score:23
In general, dating was complicated, and different conventions existed simultaneously in England at that time.
For the specific example of William the Conqueror's coronation, we have different sources within the following decades implying that it was in 1066 or 1067, anno Domini. The precision sought in the question did not exist, at least in the same form that we think of modern dates as precise. The way of recording the date and the year was simply different from our modern convention of December 25th, 106X.
The simple answer is that we don't know how William would have written his own date, because all we have are chroniclers writing about the event after the fact. We don't have a lot of documents from his reign, so we can only speculate about the way the seven days mentioned here would have been referenced. However, the problem of years with various lengths and different calendars coexisting (not to mention multiple occurrences of the same date within one year) were familiar ones to English chroniclers of the time, so we can say how they would deal with these dates with a good deal of certainty.
For the long answer, it's really, really, really complicated. I'll try to summarize the basic issues here, since anyone working with medieval dates in Europe should be aware of these potential problems.
A summary of date recording practices in England can be found here. This is only the first chapter and introduction for a longer book; for details, refer to the rest of this book.
For many dated documents, the year might not even be given, since it could be assumed from context. When a document did want to be very precise, it would often give a litany of dating methods to establish the year. A medieval English diploma which might give a formal date could list a number of possible ways to establish the year, and usually contained a number of these:
Oh, yes, and a year could also be dated by:
The description anno Domini was not a standardized concept and doesn't necessarily show up in English dates that often in this period. Most of the other dating methods were actually more helpful in relating events to useful other things going on or to short cycles of years, rather than measuring against some event that occurred a millennium before.
When anno Domini does show up, the year could begin on:
Then, once you've established the year, you would need to give a day within that year. There are various methods of representation and problems that could crop up here, too:
Now that we've reviewed the various potential ways to record a date in medieval England, we can address the specific questions.
One potential problem is that the question assumes the existence of a standard calendar operating at least throughout England. This is not a good assumption for the 11th or 12th centuries.
In the question it is asserted that William moved the new year to January 1st. I don't know what evidence there is of this. (I'm not an expert on this period, though I have experience working with medieval sources.) I've seen this claim made in a number of 19th century calendar books and general knowledge "encyclopedias," and it is still stated in less scholarly modern books. But we have clear examples of dates from the period that are inconsistent within England, so if William did make a declaration to change the calendar, it probably only affected some circumscribed area of the government. Local churches and monasteries, and perhaps even local governments, might continue to use whatever local form of dating they always had.
From the link above:
The reckoning from Christmas was soon in general vogue [following Bede]... The Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings of England used it after it had been abandoned in most quarters of Plantagenet England; as late as even the fourteenth century, the Chronicon de Lanercost still used the Nativity style.
So it appears that William's edict, if it existed, didn't have widespread immediate adoption.
For those scribes who actually may have experienced this new year's date shift (if it happened), they would likely just add additional year descriptions if the date was not clear from context. For example, "December 27th in the first year of the reign of our King William" is pretty clear in being two days after his coronation, regardless of the anno Domini year. In most cases, anno Domini years wouldn't even be that relevant.
Similarly, I can't seem to find particular documentation that everyone in England suddenly changed the dates of the new year in 1155. This date seems arbitrarily to line up with Henry II becoming the first Plantagenet king of England. Again, this claim often shows up in encyclopedias and such in the 19th century, giving a false sense of standardization. There may have been some shift or impetus to change the calendar in some areas of the government, but again this wouldn't necessarily affect local dating customs throughout England.
From the link above:
In England [the March 25th new year] is found as early as the middle of the eleventh century, when certain annals of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle were apparently dated by this reckoning, but it only came into common use in the twelfth century and so continued until 1752.
In general, when the March 25th date was used in England, it refers to a delayed start to the new year, rather than the logical reference to nine months before (though apparently isolated cases of both practices have been found from this period in England).
In sum, the Nativity (December 25th), January 1st, and the Annunciation (March 25th) were all used during this period as dates for the beginning of the year. The practices overlapped historically and could vary from region to region, or even from church to town hall in the same place in England.
I sense that perhaps the concern in the question comes from a discomfort with the idea that a year could vary in length, but this was accepted as commonplace, for example in year dates -- like the regnal years of King John mentioned above -- that began on movable feasts.
Scribes from this era could be very precise about the dates if they wanted to be. But dating things to anno Domini wasn't always the priority. Even if there was a sudden date shift somewhere in these specific instances, scribes could just clarify the year with other references.
Upvote:-4
I doubt that William could write.
In the Saxon Chronicle, the coronation is listed as one of the events of "An. MLXVI." This is what it says exactly:
Translated from Saxon, what this says:
Then, on midwinter's day Aeldred blessed him as king at Westminster...
In medieval manuscripts everything is dated relative to feasts or specific days, so it would have been written as "Anno MLXVI midwinter day" in Saxon, of course (see image above for actual letters). Midwinter's day is December 21. The Normans, including William, were all illiterate soldiers so they would not have been writing anything. In fact, they were so confused by the coronation ceremony that they thought the people were rebelling so they massacred everyone in the chapel. Then they rushed out of the chapel, informed the street troops and a general pogrom developed in which anyone who did not flee was killed and then they burned down the whole neighborhood around the cathedral when there was noone left to kill. The archbishop wanted to stop the ceremony because of this, but William was like, "No, no, don't worrry, my men will just kill all the rabble, keep doing whatever you have to do." So he was crowned king in an empty chapel strewn with dead bodies while outside his men were killing everyone they could lay their hands on and burning down Westminster.
The tradition that he was crowned on Christmas is probably just a lie made up later because Christmas is a more holy day than the winter solstice.