NOTE C. p. 21. The Election of Harold

The passage of Florence which I took as my text in my last note will serve as my text in the present note also. Harold was, according to that passage, “a totius Angliæ primatibus ad regale culmen electus.” According to the Peterborough Chronicle he took the Kingdom, not only as the King granted it to him, but as men chose him thereto (“swa swa se Cyng hit him geuðe, and eac men hine þærto gecuron”). That this means a regular election by the Witan there can be no reasonable doubt. The Peterborough Chronicler, writing at the moment, without any thought of possible controversies, used the vague word “men.” Expressions of the like sort are not uncommon to express the action of a Gemót. Florence, writing when calumny was rife, and wishing to answer all misstatements of every kind, uses the most emphatic words that he could find. Harold was chosen “a totius Angliæ primatibus.” He was chosen then, and did not simply seize the Crown by force or fraud. He was chosen, not by some small or packed assembly, but by the chief men of the land. And he was chosen, not by this or that shire or Earldom, but by the chief men of the whole land. However small might be the number of Northumbrians actually present in the Assembly, Northumberland was constitutionally bound by their vote, no less than Wessex and East-Anglia. All this is implied in the weighty and carefully chosen words of Florence. Harold was elected by the only power which had a right to dispose of the Crown, by that Great Council of the Nation, which made and repealed laws, which laid on and took off taxes, which declared war and made peace, which elected and deposed Earls, Bishops, and Kings. Such is the undoubted meaning of the words of the two highest of all the authorities which mention the matter. That the Abingdon and Worcester Chroniclers, while they assert the bequest and the coronation, are silent about the election, is in no way wonderful. They do not at any time take that pleasure in putting forth the popular side of our Constitution which was clearly felt by Florence, and by the Peterborough writer still more keenly. The Peterborough Chronicler wrote at the moment in the fulness of his heart; Florence wrote as a grave and judicial harmonizer many years later. Both tell the same story.

These two authorities are to my mind quite enough to establish the fact of Harold’s legal and regular election; still I will go on, as before, to trace out such subsidiary evidence as we have in its favour, before we see what is said on the other side.

The Biographer, who formed so important a part of our evidence for establishing the bequest of Eadward, now fails us altogether. As I have before said, he does not directly record any event after Eadward’s death.

The Tapestry (pl. 7) contains a scene, of which I have made much use in the text (p. 22), in which the Crown is offered to Harold by two persons. This scene is highly important. It is of itself an answer to all the vague Norman talk about Harold seizing the Crown by fraud or force—all the declamation about “invasit,” “arripuit,” and the like. The Crown is offered to him very quietly, and he is evidently represented as still doubting whether to take it or no. The scene too is put (see p. 584) in a position which is evidently meant to connect it with Eadward’s death-bed bequest. But in this scene in the Tapestry, though there is nothing to exclude, there is nothing to assert any formal election. The Crown is evidently brought from the chamber of the dead King, and the story would run just as well if it were brought simply in obedience to his dying orders, without reference to the choice of any one else. One can easily understand that, without the least intention to falsify the story, the designers of the Tapestry, just like the Abingdon and Worcester Chroniclers, might not feel specially called upon to dwell on the actual election, a scene, one may add, which it would be by no means easy to represent in worsted work. But, interpreting one authority by another, we are fully justified in taking the scene in the Tapestry to be the result of the election spoken of by the Peterborough Chronicler and by Florence. The Crown was offered to Harold; that fact is represented in the Tapestry. Our other authorities enable us to add that it was offered to Harold in pursuance of a vote of the Witan.

The election of Harold being thus admitted, the question follows, Was that election absolutely unanimous? Were any votes given, any speeches made, any feelers thrown out, on behalf of William, Eadgar, or any other possible candidate? It is quite possible that such was the case, but the contemporary writers who mention the election do not go minutely enough into details to prove anything either way. Something like a candidature on the part both of William and of Eadgar is implied by several later writers, but not in terms which make us feel very positive about it. In any case Harold must have had a triumphant majority.

