What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French loanwords, no?

On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
> loanwords, no?

England remains Saxon and Nordic.

The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
also major French nobles.

If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.

Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
English royal family and the French grand nobility,
i.e. no "Angevin Empire".

The consolidation of France under royal control
will be accelerated by many years - possibly
centuries.

Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 1:48:49 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> > What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
> > in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
> > developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
> > have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
> > loanwords, no?
> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>
> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
> also major French nobles.
>
> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>
> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>
> The consolidation of France under royal control
> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
> centuries.
>
> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

How would the Old English language have evolved over the centuries with astronomically less French influence?

On 6/8/2021 1:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French loanwords, no?
>

Does it depend on WHO repulses William's attempt?

For example, is there a way to get him in ahead of Hardrada, which could
well mean that Godwinson goes to battle with him first, and then whoever
wins needs to fast-march to the Derwent or even further to face
Hardrada--you know, the whole thing that likely did in Godwinson's army
IOTL?

For that matter, is there a way, if Hardrada can't avoid being fought
first, that *he* can win both the battle in the north and the one
somewhere south of London?

Or are we assuming that the ONLY possible kings past October are William
or Godwinson, and that the only way to save England from the Normans is
for Godwinson to win both?

Because I think an England that is firmly and likely permanently in the
Norse orbit is likely to be a bit different than one that likely
despises both Normans and Norsemen.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>> loanwords, no?
>
> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>
> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
> also major French nobles.
>
> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.

I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.

Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.

It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
with Godwin or his son.

>
> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>

Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!

> The consolidation of France under royal control
> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
> centuries.
>

Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
the new duke's minority.

What on _earth_ gives you that idea?

> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>

Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
that way.

Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
have the same king over them.

Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
Land's End.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Sunday, 13 June 2021 at 08:37:45 UTC+1, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> >> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
> >> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
> >> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
> >> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
> >> loanwords, no?
> >
> > England remains Saxon and Nordic.
> >
> > The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
> > also major French nobles.
> >
> > If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
> > likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
> > cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>
> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
>
> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
> with Godwin or his son.
> >
> > Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
> > English royal family and the French grand nobility,
> > i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
> >
> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!
>
Would they have thought of it as marrying their children to their own feudal vassals?

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 01:05:00 -0600, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/8/2021 1:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French loanwords, no?
>>
>
>Does it depend on WHO repulses William's attempt?
>
>For example, is there a way to get him in ahead of Hardrada, which could
>well mean that Godwinson goes to battle with him first, and then whoever
>wins needs to fast-march to the Derwent or even further to face
>Hardrada--you know, the whole thing that likely did in Godwinson's army
>IOTL?

Wouldn't the easiest way to do that WI be for Hardrada to invade in
1067? Is there any particular reason both expeditions had to take
place in 1066? Was Godwinsson thought to be particularly weak? (If so
given what he did in 1066 that's not credible)

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 04:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Graham Truesdale
<graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
>> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
>> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
>> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!
>>
>Would they have thought of it as marrying their children to their own feudal vassals?

There were vassals and there were vassals - some were considerably
more important than others.

Similarly if a King was childless and hadn't conceived with his wife
but HAD with a younger mistress or at least WANTED to (who presumably
would have been part of his court) I can easily see an earlier Henry
VIII / Catherine / Anne Boleyn scenario playing out.

Or simply legitimizing a bastard.

On Sunday, 13 June 2021 at 17:45:56 UTC+1, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 04:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Graham Truesdale
> <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
> >> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
> >> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
> >> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!
> >>
> >Would they have thought of it as marrying their children to their own feudal vassals?
> There were vassals and there were vassals - some were considerably
> more important than others.
>
> Similarly if a King was childless and hadn't conceived with his wife
> but HAD with a younger mistress or at least WANTED to (who presumably
> would have been part of his court) I can easily see an earlier Henry
> VIII / Catherine / Anne Boleyn scenario playing out.
>
> Or simply legitimizing a bastard.
>
As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I,_Duke_of_Normandy of course did in OTL

tOn Sun, 13 Jun 2021 10:02:28 -0700 (PDT), Graham Truesdale
<graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Would they have thought of it as marrying their children to their own feudal vassals?
>> There were vassals and there were vassals - some were considerably
>> more important than others.
>>
>> Similarly if a King was childless and hadn't conceived with his wife
>> but HAD with a younger mistress or at least WANTED to (who presumably
>> would have been part of his court) I can easily see an earlier Henry
>> VIII / Catherine / Anne Boleyn scenario playing out.
>>
>> Or simply legitimizing a bastard.
>>
>As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I,_Duke_of_Normandy of course did in OTL

My whole point was that there were all sorts of daughters of major
lords who were marriage bait for Kings. And that that well preceded
the Wars of the Roses. And they were by no means 13 years old like the
mother of Henry VII either.

On 6/13/2021 10:39 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 01:05:00 -0600, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/8/2021 1:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French loanwords, no?
>>>
>>
>> Does it depend on WHO repulses William's attempt?
>>
>> For example, is there a way to get him in ahead of Hardrada, which could
>> well mean that Godwinson goes to battle with him first, and then whoever
>> wins needs to fast-march to the Derwent or even further to face
>> Hardrada--you know, the whole thing that likely did in Godwinson's army
>> IOTL?
>
> Wouldn't the easiest way to do that WI be for Hardrada to invade in
> 1067? Is there any particular reason both expeditions had to take
> place in 1066? Was Godwinsson thought to be particularly weak? (If so
> given what he did in 1066 that's not credible)
>

Not sure if it's the easiest or not.

