Little was lacking that Harold got into a dispute with the dying king about the throne of Denmark, which Magnus had destined for Sweyn Estridsson, and the gold which they had shared between them when they shared the government. After having distributed gifts and keepsakes to his men, King Magnus died (1047), twenty-four years old, after having governed Norway for twelve years and a half, and Denmark for five years. No sooner had he closed his eyes than Harold sent men to intercept the messengers which had been despatched to Sweyn Estridsson to inform him of his succession to the Danish throne. The death of King Magnus was announced to the fleet by the blowing of _loors_,[A] and the saying was indeed true, in his case, that he was mourned by all the people. [Footnote A: Loors are long Alpine horns, made of wood bound with birch-bark, or of metal. They give a powerful sound.] [Illustration: POMMEL OF GILT BRONZE FROM THE VIKING AGE.] [Illustration] CHAPTER XVI. HAROLD SIGURDSSON HARD-RULER (1047-1066). As Magnus the Good left no sons behind him, Harold Sigurdsson was the only remaining descendant in the male line of Harold the Fairhaired, and therefore undisputed heir to the throne. For, although the monarchy in Norway had not from the earliest times been strictly hereditary, the idea had gradually gained acceptance that the land belonged by allodial right to the male descendants of its first conqueror. In apparent, though not in real, conflict with this idea, was the custom of proclaiming the king separately at the _thing_ in each shire and personally swearing him allegiance, on condition of his promising to rule in accordance with law and ancient usage. As we have seen, on many occasions, the tribal aristocracy never gave so blind an adherence to the hereditary principle as to renounce the practice of dictating conditions and, in many instances, deciding the choice between the various aspirants for the crown. If it had not been for the unhappy precedent, established by Harold the Fairhaired, that not one but all the sons of a king, legitimate and illegitimate, should succeed him on the throne, this balance of power would have prevented an arbitrary use of his authority, on the part of the king, and thus in the end have proved beneficial. In fact, the great principle of constitutional liberty is involved in this conflict of interests, and the natural opposition of an aristocracy to the encroachments of the crown. The situation in Norway, as well as the temperament of the people, was favorable to the gradual and uninterrupted development of a constitutional monarchy, such as the English, and if the long civil wars growing out of the claims of rival heirs to the throne had not exhausted the land, four hundred years of political extinction would not have preceded the resurrection of the nation in the present century.