It is not so easy to put together a catena of later writers in favour of Harold’s election as it is to do so in favour of Eadward’s recommendation on his behalf. Two or three hundred years after the time, the idea of bequest was more familiar than the idea of election. We have indeed the string of writers, beginning with Simeon, who copy the whole passage from Florence in full. But we have no independent witnesses to the tradition of the election answering to Eadmer and Walter of Hemingburgh, who assert the bequest in words of their own, not borrowed from Florence (p. 586). The entry in the Waverley Annals I have already quoted (ib.). There the first entry, translated from the Peterborough Chronicle, asserts the election in the strongest terms, but it is immediately qualified by the strange Normannizing passage which follows. We should remember also that such an expression as that of Eadmer, who simply says that Harold “succeeded according to Eadward’s will,” though it does not assert the election, yet in no way excludes it. And the use of a word like “successit” is of itself important, in the teeth of words like “invasit” and “arripuit,” which we shall presently come to.

It was, as we might have expected, in Harold’s own College at Waltham that the tradition of the popular election of its great Founder lasted longest. There, down into the thirteenth century, it was still a thing to be remembered and gloried in. And, what we might have been less prepared for, it comes out very strongly in at least one Scandinavian writer.

Of the two Waltham books, the De Inventione (c. 20) asserts the election in the strongest terms;

“Post obitum itaque sanctissimi Regis, Comes Haroldus unanimi omnium consensu in Regem eligitur, quia non erat eo prudentior in terrâ, armis strenuus magis, legum terræ sagacior, in omni genere probitatis cultior, ita ut huic electioni non possent contradicere, qui eum summo odio persequuti fuissent usque ad tempora illa, quoniam tanto operi adeò insignem in omnibus non genuerit Anglia.”

I do not quite understand the last part of the passage, which is perhaps purposely obscure. It may mean that Eadwine and Morkere consented to the election; when we remember what the writer had said about “Normanni et Gallici” in c. 14 (see vol. ii. p. 39), we may perhaps rather think that the allusion is to the Norman favourites. At any rate an unanimous election is asserted as strongly as words can put it.

The romantic biographer of Harold may be fairly quoted on such a matter as this, because he carries on the local tradition which we find in the writer De Inventione. He twice mentions the accession of his hero. The first time it is spoken of merely in general terms (Chron. Ang. Norm. ii. 167); “Ubique fere terrarum celebri sermone vulgatum est quemadmodùm, Edwardo sanctissimo ad cœleste translato, in regno terreno successerit Haroldus.” The second passage (ii. 187, 188) is very remarkable, whether anybody chooses to believe the story or not. The writer asserts an unanimous election of Harold, and that under very singular circumstances. He records Harold’s oath, and argues at great length that it was an oath which ought not to be kept. He then says that, as soon as Harold came back from Normandy, he laid the case before the Witan, who declared the oath not binding, and with one consent elected him King. This would almost seem to be during Eadward’s lifetime; at least the heading of the Chapter (manifestly corrupt) contains these words, “Domino favente et faveto [sic] convivente Edwardo ipsum regnâsse affirmant.” This I do not profess to explain, unless the writer supposed some settlement in Harold’s favour to have been made during Eadward’s life-time (cf. vol. ii. p. 421 et seqq.). The actual passage in the text runs as follows;

“Haroldus ... suis demum redditus, quid pertulerit, quid egerit, cunctis palam exponit. Exponentem ut audit, universitas in irâ excandescit, initam mediante sacramento pactionem improbat, ne observeretur vehementer reclamat. ‘Absit,’ inquiunt, ‘absit ut serviamus Normannis. Absit ut fastûs Normannici jugo barbarico nobilitatis Anglicæ urbana libertas nullatenùs substernatur.’ Quid multa?

Posthabitoque juramenti, quod nullum esse credebatur, periculo, Haroldus demum unanimi omnium consensu sublimatur in Regem.”