First off, I'm not entirely sure if it's even possible, or if--as some
chroniclers have claimed but bear in mind they ARE chroniclers--William
intentionally sailed only after he was assured of facing either
Godwinson's or Hardrada's army after it was worn out from winning over
the other.

Second, I'm *really* not entirely sure whether the Normans can win if
they DO have to face a rested and ready Godwinson army. You could argue
that without the arrow to the eye of Godwinson himself, the Anglo-Saxons
don't break the way they did.

Nor am I sure, if they DO still win, if William's as prepared to deal
with a Hardrada invasion in the somewhat-near future as Godwinson was in
1066.

Basically, my first suspicion is that *whoever invaded second* had the
advantage both over the first invader *and* Godwinson, but *only if it
all happened in the same autumn*. Let the defenders totally recover from
the first invasion and the odds of success for the second one _may_ drop.

Which is why I was inclined to somehow screw up the arrival timelines
instead.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 6/13/2021 9:09 PM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 6/13/2021 10:39 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 01:05:00 -0600, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/8/2021 1:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have
>>>> subsequently developed afterwards? I would presume that the English
>>>> language would have massively differed from real life due to the
>>>> lack of French loanwords, no?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does it depend on WHO repulses William's attempt?
>>>
>>> For example, is there a way to get him in ahead of Hardrada, which could
>>> well mean that Godwinson goes to battle with him first, and then whoever
>>> wins needs to fast-march to the Derwent or even further to face
>>> Hardrada--you know, the whole thing that likely did in Godwinson's army
>>> IOTL?
>>
>> Wouldn't the easiest way to do that WI be for Hardrada to invade in
>> 1067? Is there any particular reason both expeditions had to take
>> place in 1066? Was Godwinsson thought to be particularly weak? (If so
>> given what he did in 1066 that's not credible)
>>
>
> Not sure if it's the easiest or not.
>
> First off, I'm not entirely sure if it's even possible, or if--as some
> chroniclers have claimed but bear in mind they ARE chroniclers--William
> intentionally sailed only after he was assured of facing either
> Godwinson's or Hardrada's army after it was worn out from winning over
> the other.
>
> Second, I'm *really* not entirely sure whether the Normans can win if
> they DO have to face a rested and ready Godwinson army. You could argue
> that without the arrow to the eye of Godwinson himself,

Oy. This was to say that "even if the Normans still face a TIRED army of
Anglo-Saxxons, the arrow may still be needed". Somehow that was missed
the first time.

> the Anglo-Saxons don't break the way they did.
>
> Nor am I sure, if they DO still win, if William's as prepared to deal
> with a Hardrada invasion in the somewhat-near future as Godwinson was in
> 1066.
>
> Basically, my first suspicion is that *whoever invaded second* had the
> advantage both over the first invader *and* Godwinson, but *only if it
> all happened in the same autumn*. Let the defenders totally recover from
> the first invasion and the odds of success for the second one _may_ drop.
>
> Which is why I was inclined to somehow screw up the arrival timelines
> instead.
>

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 21:09:22 -0600, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Basically, my first suspicion is that *whoever invaded second* had the
>advantage both over the first invader *and* Godwinson, but *only if it
>all happened in the same autumn*. Let the defenders totally recover from
>the first invasion and the odds of success for the second one _may_ drop.
>
>Which is why I was inclined to somehow screw up the arrival timelines
>instead.

I agree with that completely - my main question about Hardrada is that
William had a considerable time after Hastings to consolidate which he
used to good effect. The short version of what I was thinking was "WI
William doesn't GET the consolidation period he clearly needed"

I could go into it in more detail but you get the jist - he had a
major cultural reformation to impose with his victory. My daughter
lives in south London (Canadian girl born and raised in Vancouver)
close to Tooting Bec which was a Norman monastery holding which was
given either by William or Henry I (read the sign at the park 5 years
ago, am going by memory) in the first 20-30 years after Hastings and
the land was fertile enough the English holding eventually became more
important than the French holding.

These days it's just a neighbourhood with an attractive park in south
London near Balham :)

I offer this story as an example for the 'reformation' William had to
impose with in the aftermath of his victory and in the scenario I'm
envisioning he doesn't have time to do so.

On 6/13/21 2:37 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:

> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.

Future Dukes of Normandy will only be Dukes
of Normandy, not also Kings of England.
Having that external and untouchable power
base made the OTL Dukes impossible for the
French crown to control.

>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".

> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
> intermarrying soon anyway...
How many marriages were there between the Nordic
realms and western kingdoms? Very few, until much
later. If William doesn't conquer, England remains
outside the French/German social and political sphere.

> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
> the new duke's minority.
>
> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?

What on earth gave you the idea that's what I meant?

> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
> have the same king over them.

Hardraada didn't claim Ireland. I doubt if he would
later.

> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world...

This is an entirely different question.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 6/14/2021 4:39 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/13/21 2:37 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
>> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>
> Future Dukes of Normandy will only be Dukes
> of Normandy, not also Kings of England.
> Having that external and untouchable power
> base made the OTL Dukes impossible for the
> French crown to control.
>

Ahh. I thought you were talking a direct fall of the Duchy.

I _also_ thought you were translating your understanding of the
importance of <une france -- un roi> (which was indeed needed for any
sort of transfer to modernity) to the middle Capetians, who I honestly
think would never have considered it to be of any significance, rather
than to the Valois and PERHAPS the late Capetians.

