Hmm...not necessarily. If Harold hadn't been elected by the Witan and supported by, mainly, the Godwinesons, then he never would have become King of England and his sons would have no claim at all on anything except bits of their father's old lands in Wessex.
It has to be remembered that England of the time had a highly complicated succession order. Whilst 'technically' it was semisalic consanguinity, it required the official stamp of the Witan and hence the support of the major lords and, to a certain extent, the church. There are very few historical occurences when the latter three were anything other than rubber stamps on the inhertiance law, but Edward the Confessor created one of them.
Harold's vague familial claim was about as valid as William the Bastard's vague familial claim (ie, rocky as hell, but would do once they were crowned provded there were no rivals). He, as Earl of Wessex, was pretty much in control of about a third or so of England's power (if, for simplicity, you ignore Essex, Norfolk and the south-east). The other two-thirds, Mercia and Northumbria, were under the Leofricsons who were about as close allies as you could hope for, Harold having supported Morcar over his own brother, Tostig.
Hence, Harold landing on the throne was the result of a clear-cut political choice inside Britain - not such a knee-jerk reaction against the Normans. Harold had the right to rule, and the support of commons, nobles and clergy. He also had powerful enemies.
Had Harold won at Hastings, this would be irrelevant. William of Normandy's sons would have no logical claim on the throne of England, that window of opportunity having passed. Likewise, since Harold lost, his heirs had virtually no claims at all. Their claims relied on, as Harold's did, the support of commons, nobles and clergy - all turned out in favour of Atheling, none turned out in favour of Harold's sons.
This *was* against consanguinity laws, but England was a rare exception. As mentioned, technically the Witan enforced an elective law (rigged and ineffectual though it was), but once it made a decision, that was final. Harold's sons had little grounding as legitimate saxon heirs as long as Edgar Atheling and his heirs were around. They were the rightful kings, as far as saxon England was concerned - Harold's sons were, at best, pretenders...and pretenders to a pretender who didn't hold the throne in the first place.
It has to be remembered that England of the time had a highly complicated succession order. Whilst 'technically' it was semisalic consanguinity, it required the official stamp of the Witan and hence the support of the major lords and, to a certain extent, the church. There are very few historical occurences when the latter three were anything other than rubber stamps on the inhertiance law, but Edward the Confessor created one of them.
Harold's vague familial claim was about as valid as William the Bastard's vague familial claim (ie, rocky as hell, but would do once they were crowned provded there were no rivals). He, as Earl of Wessex, was pretty much in control of about a third or so of England's power (if, for simplicity, you ignore Essex, Norfolk and the south-east). The other two-thirds, Mercia and Northumbria, were under the Leofricsons who were about as close allies as you could hope for, Harold having supported Morcar over his own brother, Tostig.
Hence, Harold landing on the throne was the result of a clear-cut political choice inside Britain - not such a knee-jerk reaction against the Normans. Harold had the right to rule, and the support of commons, nobles and clergy. He also had powerful enemies.
Had Harold won at Hastings, this would be irrelevant. William of Normandy's sons would have no logical claim on the throne of England, that window of opportunity having passed. Likewise, since Harold lost, his heirs had virtually no claims at all. Their claims relied on, as Harold's did, the support of commons, nobles and clergy - all turned out in favour of Atheling, none turned out in favour of Harold's sons.
This *was* against consanguinity laws, but England was a rare exception. As mentioned, technically the Witan enforced an elective law (rigged and ineffectual though it was), but once it made a decision, that was final. Harold's sons had little grounding as legitimate saxon heirs as long as Edgar Atheling and his heirs were around. They were the rightful kings, as far as saxon England was concerned - Harold's sons were, at best, pretenders...and pretenders to a pretender who didn't hold the throne in the first place.