I do not rely on this as history, though possibly the statement is not to be cast aside without thought. The main value of the passage is to show how strong and enduring the local tradition was. This account, asserting Harold’s popular election in the strongest terms, is not very many years older than the French Life of Eadward.

Later still, we have Peter of Langtoft (i. 398) distinctly asserting both the fact and the lawfulness of Harold’s election;

Again Robert of Brunne (i. 66) is puzzled, and adds a comment of his own;

Of the two Scandinavian writers of whom I have here to speak, I have already quoted the passage from Snorro (see above, p. 595). He distinctly asserts an election, though he makes the election be obtained through an alleged will of Eadward, on which he seems inclined to throw some doubt. The other Northern writer is the Biographer of Olaf Tryggwesson, whom I have already quoted (vol. ii. p. 542) as the only writer who seems anxious to canonize Harold. He says distinctly (263) that “after Eadward, Harold the son of Godwine, whom some call a saint, took the Kingdom by the will of all the folk in the land” (“Eptir Jatvard Kong toc riki, af vild alz landfolksins, Haraldur Gudina son, er sumir kallan helgan vera”). I shall have to quote this writer again at another stage.

I now turn to the writers who are more or less decidedly hostile to Harold. These sometimes deny the fact of the election, sometimes they wrap up the fact, just as they do the fact of Eadward’s recommendation, in vague and declamatory phrases. I will quote first the purely Norman writers, and then those who represent a certain mixture of Norman and English traditions.

First comes William of Poitiers (Giles, p. 121), who denies that there was any election at all;

“Verus namque rumor insperatò venit, Anglicam terram Rege Edwardo orbatam esse, et ejus coronâ Heraldum ornatum. Nec sustinuit vesanus Anglus, quid electio publica statueret consulere; sed in die lugubri, quo optimus ille humatus est, quum gens universa plangeret, perjurus regium solium cum plausu occupavit, quibusdam iniquis faventibus. Ordinatus est non sanctâ consecratione Stigando, justo zelo Apostolici et anathemate ministerio sacerdotum privati.”

William of Jumièges (vii. 31) is shorter and still vaguer, but, by complaining that Harold beguiled away the whole English nation from their allegiance to Duke William, he admits that Harold had the hearts of the nation with him, and does in effect imply the election. His words are,

“Cujus [Edwardi] regnum Heraldus continuò invasit, ex fidelitate pejeratus, quam juraverat Duci. Ad quem Dux protinùs legatos direxit, hortans ut ab hâc insaniâ resipisceret, et fidem quam juramento spoponderat condignâ subjectione servaret. At ille non solùm hoc audire contempsit, verùm omnem Anglorum gentem ab illo infideliter avertit.”

Orderic (492 C), who, higher up in the same page (see vol. ii. p. 541), showed some signs of generous feeling towards Harold, becomes at this point more savage against him than anybody else. He affirms, in apparent contradiction to William of Jumièges, that Harold’s accession was against the will of a large part of the English nation. This I believe to be a confused account of the temporary refusal of Northumberland to acknowledge Harold. Orderic mentions Eadward’s death and burial, and then goes on;

“Tunc Heraldus, ipso tumulationis die, dum plebs in exsequiis dilecti Regis adhuc maderet fletibus, à solo Stigando Archiepiscopo (quem Romanus Papa suspenderat a divinis officiis pro quibusdam criminibus) sine communi consensu aliorum Præsulum et Comitum procerumque consecratus, furtim præripuit diadematis et purpuræ decus. Audientes autem [Angli, I presume] temerariam invasionem quam Heraldus fecerat, irati sunt; et potentiorum nonnulli fortiter obsistere parati a subjectione ejus omnino abstinuerunt. Alii verò, nescientes qualiter tyrannidem ejus, quæ jam super eos nimis excreverat, evaderent, et è contra considerantes quòd nec illum dejicere, nec alium Regem, ipso regnante, ad utilitatem regni substituere valerent, colla ejus jugo submiserunt, viresque facinori quod inchoaverat auxerunt. Mox ipse regnum, quod nequiter invaserat, horrendis sceleribus maculavit.”