<snip stuff I'm not yet in the mood to argue>

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 23:02:42 -0600, Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> Second, I'm *really* not entirely sure whether the Normans can win if
>> they DO have to face a rested and ready Godwinson army. You could argue
>> that without the arrow to the eye of Godwinson himself,
>
>Oy. This was to say that "even if the Normans still face a TIRED army of
>Anglo-Saxxons, the arrow may still be needed". Somehow that was missed
>the first time.

That is my view - Godwinson's army was one of the great infantry
armies of the age. While many armies of the era would have forced
marched to Stamford Bridge almost none would THEN immediately force
march back to the London area (e.g. Hastings) to fight again - most
would not have tried but taken their time and let William loot rape
and pillage to his heats' content in the meantime. This actually might
have been a preferred strategy for Godwinson though I've heard it said
that he rejected that as he felt he HAD to eliminate William before
winter or William would reinforce during the winter and that it was
already October.

>> the Anglo-Saxons don't break the way they did.
>>
>> Nor am I sure, if they DO still win, if William's as prepared to deal
>> with a Hardrada invasion in the somewhat-near future as Godwinson was in
>> 1066.

As has been pointed out what caused William to cross the Channel when
he did was the news of Harold marching north to face Hardrada. I'm not
sure this hypothesis has been demonstrated but it seems plausible.

On Monday, 14 June 2021 at 23:39:29 UTC+1, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/13/21 2:37 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
> > way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
> Future Dukes of Normandy will only be Dukes
> of Normandy, not also Kings of England.
> Having that external and untouchable power
> base made the OTL Dukes impossible for the
> French crown to control.
>
Until King/Duke John.
>
> >> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
> >> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
> >> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>
> > Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
> > intermarrying soon anyway...
> How many marriages were there between the Nordic
> realms and western kingdoms? Very few, until much
> later. If William doesn't conquer, England remains
> outside the French/German social and political sphere.
>
England was within the French/Norman political sphere to the extent that two of its kings married https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_of_Normandy - her second husband also being King of Denmark and Norway. And going further back, two kings of Wessex married https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_of_Flanders

And further back again, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offa_of_Mercia#European_connections and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_the_Younger indicate that "Around 789, it was suggested by Charlemagne that Charles the Younger should be married to Offa's daughter Ælfflæd. Offa insisted that the marriage could only go ahead if Charlemagne's daughter Bertha was married to Offa's son Ecgfrith. Charlemagne took offence ..."
>
> > Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
> > regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
> > the new duke's minority.
> >
> > What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
> What on earth gave you the idea that's what I meant?
> > Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
> > Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
> > Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
> > have the same king over them.
> Hardraada didn't claim Ireland. I doubt if he would
> later.
> > Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
> > London as _the_ centre of the Norse world...
>
> This is an entirely different question.
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Sun, 13 Jun 2021
10:02:28 -0700 (PDT) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Sunday, 13 June 2021 at 17:45:56 UTC+1, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 04:11:01 -0700 (PDT), Graham Truesdale
>> <graham.t...ATgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
>> >> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
>> >> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
>> >> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!
>> >>
>> >Would they have thought of it as marrying their children to their own feudal vassals?
>> There were vassals and there were vassals - some were considerably
>> more important than others.
>>
>> Similarly if a King was childless and hadn't conceived with his wife
>> but HAD with a younger mistress or at least WANTED to (who presumably
>> would have been part of his court) I can easily see an earlier Henry
>> VIII / Catherine / Anne Boleyn scenario playing out.
>>
>> Or simply legitimizing a bastard.
>>
>As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_I,_Duke_of_Normandy of course did in OTL

Cultural differences get involved: what one culture considered
"unacceptable" another might consider irregular, and a third don't see
the problem with it at all.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Sat, 12 Jun 2021 18:25:22 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Saturday, June 12, 2021 at 1:48:49 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>> > What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>> > in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>> > developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>> > have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>> > loanwords, no?
>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>>
>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
>> also major French nobles.
>>
>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>>
>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>>
>> The consolidation of France under royal control
>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
>> centuries.
>>
>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>>
>> --
>> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
>> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
>
>How would the Old English language have evolved over the centuries with astronomically less French influence?

Probably remain more Germanic, possibly with more Norsk words:
knife, knight, und so weiter.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>>> loanwords, no?
>>
>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>>
>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
>> also major French nobles.
>>
>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>
> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>
> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
>
> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
> with Godwin or his son.

So what of the Athelings?
>>
>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>>
>
> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!
>
>> The consolidation of France under royal control
>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
>> centuries.
>>
>
> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
> the new duke's minority.

Robert was about 15 in 1066 so the minority would not have been long.

> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
>
>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>>
>
> Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
> that way.
>
> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
> have the same king over them.
>
> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
> better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
> even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
> grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
> Land's End.

Would a Norse empire centered there have managed to stay united?

Might Saxon pretenders seek refuge with the Scots or would all
Britain be Norske-talende?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On 7/4/2021 10:10 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>>>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>>>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>>>> loanwords, no?
>>>
>>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>>>
>>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
>>> also major French nobles.
>>>
>>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
>>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
>>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
>> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>>
>> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
>> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
>> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
>> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
>> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
>> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
>>
>> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
>> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
>> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
>> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
>> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
>> with Godwin or his son.
>
> So what of the Athelings >

Edgar's a plural now (his father and his uncle having predeceased the
Confessor)?

That said, yes, even IOTL the Witan offered the crown to him after
Godwinson's death [after, it should be noted, POINTEDLY avoiding him in
January], which I had forgotten.

They still weren't able to get all the thegns, let alone the common
people, behind him, and wound up eventually crowning William in a last
attempt to save some of their status.

