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

ARGUMENTMy opening argument for this round will be a bit short, so there will be none of my cherished subdivisions. Instead, before I get into the specifics of my argument, I would like to give a brief description of the history involved with this debate. This is to serve as a reference for any reader who may feel confused by the topic. In 1051 AD, King Edward (or Eadwaerd) of England was nearing death and was unfortunately childless. Aware that he would have to decide on his heir, Edward decided to appoint the Duke of Normandy, William, as his successor. This was a controversial decision due to the fact that William was a Norman, essentially a French Viking, while the majority of England was still Anglo-Saxon. Previously, The Earl Godwin of Hereford, Edward's brother-in-law, had been the appointed heir. However, by 1051 Edward and Godwin's relationship had turned south and the King decided to look elsewhere for an heir. By 1053 Godwin was dead and his son, Harold Godwinson, became the Earl of Hereford. Harold managed to gain a large amount of influence over the King and by 1066 he had managed to secure himself as the heir to the English throne, beating out both William, Edward the Exile, and Edgar the Æthling. On the 6th of January, 1066 Harold became King of England. However, William felt that Harold had no right to be King and planned for an invasion of England. Before William could land in England, however, Norwegian King Harald Haradrada, along with Harold's rebellious brother Tostig, invaded Northern England in September. Harold managed to defeat the Norwegian troops after Harald died in battle. Now William finally managed to land in the town of Hastings. 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 [1]. For my argument I will present two primary arguments. Keep note that this debate is focused on the legality of William's conquest, not the morality nor the result of William's coronation. 1. William had a superior claim in comparison to Harold'sThe death of Edward the Confessor in 1066 presented England with a massive problem. The king had died childless, and he also had no truly direct relatives who could take the throne. Æthelred the Unready, Edward's father, had had two other sons, Alfred Æthling and Edred. The former died in 1036 while the ladder died in 1042 [2]. Neither had any children. Edward the Exile, Edward's heir had been discovered living in Hungary after his father had been defeated by Canute the Great, yet he too unfortunately had died in 1057 [3]. Therefore there were very few close descendants to Edward and William's albeit generally weak claim, held a significant amount of influence. On the contrary, Harold Godwinson was in no way related to King Edward. He was the son of Edward's brother-in-law, Earl Godwin, and therefore had no blood relation with the House of Wessex [4]. If we look at the following graph shows the relations of both Harold and William to King Edward. We can see that William clearly has a greater claim on the English throne than Harold does. Therefore it is logical to say that William had every right to invade England once Harold had proclaimed himself king. I predict that a counter-argument to this would be that there were certainly closer related relatives to Edward at the time. However, this has no relation to the premise of the debate. Using the logic of the nobility during the Middle Ages, a man (probably not a woman, although possible) had the natural born right to press their claim militarily if they have a stronger claim than the man who currently holds that title. Therefore if a closer relative such as Edgar the Æthling had claimed the throne before Harold Godwinson could, William would not legally have the right to invade England. Fortunately for our illegitimate Duke, this was not the case and he therefore had every right. The primary rebuttal to this, however, would be that Edward the Confessor had legally designated Harold as his heir and therefore William had no claim outside of his vague relation to the House of Wessex. This argument is flawed on multiple regards. For one, we are not certain whether or not the King actually appointed Harold as his heir. One story called Vita Edwardi claims that Harold had been appointed heir on Edward's deathbed. However, this is likely a mere work of fiction and there is no evidence to support that this was a real historical event. The reality of the situation is much more grim. In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles it uses the phrase "...designated, elected, and anointed..." to describe Harold's ascent to the throne. This implies that at the time Harold's coronation seemed to be somewhat suspicious during the time of this writing [5]. Another thing that is suspicious regarding Harold's coronation is that Harold took the throne instantly after Edward's death. At this time their was always a period of time in between the death of the old king and the crowning of another. Therefore it can be presumed that Harold was nervous that someone with a better claim, such as Edgar the Æthling or William, would arrive and take the throne. He only would have been nervous had he not had an official statement that proclaimed himself the heir to Edward the Confessor. One last point that I would like to present in this section (even though it doesn't really fit) is that Harold allegedly gave William his oath that he would support William's claim to the English throne no matter what [6]. This certainly harms Harold's case as he clearly betrayed this oath and claimed the crown for himself. This alone could grant William a claim to invade England even without all the other reasons provided. The only flaw with this point is that historians have been unable to confirm whether or not this oath was real. 2. Papal AuthorityAnother major aspect that grants William an advantage is that he had Papal authority from Pope Alexander II to invade and become king of England. So as to make this easier for both the readers and myself, I would like to quote a writer for Catholic Encyclopedia, Charles Herbermann [6]:"In 1066, he [Pope Alexander II] entertained an embassy from the Duke of Normandy Guillaume II, Guillaume le Bâtard,(after his successful invasion of Brittany), (later known as William the Conqueror). The embassy had been sent to obtain his blessing for the Norman conquest of England. This he gave to them, giving them a papal ring, the Standard of St. Peter,[6] and a papal edict to present to the English clergy saying that William was given the papal blessing for his bid to the throne. These favours were instrumental in the submission of the English church following the Battle of Hastings. While I personally believe that this changes nothing regarding the morality of William's invasion, it is hugely essential for the people involved. In Harold's point of view, fighting against William means fighting against the Papacy who represent god. Therefore it is hugely influention for William to have papal permission. It does also support the legality of William's claim as the Pope supposadely had been granted the powers of allowing invasions and therefore William's attack on England, if not right, is legal. Back over to you, my Anglo-Saxon loving opponent. Sources:[1] http://www.battle1066.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.wikitree.com...[4] http://www.britannica.com... [5] http://www.battle1066.com... [6] http://www.normaninvasion.info...; [7] http://www.newadvent.org...;