To these we may add, as speaking in the same spirit, the Verdun Chronicle of Abbot Hugh (Labbé, i. 194);

“Etuuardus Anglorum Rex obiit, qui, quia sine filiis fuit, consanguineum suum Wilelmum Normannorum Comitem post se regnare instituit. Sed Heroldus, contra sacramentum quod Willelmo fecerat, regnum invasit.”

Of the poetical writers, Wace (10977) speaks of a coronation and of homage received by Harold. He says nothing of election; but, as usual, there is nothing in him of the brutal violence so common in the other Norman writers.

Benoît (36656) is characteristically much fiercer; he distinctly denies both all election and all ecclesiastical consecration, and mixes up the supposed wrongs of Tostig with those of William.

We now come to the other class of writers, those who wrote in England under more or less of Norman influence, and who contrast remarkably with those who, like Simeon and Roger of Howden, are content to follow Florence. First comes William of Malmesbury, who gives two accounts in different parts of his work. The former passage (ii. 228) I have already quoted (see above, p. 588). At a later stage (iii. 238) he comes back to the subject again and gives quite a different account. The English were divided between Harold, William, and Eadgar; but it is now neither Harold nor William, but Eadgar, in whose favour Eadward had made his final bequest. Notwithstanding this bequest, notwithstanding a real diversity of sentiment among themselves, all give Harold an outward support, and he obtains the Crown. This is very vague and obscure. It may possibly mean that Harold was elected by a large majority, though some votes were given for other candidates. The words are,

“Rex Edwardus fato functus fuerat. Anglia dubio favore nutabat, cui se rectori committeret incerta, an Haroldo an Willelmo an Edgaro; nam et illum, pro genere proximum regno, proceribus Rex commendaverat, tacito scilicet mentis judicio, sed prono in clementiam animo. Quarè, ut prædixi, Angli diversis votis ferebantur, quamvis palàm cuncti bona Haroldo imprecarentur: et ille quidem, diademate fastigiatus, nihil de pactis inter se et Willelmum cogitabat.”

This passage of William of Malmesbury is our first distinct mention of the rights of Eadgar. It is the first hint of a doctrine whose partizans were, as time went on, largely to increase. According to this account, Eadward’s wishes are in favour of Eadgar, and his wishes are supported by a party among the Witan. This is the first setting forth of Eadgar as an actual candidate; but there is a passage of Orderic (598 A), in which he seems to think it necessary to explain why William came to the Crown rather than any one of the English royal family; “Guillelmus Dux Normannorum, deficiente stirpe Regis Edgari quæ idonea esset ad tenendum sceptrum regale, cum multis millibus armatorum ad Anglos transfretavit, et in campo Senlac invasorem regni Albionis Heraldum bello peremit.” Here we clearly see the first glimmering of the new view, which gets a little plainer in William of Malmesbury, and much plainer in those who came after him. William’s two accounts became stock passages, which were copied by the inferior writers who followed him, just as Florence’s description was copied by Simeon and other more judicious compilers. For instance, William’s description is taken as the groundwork of that given by Roger of Wendover (i. 513), which however is well worthy of notice. The hereditary right of Eadgar is now put much more prominently forward than it was a hundred years earlier.

“Defuncto, ut prædictum est, Eadwardo, Anglorum Rege sanctissimo, fluctuabant proceres regni, quem sibi Regem præficerent et rectorem. Quidam enim Willelmo Normannorum Duci, quidam Comiti Haroldo filio Godwini, alii autem favebant Eadgaro filio Eadwardi. Eadmundus verò Latus-Ferreum, Rex naturalis de stirpe Regum, genuit Eadwardum, Eadwardus Eadgarum, cui de jure regnum debebatur Anglorum. Sed Haroldus, vir callidus et astutus, intelligens quia ‘nocuit semper differre paratis,’ in die Epiphaniæ, quâ Rex Eadwardus sepultus est, extortâ fide a majoribus, capiti proprio imposuit diadema.”

