on the unrighteous and ungodly man by whom he had been deprived of
it.

In the hands of diplomatists like William and Lanfranc, all these
arguments, none of which had in itself the slightest strength, were
enough to turn the great mass of continental opinion in William's
favour. But he could add further arguments specially adapted to
different classes of minds. He could hold out the prospect of
plunder, the prospect of lands and honours in a land whose wealth
was already proverbial. It might of course be answered that the
enterprise against England was hazardous and its success unlikely.
But in such matters, men listen rather to their hopes than to their
fears. To the Normans it would be easy, not only to make out a
case against Harold, but to rake up old grudges against the English
nation. Under Harold the son of Cnut, Alfred, a prince half Norman
by birth, wholly Norman by education, the brother of the late king,
the lawful heir to the crown, had been betrayed and murdered by
somebody. A widespread belief laid the deed to the charge of the
father of the new king. This story might easily be made a ground
of national complaint by Normandy against England, and it was easy
to infer that Harold had some share in the alleged crime of
Godwine. It was easy to dwell on later events, on the driving of
so many Normans out of England, with Archbishop Robert at their
head. Nay, not only had the lawful primate been driven out, but an
usurper had been set in his place, and this usurping archbishop had
been made to bestow a mockery of consecration on the usurping king.
The proposed aggression on England was even represented as a
missionary work, undertaken for the good of the souls of the
benighted islanders. For, though the English were undoubtedly
devout after their own fashion, there was much in the