routledge could never have guessed that his Tribune piece on Hull becoming the UK City of Culture for 2017 would be so swiftly followed by the first entry for the city’s comedy award. This was in the form of an article by Colin Brown seeking to laud John Prescott because the former Deputy Prime Minister has refound his social conscience so profoundly missing when he actually had the chance to use it during his time when he was Blair’s side-kick.

Of course, there is already a comedy written about Mr Prescott and it’s one he is so scared of that he dare not even utter its name, or even mention on twitter - DUSTBINGATE. This was a book that sold in its tens of thousands - certainly many more than Brown’s biography of Prescott - and helped take its author, Ian Newton, out of a drab factory job with a large wedge of cash to hand. The book featured allegations over re-possessed council house property dealings by Prescott’s family and claims of secret files being removed from a stolen dustbin outside Mr Prescott's house. It made front-page news at the time, although nothing was ever proved and no one was ever charged.

Still it so threatened New Labour that when it looked like some Hollywood producers would turn the book into a film the party sent some of its advisors out to the United States. They successfully persuaded the money men that this would be politically dangerous in an era when Blair was backing up President Bush in the ill-fated - and illegal - adventure in Iraq. If only the movie had been made then maybe we could have laughed our way out of the conflict and saved countless thousands of lives. Prescott, a hero? Even suggesting such nonsense is not funny!

Mark Metcalf

No show for pensioners

A TV critic, who is also an avid tweeter, backs the UK’s principal pensioners organisation in their campaign to appear on the BBC’s Question Time.

 

The one-hour topical debate programme is made by independent production company Mentorn and has just celebrated its 34^th birthday. In a pre-recorded show currently presented by David Dimbleby, politicians from at least three major political parties are joined by other public figures to answer pre-selected questions from a selected audience.

 

On 26 September 2013 the show featured education secretary Michael Gove MP, shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander MP, UKIP candidate and Daily Express chief political commentator Patrick O’Flynn, novelist Will Self and journalist Louise Cooper.

 

The National Pensioners Convention (NPC) is 35 years old this year. It is made up of around 1,000 bodies representing 1.5 million members.

 

No NPC representative has ever appeared on Question Time. For the last two years the organisation has been making repeated appearance requests to the BBC and Mentorn and supporters have leafleted the audience as they go into what is the BBC’s flagship political programme. The NPC has reported that their correspondence is now no longer acknowledged.

 

The NPC has no elected representatives in either central of local government but its national officer, Neil-Duncan Jordan, said: “We have significantly more members than any of the political parties. Older people also play an important role in the country through volunteering and providing unpaid care. If the leader of the National Union of Students can appear on Question Time then why not us?” 

 

Andy Dawson is a comedy writer turned TV critic for the Daily Mirror. He is well-known as Twitter’s Profanity Swan and describes himself as ‘an avid Question Time live tweeter.’ Earlier this year he heavily criticised the programme after comic actor Russell Brand appeared alongside London Mayor Boris Johnson and right-wing journalist Melanie Phillips. After viewers were left disappointed by the lack of any clashes, Dawson supported criticism of a similar nature in other papers when he said: “Question Time continues to become less about reasoned political debate and more about gawping at some firecracker guests in the hope they’ll all bang at the same time.”

 

Dawson believes “there are no valid reasons why the NPC shouldn’t sit on the Question Time panel. Pensioners are largely ignored by the popular media as it is, and it would be great to see them represented instead of yet another tired old newspaper columnist.”

 

Asked about the NPC’s request a BBC spokesperson said: “Question Time prides itself on representing all sections of society and many panel and invited audience members are over or close to retirement age. The selection of guests outside political parties is usually based on topicality or direct involvement with an appropriate issue.” 

Letter to Bradford City fanzine on Di Canio

Letter to City Gent, Bradford City fanzine  

I like reading your magazine, but it’s just as well The City Gent includes a disclaimer for ‘any responsibility for the accuracy of anything reported’ in it after reading John Watmough’s article in Issue 189 about Paolo Di Canio and the brief period in which the fascist was in charge at my club, Sunderland.

It starts with him agreeing with the T&A’s Simon Parker about the national media ganging up to ‘have a pop’ when Di Canio arrived at Sunderland when they had remained largely silent at Swindon. Ignoring the fact that Sunderland have an average gate five times that of Swindon, Watmough fails to recognise that it was ordinary fans who objected so strongly to Di Canio’s appointment that the national media was forced to take notice. It was ordinary fans who made contact with Labour MP David Miliband in the hours following the appointment of the Italian and persuaded him to quit his role at the Stadium of Light. Fans like former soldier Jim Fox, who appeared on Sky Sports to denounce Di Canio’s arrival and hand back his already paid for season card for 2013-14. 

It was fans like myself - someone who until Di Canio pitched up had hardly missed a match at home or away for 30 years plus - who made clear their objection to Di Canio’s politics and who I believe almost pushed owner Ellis Short into sending him packing even before his first game in charge. It was fans who pointed out that Di Canio’s hero, Benito Mussolini, was a hard core racist and as such how could Sunderland participate in anti-racist campaigns. It was former miners, some who had worked at Wearmouth Colliery on which the Stadium of Light now stands, who felt it was a stain on the fight by local soldiers in the Second World War to appoint a fascist. 

