William the Conqueror had the right to invade Britain and become King of England

Thank you, A-I, for, again, allowing me to debate you on an interesting historical topic. Let us begin.Harold GodwinesonI would like to start not by putting my argument forwards, but instead by addressing a historical matter.My opponent asserts thusly: 'There, the Normans closely defeated the Anglo-Saxons after Harold was shot in the eye with an arrow, therefore establishing William as King of England.'This is true in all but one respect. That is, we have no evidence that Harold is the one that was shot in the eye with an arrow.Here is the Bayeux tapestry (although it's not actually a tapestry), which depicts the battle: As you may be able to see here, underneath the latin words 'Harold Rex interfectus est' (meaning 'Here King Harold has been killed') there is are three men. One of these men, has an arrow in his eye. However, that does not mean that that man is, in fact, King Harold. Indeed, the most detailed account that we have of this battle is by William De Poitiers and he states that King Harold [1]'fighting in the front rank of his army, fell covered in deadly wounds.' There is no mention of the 'arrow in the eye.' It should also be noted that the arrow was made more prominent in 1730 by restorers, thus it was not necessarily meant to have been an arrow and may have just been stitch marks. At the end of the day, however, this does not necessarily matter, as it is true that King Harold DID die that day in the battle of Hastings. However, if you want to read more about it, check out my first source.Anyway, on to the debate.Harold's pledgeMy opponent asserts thusly: 'One last point that I would like to present in this section ... is that Harold allegedly gave William his oath that he would support William's claim to the English throne no matter what.' My opponent has taken this apparent 'oath' out of context. In [2]1064, Harold Godwinson was taken prisoner off after being shipwrecked off the coast of Normandy. In payment for being allowed to go back home for England, William, the duke of Normandy, made Harold swear an oath to him that he would support his claim on England. As this oath was made under duress, it can easily be seen as legally invalid. Other argumentsMy opponent makes various spurious claims about promises (from King Edward) and backing (from the pope), however, none of this has anything to do with whether or not King William had a legal claim on the Kingdom of England. The fact is that King Edward, despite being King at the time, was in no legal position to offer the throne to anybody or to designate his own heir. At the time, the succession laws followed the primogeniture structure (this is defined as:[3] 'the right of succession belonging to the firstborn child, especially the feudal rule by which the whole real estate of an intestate passed to the eldest son'). It would thusly have been the [4]Witan that decided who Edward's rightful heir should have been.My opponent mentions the Papal Banner offered to William in 1066 by the pope as justification and support for a Norman invasion of England. However, this Papal Banner was given on false pretenses as the Pope believed that Godwin had been consecrated by Archbishop Stigand, whom had been excommunicated. This was not the case and was merely a twisting of the facts by William of Normandy. In fact, Harold was consecrated by the Archbishop of York, whom later carried out the same ceremony on William the Conquerer himself. Thus, the papal banner was offered on false pretenses and therefore, had the pope been aware of the facts, it can be said with reasonable confidence that it would not have been issued at all.Does this mean that King Harold II was the rightful King of England? Well, no, no it doesn't. However the Duke of Normandy did not have a legal claim of any sort on the English throne either. In fact, the best claimant of the throne is probably a man named 'Sweyn Estridson,' whom was directly descended from two previous Kings of England, he was Canute's nephew and Sweyn Forkbeard's grandson. However, he never pressed his claim due to problems in his own country.To sum up my argument, the only people able to agree to appoint somebody to be King of England were the Witan, and they categorically did not claim King William as their King until William invaded illegally and claimed the title at the point of a lance. It's also interesting to point out that Kings of England had to be 'acclaimed' by the people. The people of London tried to do this after King William invaded, but the Normans thought it was a rebellion and so sent the troops out to slaughter them.I think I have rebutted everything, over to you, Pro!(P.S. I might be wrong here, but I don't think Britain existed in 1066.) Sources:[1] http://www.bayeux-tapestry.org.uk...[2]http://www.normaninvasion.info...[3]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4]http://www.battle1066.com...