He's still too young to lead on his own (14 is not old enough to be a
general, even in an era when even the bows are primitive), his own
under-generals aren't going to be any better suited to the task than
they were IOTL. Further, he'll only produce male heirs if you insist on
butterflying things heavily--are we even sure that it isn't totally a
case of non-viable Y-sperm? As far as I can tell, getting HIM to succeed
just leads to an even BIGGER succession crisis than the one that we're
talking about here OR the Anarchy in about an additional century. Though
I must admit, your reminding me about him does leave me wondering if the
Duke in the 1120s (assuming Edgar's longevity ISN'T butterflied away)
would get involved like his grandfather or great-grandfather (depending
on the longevity of the Ducs de Normandie themselves) had. If it
DOES--well, we've eliminated Stephen and Matilda as heirs, but otherwise
it's entirely possible that English history just got put "back on the
rails", with slightly different names. Even the Angevin marriage isn't
out of the question now.

Or of course, the Aetheling could be failed by Edwin and Morcar just as
badly as he was IOTL, in which case...Hardrada would hold England, and
I'm not sure if he'd leave the Aetheling out of prison for the rest of
his life quite to the level that William and his heirs tended to?

He SHOULD be out of play if somehow Godwinson is the ultimate
winner--I'm not sure that HE even lets Edgar live past the age of
majority, because of a fear the Witengamot would turn on him and crown
Edgar. Even if Godwinson DOES just let Edgar hang out in Scotland, the
Aetheling's ACTIONS are likely different unless Harold manages to
produce two warring heirs and splits his empire between them, since so
much of Aetheling's time was spent backing Robert in rebellion against
his kid brothers to try to take England for himself.

As for what he'd be allowed to do in Scotland with the Norse in an
unaccustomed southerly position, see below.

>
>>>
>>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>>>
>>
>> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
>> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
>> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
>> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand anyway!
>>
>>> The consolidation of France under royal control
>>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
>>> centuries.
>>>
>>
>> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
>> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
>> the new duke's minority.
>
> Robert was about 15 in 1066 so the minority would not have been long.
>
>> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
>>
>>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
>>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
>>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>>>
>>
>> Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
>> that way.
>>
>> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
>> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
>> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
>> have the same king over them.
>>
>> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
>> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
>> better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
>> even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
>> grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
>> Land's End.
>
> Would a Norse empire centered there have managed to stay united?
>
> Might Saxon pretenders seek refuge with the Scots or would all
> Britain be Norske-talende?
>

Well, let's see. IOTL, Saxon pretenders DID seek refuge with the Scots
and the results were Donalbain, Duncan and all the rest of the people
who slightly antedate MacBeth.

But indeed, if a Norse empire with its capital at London stays united,
Scotland's in the type of vise that it only found itself in later IOTL.
Scotland may have managed to remain more independent by playing the
Norse in their roles protecting the Kingdom of the Isles, against the
Anglo-Normans. If we have Anglo-NORSE instead, the Kingdom of the Isles
is no longer something to play against London, but instead a Scylla to
go with England's Charybdis. If the Norse want something from
Scotland--to include the end of nominal independence--in THAT scenario,
they likely get it basically immediately (though all those wild Gaels in
their fortified clan settlements throught the countryside will likely
never accept any of their pretenders--ESPECIALLY if they try to force
primogeniture on even just the royal family.

And if you try to change Scots law as a WHOLE so that EVERY clan is
required to succeed its members based on primogeniture? THAT could be
especially explosive (and remember, no Germanic types--not even the
Anglo-Saxons and certainly not ones who've been exposed to the Gaels for
less time-- still go in for tanistry).

So it's THEORETICALLY possible that Scotland is officially run by
puppet-kings who have a comically short lifespan all the way to what
IOTL was the Stuart era. Unlikely, admittedly, but NOT impossible.

