With regards to the coastline as it was in 1066 why it is Old Winchelsea (now under the sea off Rye somewhere) is rarely shown on maps of the landings and has it ever been considered if it would have played any part in the invasion of 1066. It would have been an ideal spot to land with inlets reaching as far as Tenterden. It would also tie in with some of the manuscript details that were recorded around the time plus any remains of ships/boats would now be with Old Winchelsea under the sea. Failright could also be the “nearby hill” which is missing from the Pevensey site where a burial took place after landing.
No domesday data of any Norman involvement i that area to warrant a landing. End of the penionsular and a nightmare landing point for any army – no chance
Thank you Nick
The only reason I thought it may have a baring is the script I attach below
Behind the great shingle bank on which Old Winchelsea was sited, a wide shallow bay called the Camber (from chamber) was formed by the estuaries of the Rivers Brede, Rother and Tillingham. The Camber reached the sea through a breach in the great shingle bank that was opened sometime between 700AD and 800AD. It provided a large tidal anchorage sheltered from the sea. Ships would have anchored stem-to-stern along the channels and creeks, lying in the mud at low tide, as at Rye today. On a hill on the northern side of the Camber stood Rye, and to the north and east, protected by the shingle bank, was the Walland Marsh and beyond that Romney Marsh.
As no documentation is known to exist regarding the “large tidal anchorage” area and the invasion of 1066 I guess I have to forget the theory.
A fascinating subject, Is there a map showing the south coast as it was then? The only ones I can find are little fiddly things that ask more questions than answer.
The Secrets Of The Norman Invasion Blog 
With regards to the coastline as it was in 1066 why it is Old Winchelsea (now under the sea off Rye somewhere) is rarely shown on maps of the landings and has it ever been considered if it would have played any part in the invasion of 1066. It would have been an ideal spot to land with inlets reaching as far as Tenterden. It would also tie in with some of the manuscript details that were recorded around the time plus any remains of ships/boats would now be with Old Winchelsea under the sea. Failright could also be the “nearby hill” which is missing from the Pevensey site where a burial took place after landing.
No domesday data of any Norman involvement i that area to warrant a landing. End of the penionsular and a nightmare landing point for any army – no chance
regards
nick
Thank you Nick
The only reason I thought it may have a baring is the script I attach below
Behind the great shingle bank on which Old Winchelsea was sited, a wide shallow bay called the Camber (from chamber) was formed by the estuaries of the Rivers Brede, Rother and Tillingham. The Camber reached the sea through a breach in the great shingle bank that was opened sometime between 700AD and 800AD. It provided a large tidal anchorage sheltered from the sea. Ships would have anchored stem-to-stern along the channels and creeks, lying in the mud at low tide, as at Rye today. On a hill on the northern side of the Camber stood Rye, and to the north and east, protected by the shingle bank, was the Walland Marsh and beyond that Romney Marsh.
As no documentation is known to exist regarding the “large tidal anchorage” area and the invasion of 1066 I guess I have to forget the theory.
http://www.winchelsea.net/visiting/winchelsea_history.htm
A fascinating subject, Is there a map showing the south coast as it was then? The only ones I can find are little fiddly things that ask more questions than answer.