In relation to the proposed site

Part Fifty-eight
The issues raised in the chapter entitled Conclusion of Site Requirements, according to manuscript study,(151) produced a list of observations directly linked to authentic manuscript documents from the period within 150 years of the landing. I decided to use 150 years as a completely arbitrary yardstick, upon the principal that as time progressed the likelihood of error creeping into the translations and recopying of the original works would reduce their reliable nature. All study of the events concerned, as far as I am aware, have to date claimed that one or more of the documents we have studied is unreliable. This unreliability being due to the anomalies and inconsistencies which we have discussed, as well as some which at this stage have not been covered.

The proposal that the Norman Invasion landing site was at Wilting Manor can not only be shown to be valid from the archaeological and geographical record but more important fundamentally supports all the documents which previously have been discredited as unsound.

It probably needs to be asked by someone like myself, who is not versed in an academic historical career, why such detailed accounts of the events by Poitiers, Wace or the Carmen should ever have been conceived to have been written in error. There is a logic in dismissing all the evidence of a manuscript if it is believed to be unsound, however the proposal that you just take the parts that agree with current “thinking” is just as unsound. Hence those people who, for one reason or another, prefer to believe that the Normans landed at Pevensey, should seriously question how they can use Poitiers to justify this position and all the other authors accounts that Hastings was where they camped, when a number of other sources confirm the same event. As stated in the earlier text the question of Poitiers making this claim is disputed.(152)

It would be argued that errors in transcription were common at the time these documents were written and unless they were original copies errors were almost certain to have occurred. This may be true, but it does not account for changing the landing place from one town to another. There must be a logical reason why these two towns featured in the writings and I believe the Wace account(153) provides a wholly logical explanation. Disregarding all the other sources that provide information to the contrary is not logical and in my view unscientific. Especially when there is a document containing sixteen and a half thousand lines of text on the events of the landing, which to this day are completely acceptable as authentic in France, where the Normans came from. Has it never crossed anyone’s mind why this may be?

The answer may be that it did not fit in with Victorian theories and therefore needed to be discarded, at a time when communication and cross checking the record was not that easy. However recent studies have shown that much of what was thought to be unreliable really is not in doubt, it is the interpretation placed upon them by the interpreters. Wace did not write all those words over many years just for fun. I believe it is fair to say that any scribe who dedicates his life to putting the record on paper for future generations does not undertake such a task lightly. Therefore this is a fundamental flaw in dismissing Wace or any of the documents we have looked at.

There can only be one wholly acceptable conclusion that satisfies all logic and leaves no room for doubt. This states that all the manuscripts were written by men who believed they were stating the truth as they knew it. In the course of time some of the items may have been changed in translation or error. However given many different sources of the same events being committed to print the summary of all the parts must paint a picture that will mostly show what really happened.

Taking these forty points from the eight main manuscripts from the period should thus provide us with a definitive conclusion as to the reliability of the proposal I put before you. Not all the elements are conclusive in relation to the Wilting site but must be taken in the whole with all the other details. Hence I am saying that it is not one point, taken on it’s own, that is important or conclusive. It is only the sum of all of them that can present the most persuasive argument since this carries the implicit guarantee that none of the writers of the documents studies was inherently wrong about any of the information provided to us.


1) Unopposed Landing. The landing was unopposed according to all sources and is probably due to the fact that the men of Hastings go on an annual fishing trip at this time of the year to the east coast to catch herring. The Hastings town at Wilting would therefore have been undefended and therefore supports the agricultural community shown in the Bayeux Tapestry.

2) Town of Landing. It is proposed that Hastings town was situated at what became known as Wilting Manor thus supporting the evidence that the landing happened at Hastings.

3) Camp By Or Near The Sea. The proposed camp is in such a location

4) Camp At A Port. The camp was at the port of Hastings

5) Port Capable Of Holding At Least 696 Ships. The old port at the camp was capable of holding these ships and far more

6) Camp Site In A Calm Bay. The camp was next to a large inland lake with access to the sea confirming the description as a calm bay.

7) Camp Adjacent To A Large Shore. The camp at Wilting was adjacent to a large shore stretching several miles

8) The Ships Were Side By Side. The ships along the southern shore at Wilting are side by side in a continuous section of the shore line

9) They Built A Wooden Fort. The fort at the landing site and the one at the top of the hill were both wooden.

10) The Fort Had A Ditch. The fort at the landing site has a ditch on the front three sides.

11) There Were Previous Forts At The Site. I believe there is conclusive evidence that supports a number of different defences at the Wilting site, which account for this important observation.

