Amazon.com Widgets

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

  • Yes he should be !

    William was a great leader, warrior and was also related to Edward. William had shown his great leadership skills from a young age and was always known by his close piers as the one that would lead them to any victory. He was also a great warrior he fought strong and hard but also fearlessly . Finally he was related to king Edward this means that he is rightfully the king of England

  • He deserved it.

    William the First, more commonly known as William the Conqueror, should be king. You may not like him, no one really did, but I think he would be the best fit for king. He should actually should have been heir to the throne because he was related to Edward as a cousin. Since he was a duke from quite an early part of his childhood, he has grown up with many responsibilities and knows how to deal with threats and concerns. William was a duke from quite a young age {as I said before} and many people didn’t want such a young boy as a king, this caused many private wars and he dealt with it and stopped it! So even if the Anglo-Saxons didn’t want him, he would grow on them and would become king. It also depends on which perspective you look him at, because to the Normans, he did everything a good would do such as defend their homeland and conquer other places but England wouldn’t like him.

    That is why I think that William the Conqueror would be the best fit for Anglo-Saxon king.

  • 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 no no

    Cause he only got it cause of HARALD GODWINSON AND HARALALD HARDRADA getting killed in the battle. None of them diserved the throne cause of reason. Harold godwinson own brother jone harold hardrada make you think why. Harold hardrada has no link and william a cheat and a theft .

  • He was a viking.

    Why would the English want to go back under viking rule after they had rid themselves of it so recently. William was certainly not more ethical. One of the reasons he wanted England was the wealth it would bring in order to carry out the penance given to him and his wife by the Pope. He used this money to build the two big abbeys in Can to discharge his penance. He was so greatly disliked by his own Norman court that when he died he was left alone to do it on a cold stone floor and the body remained there for some time as nobody wanted to be near it

  • No no no

    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

  • 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.