THAT Battle!

[Derek Jempson]

As far as I am aware, no one has yet produced a big-screen account of the Battle of Hastings. In 2008, the Daily Telegraph reported that no less than three epics were to be made:

Does anyone know if any of them saw the light of day? In today's Sunday Mirror there is a report of a new film of the story, starring Mark Lester as Harold. Please sir, can I have some more?

[Richard]

at least there is a good account of potted history behind the battle/conquest on the forums :

http://www.1066online.co.uk/hastings-hi ... -hastings/

It's not easy to get an easily digested account, considering the convoluted storyline and also much is lost in the mists of time, but I would think there is plenty of material for a 'blockbuster' film.
However, if Hollywood got involved, just imagine how people here would take umbrage at all the inaccuracies and omissions.

At least it would broaden the interest in Hastings and tourism must be encouraged.

[Derek Jempson]

An American blockbuster would no doubt be awful as it would be intended primarily for home consumption. Americans would have no idea where Hastings is located - many people in the UK don't know. Years ago, I had a job that took me all over the country. I was sometimes asked where I came from and when I replied, "Hastings", the response was often, "Ah, yes_ _ _ that's in Kent isn't it"?

The British film starring Mark Lester sounds like the best option, if it is ever made.

[Anonymous1]

I've often wondered why one of the most important battles in the history of western civilisation has never been acknowledged by the film industry. Peter Jackson could do a good job in three parts no doubt. The story has all the ingredients of a major box office success, intrigue, duplicity, great characters, romance and several epic battles. I'm sure a creative screenwriter could even squeeze in a fluffy dog, well, perhaps not fluffy, maybe a nice one with big teeth that bites Normans _ _ _.

_ _ _..the conclusion I've come to is that the (erroneous) idea of the Brits being defeated by the French, which is how most folk see it, is too unpalatable for the average punter_ _ __ _ _Most Brits see it as a major defeat.

Hastings in general makes very little of the whole episode. There are a few very amateurish and small displays but nothing that does justice.

[Richard]

As you imply GK most people think the French defeated us in 1066.
I would like to se the idea that "French" invaded Britain in 1066 completely and totally squashed and made clear, in any film or account. that these were Vikings who had originally been given land in France (Normandy) by the French king in order to stop their attacks on France.
Norman "French" were Scandinavian Viking in origin (settled in France) and this must be made clear from the outset.
The fact that they intermarried with French meant that they were seen more or less as "French" by the year 1000 but even though it may be seen as 'splitting hairs' to point this out, for the sake of completeness I think it is necessary.
Year 1204, The French King Phillip II invades and conquers Normandy. Most of the Normans in England decide to stay and become English. Most of the Normans in France become French. The Normans themselves effectively cease to exist.

[Anonymous1]

Exactly.

we where invaded by the Romans whos troops were Italian, Spanish, African, Arab, German etc. They interbred with the natives. The Romans left. The Saxons, Angles and Jutes came from Europe and further interbred. Then came the Normans or North Men who further co mingled_ _ __ _ _.

_ _ __ _ _..why most brits identify themselves solely with the Anglo Saxons is beyond me, we're a mix with no logical loyalties. It's a misplaced and ignorant sense of national pride.

Having said that, the Normans did create a class system that still pervades. The working classes or lower folk are still considered scum and parasites by many of today's ruling classes_ _ __ _ _.Thanks William

[Richard]

?

[Allen]

Most parents would say that you get a "no kids allowance" through not having to fork out the vast sum required to raise them.

[Richard]

Yes ! and that raises an interesting thought:

Apparently (Norman) William was a "lucky bastard" regarding the success of his Invasion, but someone had to pay the cost of his healthcare, education, and etcetera.

In Britain before "The Conquest" there would have been a hierarchy of "Serfdom" by another name, which may have changed to reflect the new masters immediately after "The Invasion".
I suspect it would be a long time before "The State" took on the role of many of the systems in place today, which we rely upon absolutely.
Even Justice would have been settled by the immediate family of the victim demanding "Blood Money" (or worse) like some Arab countries today, and no doubt many everyday matters were "locally settled" as the only strong system in place nationwide was a Military System of requiring service, or money in lieu of it, to pay for wars.
Plus ofcourse the 'Domesday Book' to allow records of how much tax money was raised by the new masters in each unit of agriculture/fishing etcetera.
The Jews were always good with money and William brought them to Britain, presumably to assist his operations.
.

[Gerry Glyde]

There is a new book published on the Conquest by Marc Morris 2013 and according to one reviewer who says "almost everything you knew about 1066 is wrong" so it looks as if it will be a good read.