Note 918 — Chapter VIII · THE EARLY YEARS OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.[497] A.D. 1028–1051. (continued 3)

I suppose that this would have occurred to every one as the obvious explanation of the difficulty, had not a passage of the false Ingulf been held to settle the question another way; “De successione autem regni spes adhuc aut mentio nulla facta inter eos fuit.” (Gale, i. 65.) Now certainly this strong negative assertion is one of those passages which for a moment suggest the idea that the forger had some materials before him which we have not. But so vague a possibility can hardly be set against the whole probability of the case. It is curious to see Lappenberg (ii. 251 Thorpe, 511 of the German) swaying to and fro between the obvious probability and the supposed authority of Ingulf. Before him, Prevost (Roman de Rou, ii. 100) had ventured, in the teeth of Ingulf, to connect William’s visit with Eadward’s alleged bequest.