>
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
>

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 7/5/2021 4:52 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 7/4/2021 10:10 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>>>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>>>>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>>>>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>>>>> loanwords, no?
>>>>
>>>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>>>>
>>>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
>>>> also major French nobles.
>>>>
>>>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
>>>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
>>>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
>>> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>>>
>>> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
>>> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
>>> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
>>> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
>>> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
>>> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
>>>
>>> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
>>> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
>>> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
>>> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
>>> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
>>> with Godwin or his son.
>>
>> So what of the Athelings >
>
> Edgar's a plural now (his father and his uncle having predeceased the
> Confessor)?
>
> That said, yes, even IOTL the Witan offered the crown to him after
> Godwinson's death [after, it should be noted, POINTEDLY avoiding him in
> January], which I had forgotten.
>
> They still weren't able to get all the thegns, let alone the common
> people, behind him, and wound up eventually crowning William in a last
> attempt to save some of their status.
>
> He's still too young to lead on his own (14 is not old enough to be a
> general, even in an era when even the bows are primitive), his own
> under-generals aren't going to be any better suited to the task than
> they were IOTL. Further, he'll only produce male heirs if you insist on
> butterflying things heavily--are we even sure that it isn't totally a
> case of non-viable Y-sperm? As far as I can tell, getting HIM to succeed
> just leads to an even BIGGER succession crisis than the one that we're
> talking about here OR the Anarchy in about an additional century. Though
> I must admit, your reminding me about him does leave me wondering if the
> Duke in the 1120s (assuming Edgar's longevity ISN'T butterflied away)
> would get involved like his grandfather or great-grandfather (depending
> on the longevity of the Ducs de Normandie themselves) had. If it
> DOES--well, we've eliminated Stephen and Matilda as heirs, but otherwise
> it's entirely possible that English history just got put "back on the
> rails", with slightly different names. Even the Angevin marriage isn't
> out of the question now.
>
> Or of course, the Aetheling could be failed by Edwin and Morcar just as
> badly as he was IOTL, in which case...Hardrada would hold England, and
> I'm not sure if he'd leave the Aetheling out of prison for the rest of
> his life quite to the level that William and his heirs tended to?
>
> He SHOULD be out of play if somehow Godwinson is the ultimate
> winner--I'm not sure that HE even lets Edgar live past the age of
> majority, because of a fear the Witengamot would turn on him and crown
> Edgar. Even if Godwinson DOES just let Edgar hang out in Scotland, the
> Aetheling's ACTIONS are likely different unless Harold manages to
> produce two warring heirs and splits his empire between them, since so
> much of Aetheling's time was spent backing Robert in rebellion against
> his kid brothers to try to take England for himself.
>
> As for what he'd be allowed to do in Scotland with the Norse in an
> unaccustomed southerly position, see below.
>
> >
>>>>
>>>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>>>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>>>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
>>> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
>>> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
>>> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand
>>> anyway!
>>>
>>>> The consolidation of France under royal control
>>>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
>>>> centuries.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
>>> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
>>> the new duke's minority.
>>
>> Robert was about 15 in 1066 so the minority would not have been long.
>>
>>> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
>>>
>>>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
>>>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
>>>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
>>> that way.
>>>
>>> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
>>> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
>>> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
>>> have the same king over them.
>>>
>>> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
>>> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
>>> better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
>>> even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
>>> grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
>>> Land's End.
>>
>> Would a Norse empire centered there have managed to stay united?
>>
>> Might Saxon pretenders seek refuge with the Scots or would all
>> Britain be Norske-talende?
>>
>
> Well, let's see. IOTL, Saxon pretenders DID seek refuge with the Scots
> and the results were Donalbain, Duncan and all the rest of the people
> who slightly antedate

Oof. POST-DATE, of course. Malcolm Canmore went running TO Edward's
court when Duncan was taken down by Macbeth (and, of course, tying into
what I said below about tanistry, neither he nor his father was
necessarily the legitimate ruler under what most of his underlings
thought the law was at that time, though Lulach admittedly didn't have a
great claim himself either). I've got to stop posting when I'm passing
out over the keys, as happened here, and once I can think lucidly again,
I need to re-read better BEFORE I click Send.

> MacBeth.
>
> But indeed, if a Norse empire with its capital at London stays united,
> Scotland's in the type of vise that it only found itself in later IOTL.
> Scotland may have managed to remain more independent by playing the
> Norse in their roles protecting the Kingdom of the Isles, against the
> Anglo-Normans. If we have Anglo-NORSE instead, the Kingdom of the Isles
> is no longer something to play against London, but instead a Scylla to
> go with England's Charybdis. If the Norse want something from
> Scotland--to include the end of nominal independence--in THAT scenario,
> they likely get it basically immediately (though all those wild Gaels in
> their fortified clan settlements throught the countryside will likely
> never accept any of their pretenders--ESPECIALLY if they try to force
> primogeniture on even just the royal family.
>
> And if you try to change Scots law as a WHOLE so that EVERY clan is
> required to succeed its members based on primogeniture? THAT could be
> especially explosive (and remember, no Germanic types--not even the
> Anglo-Saxons and certainly not ones who've been exposed to the Gaels for
> less time-- still go in for tanistry).
>
> So it's THEORETICALLY possible that Scotland is officially run by
> puppet-kings who have a comically short lifespan all the way to what
> IOTL was the Stuart era. Unlikely, admittedly, but NOT impossible.
>
>>
>> -=-=-
>> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
>> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
>>
>
>

Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/5/2021 4:52 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>> On 7/4/2021 10:10 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>> Chrysi Cat <chrysicat@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>>>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>>>>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>>>>>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>>>>>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>>>>>> loanwords, no?
>>>>>
>>>>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
>>>>> also major French nobles.
>>>>>
>>>>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
>>>>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
>>>>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
>>>> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
>>>> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
>>>> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
>>>> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
>>>> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
>>>> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
>>>>
>>>> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
>>>> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
>>>> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
>>>> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
>>>> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
>>>> with Godwin or his son.
>>>
>>> So what of the Athelings >
>>
>> Edgar's a plural now (his father and his uncle having predeceased the
>> Confessor)?
>>
>> That said, yes, even IOTL the Witan offered the crown to him after
>> Godwinson's death [after, it should be noted, POINTEDLY avoiding him in
>> January], which I had forgotten.
>>
>> They still weren't able to get all the thegns, let alone the common
>> people, behind him, and wound up eventually crowning William in a last
>> attempt to save some of their status.
>>
>> He's still too young to lead on his own (14 is not old enough to be a
>> general, even in an era when even the bows are primitive), his own
>> under-generals aren't going to be any better suited to the task than
>> they were IOTL. Further, he'll only produce male heirs if you insist on
>> butterflying things heavily--are we even sure that it isn't totally a
>> case of non-viable Y-sperm? As far as I can tell, getting HIM to succeed
>> just leads to an even BIGGER succession crisis than the one that we're
>> talking about here OR the Anarchy in about an additional century. Though
>> I must admit, your reminding me about him does leave me wondering if the
>> Duke in the 1120s (assuming Edgar's longevity ISN'T butterflied away)
>> would get involved like his grandfather or great-grandfather (depending
>> on the longevity of the Ducs de Normandie themselves) had. If it
>> DOES--well, we've eliminated Stephen and Matilda as heirs, but otherwise
>> it's entirely possible that English history just got put "back on the
>> rails", with slightly different names. Even the Angevin marriage isn't
>> out of the question now.
>>
>> Or of course, the Aetheling could be failed by Edwin and Morcar just as
>> badly as he was IOTL, in which case...Hardrada would hold England, and
>> I'm not sure if he'd leave the Aetheling out of prison for the rest of
>> his life quite to the level that William and his heirs tended to?
>>
>> He SHOULD be out of play if somehow Godwinson is the ultimate
>> winner--I'm not sure that HE even lets Edgar live past the age of
>> majority, because of a fear the Witengamot would turn on him and crown
>> Edgar. Even if Godwinson DOES just let Edgar hang out in Scotland, the
>> Aetheling's ACTIONS are likely different unless Harold manages to
>> produce two warring heirs and splits his empire between them, since so
>> much of Aetheling's time was spent backing Robert in rebellion against
>> his kid brothers to try to take England for himself.
>>
>> As for what he'd be allowed to do in Scotland with the Norse in an
>> unaccustomed southerly position, see below.
>>
>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>>>>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>>>>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
>>>> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
>>>> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
>>>> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand
>>>> anyway!
>>>>
>>>>> The consolidation of France under royal control
>>>>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
>>>>> centuries.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
>>>> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
>>>> the new duke's minority.
>>>
>>> Robert was about 15 in 1066 so the minority would not have been long.
>>>
>>>> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
>>>>
>>>>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
>>>>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
>>>>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
>>>> that way.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
>>>> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
>>>> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
>>>> have the same king over them.
>>>>
>>>> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
>>>> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
>>>> better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
>>>> even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
>>>> grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
>>>> Land's End.
>>>
>>> Would a Norse empire centered there have managed to stay united?
>>>
>>> Might Saxon pretenders seek refuge with the Scots or would all
>>> Britain be Norske-talende?
>>>
>>
>> Well, let's see. IOTL, Saxon pretenders DID seek refuge with the Scots
>> and the results were Donalbain, Duncan and all the rest of the people
>> who slightly antedate
>
> Oof. POST-DATE, of course. Malcolm Canmore went running TO Edward's
> court when Duncan was taken down by Macbeth (and, of course, tying into
> what I said below about tanistry, neither he nor his father was
> necessarily the legitimate ruler under what most of his underlings
> thought the law was at that time, though Lulach admittedly didn't have a
> great claim himself either). I've got to stop posting when I'm passing
> out over the keys, as happened here, and once I can think lucidly again,
> I need to re-read better BEFORE I click Send.
Of course IOTL the descendants of Malcolm by his first wife,from the
Orkneys,were shoved aside and probably exterminated (not sure if any
were left after a baby granddaughter(IIRC) of Duncan II had her brains
dashed out) in favor of his descendants by his Saxon second wife
(Edgar's sister),this might not happen?