This account of Roger of Wendover is followed in nearly the same words by Matthew Paris (2 ed. Wats), and in the Winchester History by Thomas Rudborne (Ang. Sacr. i. 241), who makes some most singular comments which I shall consider in another note. It implies more distinctly than William of Malmesbury does that the Duke was supported by a party—whether of native Englishmen or not—who had influence in England. But the rights of William are now much less dwelt on than the rights of Eadgar. Indeed there is another version, which leaves out William altogether, and dwells wholly on the rights of Eadgar. The nation, or a part of it, is in favour of the Ætheling, but Harold, by his wealth, his popularity, his vigour and energy, by some means of some sort, good or bad, contrives to supplant him. We first find this view where we should hardly have looked for it, namely in Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 761 D), whom we elsewhere see (vol. i. p. 332) firmly believing in the hereditary rights of William. His account is very short, but it has become, like those of Florence and William of Malmesbury, one of the stock passages for later writers to copy. The West Minster is hallowed, Eadward dies and is buried; then

“Quidam Anglorum Eadgar Atheling promovere volebant in Regem. Haraldus verò, viribus et genere fretus, regni diadema invasit.”

This is followed in one of the alternative accounts in Bromton and R. Higden (see above, p. 586), but they add a very sound reason why Eadgar was passed by, namely “quia puer erat, et tanto oneri minùs idoneus.” The means of Harold’s influence is described in different words by different copyists, but the fullest is that into which it swells in Knighton (2339). He had Higden before him, and Higden gave, as an alternative statement, Florence’s account of the recommendation of Eadward and the election of Harold. “Tradit tamen Marianus,” says Higden (284), after giving the other account, “quod Rex Edwardus ante obitum suum designaverit Haraldum Regem futurum, quem proceres mox in Regem erexerunt.” The unlucky use of the doubtful word “designaverit” instead of Florence’s “elegerat” led Knighton astray, and he turned the recommendation into a prophecy. He kept however the distinct statement of the election by the “proceres,” but mixed it up with the usual talk about “occupavit” and with the mention of Eadgar, out of Henry of Huntingdon. The result is worth giving in full;

“Tradunt quidam quod Rex Edwardus, ante obitum suum, Haroldum prædixit futurum Regem post se, quem proceres mox in Regem erexerunt. Mox Haroldus regnum occupavit, quod per novem menses circiter tenuit. Quidam enim Edgarum Adelyng, filium Edwardi filii Edmundi Ferrei Lateris, Regem constituere moliebantur, sed quia puer erat tanto regimini inidoneus et in bursâ minus refertus, Haraldus Comes, cui erat mens astutior, crumena fecundior, et miles copiosior et pompis gloriosior, sinistro omine regnum occupavit.”

This is a good specimen of the way in which later compilers put together those accounts which we often see quoted in modern books as if they were of equal authority with the Chronicles. It is amusing to see how Eadward’s recommendation of Harold, the best political act of his life, is changed, through the stages of “elegerat,” “designaverit,” “prædixit,” into an exercise of the prophetic powers of the saint. Still it is some comfort to see, standing forth in the midst of all this, the bit of true history which is set forth in the words, “quem proceres in Regem erexerunt.”

I have gone on uninterruptedly through the Latin writers, but I must now go back some generations to quote the very curious account given by Robert of Gloucester (i. 354 Hearne). He is all loyalty towards the Ætheling, and admiration towards those who supported his cause.

Loyalty to Eadgar and the orthodox interpretation of Eadward’s vision of course go together.

