Henry of Huntingdon was the son of a canon in the diocese of Lincoln and the author of Historia Anglorum (The "History of the English"). He is credited with being "the most important Anglo-Norman historian to emerge from the secular clergy" according to Hollister. Henry began to write his Historia Anglorum, first published around 1129, an account of the history of England from its beginnings up to the year 1154.

Whilst covering the early period of English history his evidence, relating to the Battle of Hastings, covers the arrival of the Norman army. Here Henry confirms:

“Harold, king of England, returned to York the same day, with great triumph. But while he was at dinner, a messenger arrived with the news that William, duke of Normandy, had landed on the south coast and had built a fort at Hastings.”

In the text we have confirmation of William building a fort at Hastings, providing confirmation that the fort was started in 1066 and could not be the new fort finished in 1095. The publisher has added a footnote to advise (note, it is not correct) that the Normans had landed at Pevensey on Michaelmas Eve the same year. The evidence of Pevensey was copied erroneously from an earlier faulty manuscript and passed to historians as correct in 1596 when printed.

As a consequence Henry was simply restating the evidence as known to him, showing that the deception by the monks at Battle was well established by the time the battle was put into writing in the twelfth century. Further evidence of this is provided when he writes as other evidence shows, that the Normans started their battle “on a flat plain,” further confirming what was known by others. However, it was not known to Henry that there was no plain near Battle Abbey, thus in part continuing to hide the fraud.

The problem in dealing with distant events is seeking the validity of what is written. Unknown to Henry of Huntingdon he wrote at a time when evidence could not be checked or even corrected once written. We are therefore in his hands as to justify his source yet none is given here. In order to remove the chaff from the weeds we can therefore accept what is verified by others, but cannot accept the vast bulk of the writing which is predominantly heresay some of which is right, but may also be wrong. The only reliable witnesses to these events are those who confirm they where at the Battle of Hastings or witnessed it via the evidence of a person who confirms it.