Dynasties and dynastic factional battles were part and parcel of the emerging feudal order, as they had been in the later Roman Empire, which legions enthroned their preferred champions rather than accept the will of the Roman Senate. So all in all, I would not consider the Norman Conquest to constitute a change in the status quo. It has…
Dynasties and dynastic factional battles were part and parcel of the emerging feudal order, as they had been in the later Roman Empire, which legions enthroned their preferred champions rather than accept the will of the Roman Senate. So all in all, I would not consider the Norman Conquest to constitute a change in the status quo. It has often been written up by historians as a turning point in British history. It did bring a more clearly defined feudalism to England. But as noted in other comments, William had a plausible dynastic claim to the throne. The most revolutionary aspect of the way he asserted those rights is that he had a largely foreign army while Harold had the support of the traditional Saxon establishment. Because William had promised land to his adherents, a lot of Saxon lords were displaced and a lot of French-speaking foreign lords were established. But this too is part of the feudal order -- the kings, when powerful enough to do so, dispossessed traitors, or adherents of rival claimants, and granted lands to their loyal retainers. When less powerful, kings dispossessed even favorites who had run afoul of lords more powerful in practice than the king, while granting lands to those who could browbeat the crown for them. Business as usual.
Dynasties and dynastic factional battles were part and parcel of the emerging feudal order, as they had been in the later Roman Empire, which legions enthroned their preferred champions rather than accept the will of the Roman Senate. So all in all, I would not consider the Norman Conquest to constitute a change in the status quo. It has often been written up by historians as a turning point in British history. It did bring a more clearly defined feudalism to England. But as noted in other comments, William had a plausible dynastic claim to the throne. The most revolutionary aspect of the way he asserted those rights is that he had a largely foreign army while Harold had the support of the traditional Saxon establishment. Because William had promised land to his adherents, a lot of Saxon lords were displaced and a lot of French-speaking foreign lords were established. But this too is part of the feudal order -- the kings, when powerful enough to do so, dispossessed traitors, or adherents of rival claimants, and granted lands to their loyal retainers. When less powerful, kings dispossessed even favorites who had run afoul of lords more powerful in practice than the king, while granting lands to those who could browbeat the crown for them. Business as usual.