Lastly, one step only remains to be taken, namely to make the oath and perjury of Harold a sin, not against William but against Eadgar. We get the first glimmering of this in a Flemish writer of the thirteenth century, Hariulf, the author of the Chronicon Centulense or Chronicle of Saint Riquier in the second volume of D’Achery’s Spicilegium. He died in 1143. His account (p. 345) is as follows;

“Postquam autem mortuus est Rex Ethguardus, Herioldus quidam Comes regnum sibi accepit contra fas, et contra fidem sacramenti quod prædicto Regi juraverat, spondens quod pronepoti ipsius Regis, nomine Elfgaro, regnum cederet absque ullo impedimento. At quum regni potestate et fascibus injustè uteretur, expulso Ethguardi pronepote Elfgaro, summus et super omnia potens Deus, in cujus jussu constant regna terrarum, et qui donat ei cui vult, signo mirabili è cœlo ostenso, destinavit Guillelmum Ducem Normannorum Anglorum Regem fieri; et quia veraciter Dei nutu idipsum Guillelmus appetebat rei prosperitate probatum est.”

We may mark here, First, That Harold is supposed, as indeed he is in the story of his oath to William, to have some kind of power of disposing of the Crown or influencing its disposal. Secondly, That no earthly right is recognized in William; he is expressly called to the Kingdom by a sign from heaven in the shape of the comet.

But it was reserved for an English writer of the fifteenth century finally to put the notions of Hariulf—wherever Hariulf found them—into shape, and that into a shape exactly suiting the English politics of the fifteenth century. Famous John Hardyng, living so long after the time, naturally knew things which had not been revealed to those who lived earlier. He devotes two stanzas of his Chronicle to the matter (p. 232 ed. Ellis). Eadward’s miracles have just been spoken of; then

Protectors were much more familiar in the days of John Hardyng than they were in the days of Florence and the Chroniclers. Here too is a special revelation, that the oath broken by Harold was an oath to Eadgar, and not an oath to William. We here get the history of the eleventh century as it was convenient to read it in the days of Richard of York and of Edward the Fourth. The “very heir” is wrongfully kept out by usurpers, the strictest doctrine of legitimacy only is to be acknowledged, and the rights of William, so sacred in the eyes of William of Poitiers and Henry of Huntingdon, are now (234) expressly denied. William came

Lastly, I suppose that I ought at least to mention the words in which Harold’s accession is recorded in the Brut y Tywysogion, 1066. In the English translation the entry stands thus; “That Harold who, at first earl, through cruelty after the death of King Edward unduly acquired the sovereignty of the kingdom of England, was despoiled of his kingdom and life by William the Bastard, duke of Normandy, though previously vauntingly victorious. And that William defended the kingdom of England in a great battle, with an invincible hand, and his most noble army.” I am sorry that my ignorance of Welsh hinders me from judging of the accuracy of the translation of the words in Italics, which certainly have a strange sound. The whole passage is an amplification of the corresponding passage in the Annales Cambriæ, in which there is nothing answering to them.

I have thus traced out the various statements with regard to the question of Harold’s election. That it was a perfectly regular act is asserted by two of our highest original authorities, and their narrative is in no way inconsistent with the narratives of those original authorities who do not directly mention the fact. The statement of the Peterborough Chronicler and of Florence was accepted, as preferable to the counter-statements, by some of the best and most careful compilers of the next age. Even the Scandinavian writers and Harold’s own local panegyrists at Waltham are at least witnesses to a tradition. Simeon, Roger of Howden, and Ralph of Diss are something more. They deliberately preferred Florence’s statement to any other, at a time when other statements were much more acceptable to the reigning powers. As the idea of elective kingship gradually died out, the tradition of Harold’s regular election would seem stranger and stranger, so that for a later writer to accept it really implied a certain amount of critical and independent judgement. On the other hand we have, first the fact that the highest Norman authority of all, the Tapestry, though it does not directly assert the election, is quite consistent with that version, while it is quite inconsistent with the legend of Harold seizing the Crown by force or fraud. Moreover the witnesses against Harold, from the very beginning, do not agree among themselves. Some say that there was no public election; Harold, they tell us, seized the Crown by a conspiracy with a few men, and reigned against the will of the nation. Others complain that Harold beguiled away the whole English people from their allegiance to the lawful heir. All wrap up their story in vague and declamatory phrases, which may mean anything or nothing, and which contrast forcibly with the distinct and clear statement of Florence. Then, as we get a little further away from the time, all kinds of new ideas come in. Each writer, from Henry of Huntingdon to John Hardyng, tells the story according to the political theories of his own age and his own party. When the notion of hereditary right was gaining strength, when a family sat on the throne who had other claims than those of the first Norman conquerors, the supposed rights of William began to drop out of sight. From the twelfth century onwards, we hear more and more of Eadgar, less and less of William, till at last, in the fifteenth century, we are pointedly told that it was not William but Eadgar to whom the false oath of Harold was taken. Thus the true tradition of Harold’s election had to struggle with greater difficulties in each generation, as to each generation the ancient notion of popular election of Kings became less and less familiar. The Peterborough Chronicler alone, in the joy of his heart, recorded the election of the hero whom he loved at the moment when it happened. Every other writer, from Florence onwards, who asserted Harold’s lawful election, asserted it in the teeth of prevalent prejudices and prevalent misstatements. From the contemporary entry in the Chronicle to the one true jewel half hidden in the dung-heap of Knighton, the evidence in favour of Harold’s election forms a chain of evidence of the very highest kind, all the higher because every statement after the first is made in the teeth of statements on the other side.

