Orthodox Britain? Some thoughts on the Norman Conquest Part I

 The Bayeux Tapestries do quite good at illustrating the Norman Conquest of the Anglo-Saxons and the battle of Hastings in particular. For centuries before 1066, England had been under Anglo-Saxon rule, often with very friendly relations with Christian Rome. Indeed, many in Britain came to Christianity through the evangelizing of Saint Augustine of Canterbury as commissioned by Pope Gregory the Great in 597 A. That said, we know from archaeology and art that Christianity has existed in Rome since at least the first century. The church father Tertullian actually said that Christianity had reached Britain before Roman arms had done so. Who evangelized the Celts we are not sure of though. Over the years, theories about Coptic Christians Christianizing the Britannians have been common. Some Roman Catholics on the other hand reject such theories, claiming Britain's Christianity has it's true roots in Rome alone.   
There is so many theories nowadays that sometimes it is hard to separate fact from fiction. Hopefully, the truth will come out about this one. I was recently reading from some Orthodox Christian sources about what they believe was an Orthodox Christian Britain until 1066 A. D.

The book Saint Paul in Britain by R. W. Morgan covers what it claims are the historical origins of Orthodox Christianity in the British Isles. In fact, the book claims Britain was even Christian before Rome! Over the years I have read articles from both Roman Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on this issue of debate. Whether or not Britain was Orthodox or Catholic before 1066 is the issue of some debates and conspiracies. For many years I pretty consistently believed Britain had always been Roman Catholic. More recently, I have began to think otherwise.  I expect this post to be a controversial one but I've never been short of addressing issues of the type.
 First off, Celtic Christianity and Roman Christianity had nearly clashed a few times, such as when to practice Easter. By the Council of Whitby however, both had agreed on the date, as the Celts submitted to Rome's teaching on the date of Easter.
 I have found little reason to think many Celtic Christians thought theologically different than the Roman Christians had. If they did, I will address that later on. While some Celtic Christians were like Pelagius, others were greatly influenced by the Romanized Saint Patrick.
 But assuming Roman and Celtic Christianity were theologically similar, I now go forward to the Norman Conquest in the 11th century. By the way, I highly recommend Historian David Howarth's book 1066: The Year of the Conquest.
 Pope Alexander II gave William, duke of Normandy, permission to invade England. According to Howarth, this was because the pope wanted England as his own domain and was thus using William I to achieve that end, though William had no such intention to make Britain the pope's vassal. The pope gave William a banner and ring as significance for his support of the Norman invasion.
 An interesting point to remember is that the Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury, Stigand, held more than one diocese. While this maybe claimed as a justification for the pope's blessing for William's invasion of England, it doesn't take note of the fact that many other bishops in Europe had more than one diocese as well. In fact, the authority of multiple bishoprics by certain individuals would continue for a very longtime. Not until the Council of Trent would do away with this practice in the sixteenth century would it stop. Another argument made against Archbishop Stigand was that he had not been canonically elected to his office by the pope's approval, but then again no Anglo-Saxon bishop had in centuries. Why now would the pope suddenly care? What was it that inspired Pope Alexander II to approve of the Norman Conquest. 
 The importance of all of this information begs now to ask, why would the pope then approve of Archbishop Stigand being deposed and be replaced with what would eventually be Italian successors. Some Orthodox Christians claim it's because England was one of the last Orthodox countries in Europe and therefore Rome was out to have it conquered and suppressed. One of the evidences that the Orthodox Christians use for their belief is that some of the Saxons fled to Russia, an Orthodox country after the Norman Conquest. Some Anglicans have suggested that Anglo-Saxon Britain was actually a pre-form of Anglicanism, and that when Henry VIII broke ways with Rome in 1534, he just reestablishing the old English Church's independence from Rome that had long been suppressed.
 All these theories are interesting. As mentioned earlier, Anglo-Saxon Britain had had quite a good relationship with Rome, but was that changing in the 11th century as popes further advanced papal supremacy?  This question needs to be advanced further, and hopefully all that study it will be more faithful to the historical facts than their church's dogmas in dictating history.
 The Anglo-Saxons would come to live under Norman rule for centuries after the Norman Conquest. Many of them would live as Peasants under what is commonly called The Feudal System. Strife between England and Rome would come to be however, but not strongly until the fourteenth century with John Wycliffe and the Lollards.
 Were the Anglo-Saxons Roman Catholic or Western Rite Orthodox? Neither? Were the Anglo-Saxons independent of both in their own form of Christianity? John Smyth, one of the founders of the Baptist, claimed that the Anglo-Saxons baptized by immersion. Does this add to anything that could have theologically put Britain more with the Orthodox, whom were known to baptize by immersion commonly? Pope Gregory the Great had allowed baptism by immersion, so perhaps the issue of the mode of baptism gives no details as to where England stood theologically before 1066? Indeed, much still needs to be researched on why Pope Alexander II approved the Norman Conquest of Britain.

   Further Sources: A History of the Church in England Third Edition by J. R. R. Moorman, 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howarth, Saint Paul in Britain by R. W. Morgan, The True Story of John Smyth, The Se-Baptist, As told by himself and his contemporaries; with an inquiry whether dipping were a new mode of baptism in England, in or about 1641; and some consideration of the historical value of certain extracts from the alleged ''Ancient Records'' by Henry Martyn Dexter, Baptism through the Centuries by Henry F. Brown.