12) The Fort Was On A Hill. The lower fort was on a headland and the upper fort is on the top of the hill as described.

13) The Ships Were Earthed Up. The inlet with the earthen bank confirms that the ships were earthed up

14) The Ships Were Dismantled. I believe that the fact that the Norman ships are still located along the shore indicates that they could not be removed and thus comply with the concept of being dismantled, although this remains to be seen.

15) The Ships Were Burnt. The evidence in Monkham Inlet confirms that some, if not all the ships may have been burnt.

16) The Ships Were Small. The evidence from dowsing confirms the size to be comparable with lifeboats confirming them being small by modern day standards

17) William’s Ship Had A Figurine. The Mora has boat parts in Monkham Inlet, whether these include a figuring remain to be seen.

18) The Ships Had Viking Type Prows. This remains to be seen

19) The Prows Had Removable Heads. This remains to be seen

20) The Camp Was Next To Or At A Manor Held By The King. Wilting Manor is next to Crowhurst Manor, which was held by King Harold at the time of the Invasion. Harold was the Lord of Crowhurst Manor.

21) The Initial Landing Site Was Small. This is confirmed by the inlet where they first landed.

22) There Was A Plain Near By The Landing Site. There are two huge plains immediately adjacent to the lower Norman camp at Wilting. Both have a copious supply of fresh water from the streams at either side.

23) The Neighbourhood Was Laid To Waste. The Domesday evidence confirms that Wilting and Crowhurst, the nearest manor, suffered the greatest as a result of the Invasion confirming both manors laid waste.

24) The Ground Was Uneven And Waterlogged. The site of the landing at the lower Norman fort is accurately described here during the winter months

25) One Camp Was At The Bottom Of An Agricultural Field. The lower Norman Camp is below a large agricultural field with no evidence that it has ever been other than this.

26) The Other Camp Was At The Top Of the Same Field. This describes the layout of the two camps at Wilting

27) The Bottom Camp Was To The Right Of The Bottom Of The Hill. This describes the bottom camp exactly as shown in the Bayeux Tapestry.

28) The Fort At The Bottom Of The Hill Had Two Towers. The dowsing at the bottom site confirms post holes for two towers

29) There Was A Mound Between The Two Towers. Confirmed at the lower Norman fort

30) The Towers And Fort Walls Had A Terraced Bottom. The lower Norman fort confirms this structure

31) There Is A Circular Dining Room. The lower Norman fort has a raised circular area, which could be a dining area, however this remains to be seen.

32) The Exit Was To the Right Of The Fort Looking From The Sea. The lower Norman fort conforms to this layout.

33) The Duke’s Quarters Were Elevated At The Site. The lower Norman fort has a raised area but it remains to be seen if this is the Duke’s quarters.

34) The Camp At The Top Of The Hill Had Two Towers And A Connecting Palisade. Two towers were located on the top fort connected by a palisade. Post holes have been dowsed at the site but not recorded in the previous text.

35) The Camp Had Chapels In Adjacent Field Upon Departure. Chapel Field is located at this site and it’s origins explained.

36) The Landing Site Was Low Down Below Three Houses. The site at Wilting is below the main ridge at which Wilting Manor house was subsequently built. Three buildings probably sat prominently over the site, on the assumption that these buildings were later replaced by the ones that we know. These were Wilting Manor House, Mayfield Farm (at the adjacent cross-roads) and Adams farm (if one existed there at the time). By coincidence the site is surrounded by three unopposed landing areas.

37) There Is A Grave At The Site. There are probably at least two mounds at the site and possibly more that could qualify as graves.

38) The Grave Has A Marker Stone. I believe that I know the location of the marker stone for Harold’s grave, which has been removed from the actual grave. I shall reveal the location of this stone should it be appropriate after the other investigations have been initiated. The stone is in a place that is currently impossible to access through conventional methods, since it is under a building. In the meantime this item is not able to corroborate the other evidence.

39) The Camp Is In The manor Of Crowhurst Or Wilting. The camp is in the manor of Wilting

40) The Site Is Called Hedgeland. The site of the landing is at a place called Redgeland, which in Old English has been mistranslated in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. This final point of evidence being as absolute a naming for the field name as I believe possible, given the difficulties involved.

An inspection of all forty points reveals 34 items in agreement with the Wilting site (85%), with six which cannot at this time be revealed (15%).(154) However these six are not dismissed on account that they fail the viability test, but more relevantly cannot be established as true or false, in relation to this site, until after further investigation.