Click here to read the complete article

On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
> Chrysi Cat <chry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 7/5/2021 4:52 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> >> On 7/4/2021 10:10 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
> >>> Chrysi Cat <chry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
> >>>>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
> >>>>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
> >>>>>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
> >>>>>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
> >>>>>> loanwords, no?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
> >>>>> also major French nobles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
> >>>>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
> >>>>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
> >>>> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again..
> >>>>
> >>>> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
> >>>> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
> >>>> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
> >>>> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
> >>>> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
> >>>> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
> >>>>
> >>>> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
> >>>> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
> >>>> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
> >>>> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
> >>>> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
> >>>> with Godwin or his son.
> >>>
> >>> So what of the Athelings >
> >>
> >> Edgar's a plural now (his father and his uncle having predeceased the
> >> Confessor)?
> >>
> >> That said, yes, even IOTL the Witan offered the crown to him after
> >> Godwinson's death [after, it should be noted, POINTEDLY avoiding him in
> >> January], which I had forgotten.
> >>
> >> They still weren't able to get all the thegns, let alone the common
> >> people, behind him, and wound up eventually crowning William in a last
> >> attempt to save some of their status.
> >>
> >> He's still too young to lead on his own (14 is not old enough to be a
> >> general, even in an era when even the bows are primitive), his own
> >> under-generals aren't going to be any better suited to the task than
> >> they were IOTL. Further, he'll only produce male heirs if you insist on
> >> butterflying things heavily--are we even sure that it isn't totally a
> >> case of non-viable Y-sperm? As far as I can tell, getting HIM to succeed
> >> just leads to an even BIGGER succession crisis than the one that we're
> >> talking about here OR the Anarchy in about an additional century. Though
> >> I must admit, your reminding me about him does leave me wondering if the
> >> Duke in the 1120s (assuming Edgar's longevity ISN'T butterflied away)
> >> would get involved like his grandfather or great-grandfather (depending
> >> on the longevity of the Ducs de Normandie themselves) had. If it
> >> DOES--well, we've eliminated Stephen and Matilda as heirs, but otherwise
> >> it's entirely possible that English history just got put "back on the
> >> rails", with slightly different names. Even the Angevin marriage isn't
> >> out of the question now.
> >>
> >> Or of course, the Aetheling could be failed by Edwin and Morcar just as
> >> badly as he was IOTL, in which case...Hardrada would hold England, and
> >> I'm not sure if he'd leave the Aetheling out of prison for the rest of
> >> his life quite to the level that William and his heirs tended to?
> >>
> >> He SHOULD be out of play if somehow Godwinson is the ultimate
> >> winner--I'm not sure that HE even lets Edgar live past the age of
> >> majority, because of a fear the Witengamot would turn on him and crown
> >> Edgar. Even if Godwinson DOES just let Edgar hang out in Scotland, the
> >> Aetheling's ACTIONS are likely different unless Harold manages to
> >> produce two warring heirs and splits his empire between them, since so
> >> much of Aetheling's time was spent backing Robert in rebellion against
> >> his kid brothers to try to take England for himself.
> >>
> >> As for what he'd be allowed to do in Scotland with the Norse in an
> >> unaccustomed southerly position, see below.
> >>
> >> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
> >>>>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
> >>>>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
> >>>> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
> >>>> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
> >>>> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand
> >>>> anyway!
> >>>>
> >>>>> The consolidation of France under royal control
> >>>>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
> >>>>> centuries.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
> >>>> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
> >>>> the new duke's minority.
> >>>
> >>> Robert was about 15 in 1066 so the minority would not have been long.
> >>>
> >>>> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
> >>>>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
> >>>>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
> >>>> that way.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
> >>>> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
> >>>> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
> >>>> have the same king over them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
> >>>> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
> >>>> better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
> >>>> even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
> >>>> grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
> >>>> Land's End.
> >>>
> >>> Would a Norse empire centered there have managed to stay united?
> >>>
> >>> Might Saxon pretenders seek refuge with the Scots or would all
> >>> Britain be Norske-talende?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, let's see. IOTL, Saxon pretenders DID seek refuge with the Scots
> >> and the results were Donalbain, Duncan and all the rest of the people
> >> who slightly antedate
> >
> > Oof. POST-DATE, of course. Malcolm Canmore went running TO Edward's
> > court when Duncan was taken down by Macbeth (and, of course, tying into
> > what I said below about tanistry, neither he nor his father was
> > necessarily the legitimate ruler under what most of his underlings
> > thought the law was at that time, though Lulach admittedly didn't have a
> > great claim himself either). I've got to stop posting when I'm passing
> > out over the keys, as happened here, and once I can think lucidly again,
> > I need to re-read better BEFORE I click Send.
> Of course IOTL the descendants of Malcolm by his first wife,from the
> Orkneys,were shoved aside and probably exterminated (not sure if any
> were left after a baby granddaughter(IIRC) of Duncan II had her brains
> dashed out) in favor of his descendants by his Saxon second wife
> (Edgar's sister),this might not happen?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meic_Uilleim
1. Duncan II of Scotland - c. 1060 – 12 November 1094
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_fitz_Duncan - 1090/1094 - 1147 - son of Duncan II
3. Domnall mac Uilleim - died 1187 - grandson of Duncan II
4. Gille Escoib (or Gillescop) Meic Uilleim ... may have been a son of Domnall, or, more probably given his dates, a grandson - active in 1220's - so a great-grandson or 2G grandson of Duncan II.
5. The last remaining Meic Uilleim, an infant daughter of Gille Escoib or one of his sons, was put to death in 1229 or 1230

