Amazon.com Widgets

Did William the Conqueror deserve to be King of England: Was he more ethical than his rivals?

  • Great axing people

    Amaxing william was amaxing
    xvxvbxbvxcgccbvbhvh hvhkgjhbj n bnb hbh h jnm bnnmb j b h bh vhb jb b jb h nvnb jb jv hj jgn kigh nkjvv kfv jgg kfg kgbg lhgg mkghg kjgfgnm kgg khh jgc jkgmkv kvg lkhgh kb j hjgvb kjghg jkj gkug hvkmv vhjyty hgjhtgy hgjg

  • I definetely agree

    He is definetly awesome and cool

    75% Say No









    I agree that he deserved to be king of england William the Conqueror deserved oto be the King of England for various reasons. In order to be a King, you must be a leader, in which he was. He led may people regardless wether it was for good or evil. Being a leader is extremely tough no matter what you are a leader of and that's why i think he deserved it.

  • I agree that he deserved to be king of england

    William the Conqueror deserved oto be the King of England for various reasons. In order to be a King, you must be a leader, in which he was. He led may people regardless wether it was for good or evil. being a leader is extremely tough no matter what you are a leader of and that's why i think he deserved it.

  • No he was not

    William was a distant cousin of Edward the Confessor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • William the cheat

    Technically, no and he was not more ethical William the Conqueror did not technically deserve to be King of England because of his illegitimate birth status, When he became a contender for the throne, William killed and lied to achieve power. William the Conqueror used his brute strength to get what he wanted. He won the King of England position, but he did not technically deserve it, the way the throne was usually passed down.

  • Evidenced by his time on the throne

    The question in my view is not whether he deserved to be king based on the European feudal system, rather did his ethics make him a more deserving king. Anyone with a superficial knowledge of what followed the Norman conquest would be aware this is not the case. He suppressed English culture, he oppressed the native people and of course the Harrying of the North is potentially the darkest atrocity to have ever been committed on British soil.

  • Technically, no and he was not more ethical

    William the Conqueror did not technically deserve to be King of England because of his illegitimate birth status, When he became a contender for the throne, William killed and lied to achieve power. William the Conqueror used his brute strength to get what he wanted. He won the King of England position, but he did not technically deserve it, the way the throne was usually passed down.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.