thought of Ralph. And, except the tie of nearer kindred,
everything would suggest William rather than Ralph. The personal
comparison is almost grotesque; and Edward's early associations and
the strongest influences around him, were not vaguely French but
specially Norman. Archbishop Robert would plead for his own native
sovereign only. In short, we may be as nearly sure as we can be of
any fact for which there is no direct authority, that Edward's
promise to William was made at the time of William's visit to
England, and that William's homage to Edward was done in the
character of a destined successor to the English crown.

William then came to England a mere duke and went back to Normandy
a king expectant. But the value of his hopes, to the value of the
promise made to him, are quite another matter. Most likely they
were rated on both sides far above their real value. King and duke
may both have believed that they were making a settlement which the
English nation was bound to respect. If so, Edward at least was
undeceived within a few months.


The notion of a king disposing of his crown by his own act belongs
to the same range of ideas as the law of strict hereditary
succession. It implies that kingship is a possession and not an
office. Neither the heathen nor the Christian English had ever
admitted that doctrine; but it was fast growing on the continent.
Our forefathers had always combined respect for the kingly house
with some measure of choice among the members of that house.
Edward himself was not the lawful heir according to the notions of
a modern lawyer; for he was chosen while the son of his elder
brother was living. Every English king held his crown by the gift