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, July 30, 2021 at 7:46:51 AM UTC+1, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> Chrysi Cat <chry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 7/5/2021 4:52 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>> >> On 7/4/2021 10:10 AM, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> >>> Chrysi Cat <chry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On 6/12/2021 2:48 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> >>>>> On 6/8/21 2:47 AM, WolfBear wrote:
>> >>>>>> What would have happened had the Normans failed to conquer England
>> >>>>>> in 1066? Just how would English and British history have subsequently
>> >>>>>> developed afterwards? I would presume that the English language would
>> >>>>>> have massively differed from real life due to the lack of French
>> >>>>>> loanwords, no?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> England remains Saxon and Nordic.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The biggest effect is that the Kings of England are not
>> >>>>> also major French nobles.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If William Bastard fails in his enterprise (and very
>> >>>>> likely is killed), then the Duchy of Normandy will
>> >>>>> cease to be a base of opposition to the French crown.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm not sure why you think this kills the Duchy of Normandy in such a
>> >>>> way as to make sure that it never becomes a base of opposition again.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nothing that William is doing is treason against the French crown, and
>> >>>> he's unlikely to take BOTH Robert and William Rufus along with him (and
>> >>>> I don't know that Robert is totally likely to get killed). That means
>> >>>> there's no "dynastic-failure" reason for the Capetians to successfully
>> >>>> add it to the demesne, and if Philip tries he may find there are enough
>> >>>> angry Normans still there to keep him from succeeding.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It likely DOES mean that Normandy will never shelter another
>> >>>> pretender-to-the-English-throne again, since the story will be passed
>> >>>> down of how the English went back on their obligation to raise William
>> >>>> to the throne--there's EVERY reason to believe Edward the Confessor
>> >>>> actually HAD selected him and certainly wouldn't have had anything to do
>> >>>> with Godwin or his son.
>> >>>
>> >>> So what of the Athelings >
>> >>
>> >> Edgar's a plural now (his father and his uncle having predeceased the
>> >> Confessor)?
>> >>
>> >> That said, yes, even IOTL the Witan offered the crown to him after
>> >> Godwinson's death [after, it should be noted, POINTEDLY avoiding him in
>> >> January], which I had forgotten.
>> >>
>> >> They still weren't able to get all the thegns, let alone the common
>> >> people, behind him, and wound up eventually crowning William in a last
>> >> attempt to save some of their status.
>> >>
>> >> He's still too young to lead on his own (14 is not old enough to be a
>> >> general, even in an era when even the bows are primitive), his own
>> >> under-generals aren't going to be any better suited to the task than
>> >> they were IOTL. Further, he'll only produce male heirs if you insist on
>> >> butterflying things heavily--are we even sure that it isn't totally a
>> >> case of non-viable Y-sperm? As far as I can tell, getting HIM to succeed
>> >> just leads to an even BIGGER succession crisis than the one that we're
>> >> talking about here OR the Anarchy in about an additional century. Though
>> >> I must admit, your reminding me about him does leave me wondering if the
>> >> Duke in the 1120s (assuming Edgar's longevity ISN'T butterflied away)
>> >> would get involved like his grandfather or great-grandfather (depending
>> >> on the longevity of the Ducs de Normandie themselves) had. If it
>> >> DOES--well, we've eliminated Stephen and Matilda as heirs, but otherwise
>> >> it's entirely possible that English history just got put "back on the
>> >> rails", with slightly different names. Even the Angevin marriage isn't
>> >> out of the question now.
>> >>
>> >> Or of course, the Aetheling could be failed by Edwin and Morcar just as
>> >> badly as he was IOTL, in which case...Hardrada would hold England, and
>> >> I'm not sure if he'd leave the Aetheling out of prison for the rest of
>> >> his life quite to the level that William and his heirs tended to?
>> >>
>> >> He SHOULD be out of play if somehow Godwinson is the ultimate
>> >> winner--I'm not sure that HE even lets Edgar live past the age of
>> >> majority, because of a fear the Witengamot would turn on him and crown
>> >> Edgar. Even if Godwinson DOES just let Edgar hang out in Scotland, the
>> >> Aetheling's ACTIONS are likely different unless Harold manages to
>> >> produce two warring heirs and splits his empire between them, since so
>> >> much of Aetheling's time was spent backing Robert in rebellion against
>> >> his kid brothers to try to take England for himself.
>> >>
>> >> As for what he'd be allowed to do in Scotland with the Norse in an
>> >> unaccustomed southerly position, see below.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Also, there will not be intermarriage between the
>> >>>>> English royal family and the French grand nobility,
>> >>>>> i.e. no "Angevin Empire".
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Possibly true, but all the royal families were going to start
>> >>>> intermarrying soon anyway as the Popes came down on consanguinity and
>> >>>> the other option would be marrying lower nobles from their own
>> >>>> nation--not that "nation" was a concept any of them would understand
>> >>>> anyway!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> The consolidation of France under royal control
>> >>>>> will be accelerated by many years - possibly
>> >>>>> centuries.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Once again, you seem to be assuming that the Normans won't have any
>> >>>> regents who can keep their duchy from being added to the demesne during
>> >>>> the new duke's minority.
>> >>>
>> >>> Robert was about 15 in 1066 so the minority would not have been long.
>> >>>
>> >>>> What on _earth_ gives you that idea?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Ireland is spared Anglo-Norman invasion. It does not
>> >>>>> seem as though the Anglo-Saxons had any interest in
>> >>>>> Ireland; it would be left to the Irish and the Norse.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Likely true for at least a while, though who knows how long it remains
>> >>>> that way.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, the _one_ area where it's most important for the inhabitants that
>> >>>> Godwinson, SPECIFICALLY, win against both invasion forces. If there are
>> >>>> Anglo-NORSE instead of Anglo-NORMANS, London and Dublin likely still
>> >>>> have the same king over them.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also, it's completely possible that a world where Hardrada wins has
>> >>>> London as _the_ centre of the Norse world; England can grow more and
>> >>>> better crops than even Denmark, let alone Sweden, Norway or Iceland,
>> >>>> even if (especially outside the MWP), there are likely to be years where
>> >>>> grapes would fail for the cold everywhere but perhaps within 30 miles of
>> >>>> Land's End.
>> >>>
>> >>> Would a Norse empire centered there have managed to stay united?
>> >>>
>> >>> Might Saxon pretenders seek refuge with the Scots or would all
>> >>> Britain be Norske-talende?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Well, let's see. IOTL, Saxon pretenders DID seek refuge with the Scots
>> >> and the results were Donalbain, Duncan and all the rest of the people
>> >> who slightly antedate
>> >
>> > Oof. POST-DATE, of course. Malcolm Canmore went running TO Edward's
>> > court when Duncan was taken down by Macbeth (and, of course, tying into
>> > what I said below about tanistry, neither he nor his father was
>> > necessarily the legitimate ruler under what most of his underlings
>> > thought the law was at that time, though Lulach admittedly didn't have a
>> > great claim himself either). I've got to stop posting when I'm passing
>> > out over the keys, as happened here, and once I can think lucidly again,
>> > I need to re-read better BEFORE I click Send.
>> Of course IOTL the descendants of Malcolm by his first wife,from the
>> Orkneys,were shoved aside and probably exterminated (not sure if any
>> were left after a baby granddaughter(IIRC) of Duncan II had her brains
>> dashed out) in favor of his descendants by his Saxon second wife
>> (Edgar's sister),this might not happen?
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meic_Uilleim
> 1. Duncan II of Scotland - c. 1060 ? 12 November 1094
> 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_fitz_Duncan - 1090/1094 - 1147 - son of Duncan II
> 3. Domnall mac Uilleim - died 1187 - grandson of Duncan II
> 4. Gille Escoib (or Gillescop) Meic Uilleim ... may have been a son of Domnall, or, more probably given his dates, a grandson - active in 1220's - so a great-grandson or 2G grandson of Duncan II.
> 5. The last remaining Meic Uilleim, an infant daughter of Gille Escoib or one of his sons, was put to death in 1229 or 1230
>
> So the girl may have been as far removed as a 4G grand-daughter of Duncan II - she died about 135 years after he did.