Is then the conventional talk about Harold’s accession, the talk about “occupavit,” “invasit,” “arripuit,” and the like, mere invention, mere wanton slander? Or is it founded, as both legend and calumny generally are founded, on some truth misrepresented or misconceived? I think that in this case also the legend has a certain groundwork of truth. The origin of this kind of talk is probably to be found in the extreme haste with which the burial of Eadward, the election and the coronation of Harold, were got through. There was indeed nothing illegal or unprecedented in the matter. The first election of Eadward himself had been made, just like the election of Harold, before the burial of the King whose death had caused the vacancy. And, had Eadward been on the spot, he might perhaps have been crowned, as well as elected, with as great haste as Harold was. And the hurried election of Harold was far more regular than the hurried election of Eadward. It does not appear that, when Harthacnut died, any regular Meeting of the Witan was actually in session. The first election of Eadward must have been made only by the citizens of London and such of the other Witan as could be got together at the moment. But the death of Eadward took place during the Christmas Feast, so that Harold’s election was made by the ordinary Midwinter Gemót. The thing then was done lawfully and regularly; still it was done with a haste which might well seem strange, and it is not wonderful that men in other lands, prejudiced against Harold, prejudiced against England, ignorant of the Laws of England, should look on the matter in the worst possible light. On William and his friends the news came like a thunder-clap. They heard in the same breath that Eadward was dead and that Harold was consecrated King. Eadward was King on the morning of Thursday; before the evening of Friday, Eadward was in his grave, and Harold was King, full King, King crowned and anointed. All William’s schemes were defeated, as far as it rested with the peaceful action of the people of England to defeat them. Not a moment had been allowed him to press his claims. The thing was done, and the sword only could undo it. It was no wonder then if, in Norman eyes, the haste of Harold’s accession seemed strange, indecent, altogether wicked. That it was thoroughly good according to English Law was a point about which William of Poitiers and his fellows neither knew nor cared anything. They naturally vented their wrath in talk about “invasit” and “arripuit.” As usual, declamatory expressions got substance. Harold was rhetorically said to have “seized” the Crown; thence came a story that he physically seized it with his own hands. The burial and the coronation were performed on the same day; thence came a story that Harold seized the time of Eadward’s burial for a sham election and coronation. Lastly, the temporary refusal of Northumberland to acknowledge Harold, of which I shall have to speak a few pages on, no doubt grew into the account in Orderic, copied by some later writers, about a large part of the nation standing aloof from Harold, or being actually hostile to him.

I have now dealt with two of the three points touching Harold’s accession, namely, the recommendation of Eadward in his favour, and his actual election by the Witan. The third point which remains is the coronation. It is impossible wholly to disentangle the evidence bearing on the coronation from the evidence bearing on the election, so that some of the references belonging to the subject of the coronation have been unavoidably forestalled. There remains however more than one point to be formally discussed in another note.