breach of the duty of a vassal. It is inconceivable in itself, and
unlike the formal scrupulousness of William's character, to fancy
that he made his appeal to all Christendom without any ground at
all. The Norman writers contradict one another so thoroughly in
every detail of the story that we can look on no part of it as
trustworthy. Yet such a story can hardly have grown up so near to
the alleged time without some kernel of truth in it. And herein
comes the strong corroborative witness that the English writers,
denying every other charge against Harold, pass this one by without
notice. We can hardly doubt that Harold swore some oath to William
which he did not keep. More than this it would be rash to say
except as an avowed guess.

As our nearest approach to fixing the date is to take that year
which is not impossible, so, to fix the occasion of the visit, we
can only take that one among the Norman versions which is also not
impossible. All the main versions represent Harold as wrecked on
the coast of Ponthieu, as imprisoned, according to the barbarous
law of wreck, by Count Guy, and as delivered by the intervention of
William. If any part of the story is true, this is. But as to the
circumstances which led to the shipwreck there is no agreement.
Harold assuredly was not sent to announce to William a devise of
the crown in his favour made with the consent of the Witan of
England and confirmed by the oaths of Stigand, Godwine, Siward, and
Leofric. Stigand became Archbishop in September 1052: Godwine
died at Easter 1053. The devise must therefore have taken place,
and Harold's journey must have taken place, within those few most
unlikely months, the very time when Norman influence was
overthrown. Another version makes Harold go, against the King's
warnings, to bring back his brother Wulfnoth and his nephew Hakon,