We must also abandon the view which represents him as going to procure, _in a direct and open manner_, the hostages which William held. He knew that William was as shrewd as he was ambitious, and would not be so simple as to give up at his request, however reasonable it might be, the only means he had of holding him in restraint. Besides, the Tapestry represents the King, in the first compartment, in the attitude of one giving a command, rather than administering advice. The interview which Harold has with the King, on his return, strengthens this view. (_Plate VII._) Harold comes into the presence of the Confessor like a guilty person, deploring his misdeeds and craving pardon. An axe, carried by an attendant on the left of the King, is turned towards him, apparently betokening that he has committed an offence worthy of death. The King is evidently reproving him sharply, but the attendant on the right of the King having the edge of his axe turned away from Harold, shows that the result of the interview was a pardon. The monarch was in fact too powerless to adopt any rigorous steps towards so influential a subject as the son of Godwin. If Harold had simply failed upon a private errand of his own, but which the King had forewarned him would be a bootless one, the King would have been more disposed to laugh at the trouble into which he had brought himself than take such serious notice of his conduct. Besides, it is admitted on all hands, that Edward intended to appoint William as his successor, and most of the chroniclers agree in asserting that the Norman had already received some intimation of it. Further, William, after procuring the kingdom, always claimed to hold it, amongst other pleas, _Beneficio concessionis domini et cognati mei, gloriosi Regis Edwardi_--By the devise of my lord and relative the glorious King Edward.[28] Now, is it likely that a document which depicted the views of the Norman court would neglect to insert so important a title?