It was anti-fascist fans who pointed out that Di Canio’s style of management would be a disaster because, quite simply, his politics excludes an approach that includes other people in his thinking. It is Di Canio first, second and third. What that means is he is always right and can brook no criticism and certainly winning League Two does not make him a genius. Di Canio’s attack on John O’Shea was only meant to deflect attention away from his crass tactics. As regards his comments on Ji Dong-Won then why did the Italian just days earlier turn down a bid for £4 million for him when any sensible Sunderland fan would have taken such a sum for an ordinary player?

I could make many more points on a similar theme but will end by saying I have viewed every game since Di Canio left and have hardly met anyone who feels Sunderland should not have sacked him after his on pitch farce at WBA. 

Mark Metcalf, Halifax 

07952 801783 

Freelance journalist, football historian and author. 

Unite education courses given 'thumbs up'

Experienced Unite reps in Manchester have given Unite Education courses a ‘thumbs up’ for helping them develop skills to win improvements in working conditions for their members.

 

Hundreds of free training courses for reps are organised across the UK and Ireland and in 2012 a total attendance of 12,000 students raised the total teaching days to 54,000 days. This was a significant achievement so soon after the merger of two unions into one.

 

Underpinning all courses is a three-pillar strategy of organising, international solidarity and politics. A greater political understanding of a fast altering inter-locked world where working people are increasingly being denied a decent income, good working conditions and democratic rights strengthens skills development.

 

Manchester City Council mechanical road sweeper Graham White became a safety rep after he was badly injured at work due to the combination of a workmates mistake and a badly designed garage depot. The latter has been significantly improved due to Graham’s efforts.

 

He does not want others to suffer his fate and says, “anyone considering becoming a rep at their workplace should know they can access relevant training to assist them fulfil an important role. I have learnt negotiating skills, how to gather and file information and where to access the Law to back up any issues I take to management on behalf of members”.

 

According to Stagecoach bus driver Mike Woods, who is an elected workplace and safety rep, the benefits of a Unite course include  “meeting reps from other workplaces, giving a greater understanding of the wider union movement and from whom you get invaluable ideas to take up at your own workplace”. Mike also praised the Unite Education department for its back up services that include ongoing support in helping him locate information for workplace negotiations on both safety and employment matters.

 

“The courses help build self-esteem and place you on an equal footing with management in negotiations,” said Sharon Chawner, a Unite workplace and safety rep at the Royal Bank of Scotland.

 

Union representatives have a statutory right to reasonable paid time off from work to undertake trade union training.

 

Most courses are for workplace and safety reps but there are also courses for branch officials, equality and union learning reps as well as weekend schools and ones on pensions and dealing with redundancy. For more information see:- www.unitetheunion.org/growing-our-union/education/

Terrorism Act used to 'harass'

From the current issue of the Big Issue in the North magazine 

Bedfordshire Police has denied it is using the Terrorism Act 2000 to gather information about activists who challenge state interests or the behaviour of corporations.

Corporate Watch (CW) is a not-for-profit collective of journalists founded to research the social and environmental impact of corporate power. It was formed in 1996.

CW researchers Therezia Cooper and Tom Anderson* have been stopped and questioned under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 on five occasions at UK airports while travelling to Egypt and returning from research trips to Palestine.

The organisation states that it is “documenting companies profiting from the Israeli occupation as part of aiding the global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israeli apartheid, occupation and militarism”.

Released without charge

On 5 February, Cooper was held for two hours of questioning at Luton Airport by Bedfordshire Police, which later undertook the same exercise with Anderson. Both were released without charge. Other locations where CW researchers have been stopped include Gatwick Airport and the port of Dover.

Schedule 7 allows travellers to be questioned to find out if they might be terrorists. Interviewees have no right to remain silent, cannot access legal advice and can be detained for up to nine hours. In 2012/13, 61,145 people were examined under Schedule 7 and 2,277 were stopped for over an hour.

In August, David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the former Guardian journalist who first revealed America and Britain’s mass surveillance programmes, was held for five minutes short of nine hours.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill currently being discussed in Parliament will reduce the time a person can be detained without charge under Schedule 7 to six hours.

Anderson was stopped for around an hour at Luton Airport. He claims he was questioned about a wide range of anti-capitalist activities he is involved in, including the International Solidarity Movement, which supports Palestinian non-violent resistance to the Israeli occupation. Police were particularly keen to know why the groups he is involved with do not inform the authorities in advance of their protest activities.

“Unrelated to terrorism”

On the conclusion of the interview, Anderson was informed that he had been stopped under Section 7 because the police wanted to find out if he was involved in violence or terrorism. Anderson replied: “Your questions are unrelated to terrorism and I don’t believe that is your real interest.”

Anderson said: “Schedule 7 helps the police to build up profiles on activists so they can undermine political movements. The questions were unrelated to rooting out terrorism and the movements they were interested in have never been involved in such activities. They do, however, pose a threat to state interests and the profits of private companies. The police’s role is to protect the powerful against public discontent. 

Grassroots campaigns

“CW is not surprised at the harassment, especially following the success of some of our grassroots campaigns such as the one against G4S, which has challenged the world’s largest security company’s ability to gain further contracts.”

Anderson has contacted his MP, Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. She has provided him with a letter to be given to the police if he is again stopped under Schedule 7 when visiting Palestine. The letter outlines the purpose of Anderson’s visit and requests that the police do not stop him or confiscate his research equipment.

A spokesperson for Bedfordshire Police said it couldn’t discuss individual cases but officers had always used it in a “lawful and proportionate manner”.

“If someone believes they have been detained improperly they have the right to contact our Professional Standards Department or the Independent Police Complaints Commission to raise their concerns,” the spokesperson said.

* names have been changed