Regarding William's use of the Papal banner in his conquest, yes, the Pope did give his blessings to the undertaking, as he likely saw William as someone he (the Pope) could control easier than Harold. William certainly wanted the banner, as it was a drawing card for some of his army, as well as it gave yet more backing to the idea the he was the rightful King, and not Harold. As you likely know, William went to great lengths to 'prove' he was the rightful heir..this would certainly have helped his cause.

I'm wondering if, instead of  THE  papal banner it was rather A banner that had been blessed by the Pope.  I doubt that William would have been allowed to use the personal banner of the Pope or that of the Papacy.  Just my idea.

Sanglier Blanc

(ranger 243)

Thanks to all who responded for the information!

 

 

 

 

One of the issues involved was that the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1066 was Stigand, who had been chosen without papal approval through an irregular procedure after the demands of the Anglo-Saxon earls for the deposition of Robert of Jumieges (a Norman and friend of Edward the Confessor), and was thus considered unfit for the office by the authorities in Rome.  William wanted him out because, if he were to make good on his conquest, he would sooner or later have to be crowned by the Archbishop (which he was, on Christmas Day); and Harold had been crowned by Stigand on January 6, a fact that William could use to assert that Harold was never rightfully king - being crowned by a usurping Archbishop.  The Pope saw an opportunity for himself in a Norman victory, and was willing therefore to allow William use of the papal banner.  And no, there's no real distinction between "a" banner and "the" banner.