There's The Fall of Orthodox England, by Vladimir Moss. Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.
I thought Moss's writing about Harold II was at least reasonable. The canonization proposed by Moss seems to be a stretch, but he did defend Orthodox England against the Norman invasion, and others have been canonized for less.
Harold II's grandson Mstislav became the Grand Prince of Kiev (ie the main ruler) and was made a saint, but I really can't find a strong religious reason for Mstislav's canonization.
Can you tell us what you found "reasonable" about Moss' statements about Harald II? Have you read any other works on the period or such source materials as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which has been translated into modern English?
Not that Moss is heralded by sane, well-adjusted academicians (if any exist) as a paragon of well-reasoned and researched argument.
My reaction is that I read a significant excerpt from Moss' writing about Harold II, and what he wrote made sense to me. So to me, it was "well-reasoned".
To give an example, as I remember, he was relating well-known historical facts, and then pointed out that there was a disagreement and separation from the Pope, who at that time was leading into the Great Schism. Orthodox England had not joined in the Pope's rejection of the Orthodox East as the Pope's power was separated from the Church in England, although I don't remember whether there was a schism at that point. Harold II was politically close with the Orthodox East too, as his daughter went to Russia and married Monomakh, Harold II's grandson becoming Grand Prince (basically the king).
The Pope, leading into schism at that point or already part of it, was backing Norman the Conqueror, making Harold II the defender of the older Orthodox England at that point. Now what I have just told you is what I remember from Moss' writing about this,
but there was alot more. And while I am doubtful whether you can say England was canonically Orthodox simply because it didn't have a falling out with Russia and didn't itself choose to break communion, but did have a falling out with the Pope, it seems at least reasonable.
So for example, ROCOR had a falling out with the Mother Church, and lost communion with the Mother Church and most other churches. But since ROCOR still had communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, then it would be at least reasonable to assert
ROCOR was still canonical, if one could add in other things as well.So if it were reasonable
to say the Mother Church (for Orthodox England- Rome; for ROCOR- the Moscow Patriarch) became schismatic or uncanonical, and a group like Orthodox England or ROCOR stayed in communion with the canonical church (for Orthodox England- Russia; for ROCOR- Serbia and Jerusalem), then it sounds reasonable to say this smaller group was still canonical.
Now personally, I am unsure Orthodox England would really be canonical since its Patriarch- Rome wasn't, and I am pretty doubtful that ROCOR was canonical, since it split from the canonical Mother Church. But I am talking about what would be reasonable to propose.
And while I haven't read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I have played the Game 1066
, and would be glad to play anyone on the forum:http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/0-9/1066/game/