A Peaceful 'Norman Conquest'

[Jason]

As far as I can see this idea hasn't been posted before, maybe because it's considered too outlandish?

It's Christmas Day 1066, William of Normandy is crowned King of England. At his side is his loyal servant Harold Godwinson.

Let's say the POD is the death of Harold's father-1053- who when confronted by Edward the Confessor over his involvement in the death of Edward's brother (or nephew? Can't quite remember which) says something like 'if I were involved may God strike me down now', almost the next minute he has what appears to be a stroke and dies a few days later.

Now instead of this seeming to drive Harold into an even more confrontational mood with Edward, what if Harold and his brothers decide this is a sign from God to be good little Godwins and serve their king faithfully?

Everything continues much as it did, Harold still goes to Normandy and gives the oath to William willingly as Edward wishes William to succeed him so it's God's will and the Godwins don't want to suffer their father's fate.

1066-Edward dies and at Godwin's insistence the Witan honours Edward's request and offers the crown to William. We still get the Battle of Stamford Bridge, much as before, as William is delayed by the weather and the victor is still Harold, who sees this victory as a further sign of God's plan and William's right to the throne.
William still lands in October to news of Harold's great victory. Upon hearing of William's landing, Harold dashes south with the least hurt part of his army, meets William near Hastings and declares he is the King's faithful servant.

So there is no mass extermination of the old English nobility. William brings Norman's with him and some get land, a few castles are built but more along the borders, as per in Edward's reign, to defend the land and not hold down the English. The Norman influence is reduced but slowly adopted by the English as a fashion thing. William still recruits learned Englishmen who travel to Normandy and help improve its administration.

The biggest difference is the Church, the English Church remains intact under it's old leaders and the old Cathedrals survive. Some Normans arrive and make changes but it could be a two way process.

William adopts a English attitude to the other kingdoms of Britain-so long as they recognise him as their Overlord, he largely leaves them alone (OTL once the Kingdom of England is formed,it's not until after the Norman Conquest that there is any real English attempt to conquer the Welsh nations and Scotland-so blame those naughty Normans for it all )

The problem occurs when William dies, does a single heir emerge or does Normandy still go to one son and England to another? If there is a split, do the brothers still fight for the other's portion? Without the large number of lords holding land in both Normandy and England, the chance for civil strife could be reduced

[MerryPrankster]

Hmm...if the new Norman nobility act as they did in OTL, they might provoke some unrest. It was the Normans who were the first in England to claim the infamous droit de seignur (the right to sleep with the bride on her wedding night) and under Norman law, lords had MUCH more power over the lower classes than the Saxon leaders did.

Granted, there'll be a lot fewer of them in TTL, but if they're all concentrated in one area (a border zone, for example), you could see some localized revolts and perhaps even vigilante action by one or more Saxon thanes (if, say, a Norman lord attempts to force himself on one of their relations, he might find some huscarls coming to call).

[stodge]

It's an interesting scenario and well thought out by Jason. Indeed, there's evidence that William of Normandy and Harold Godwinson were kindred spirits after a fashion and it's quite possible to imagine them as friends.

One or two slight doubts cross my mind: the marriage of Harold's sister to Edward the Confessor was a deliberate attempt by Godwin to secure the dynasty (and there's a TL somewhere about a child from that marriage whose right to the throne in 1066 would have been far stronger than William's, whose claim was of course far stronger than that of Harold).

Second problem I have is that the rightful heir was Edgar the Aetheling and Harold could and arguably should have supported Edgar in front of William. Again, the complication is the "oath" given by Harold to William. Take that oath away, have Harold take the throne or back Edgar and you have a more secure Saxon kingdom.

Let's say then that Harold publically backs William - no need for William to wait until Christmas to come over. Indeed, he would have come earlier. After Stamford Bridge, where the combined Norman-Saxon army defeats the Norwegian force of Hardrada aided by Harold's brother, Tostig, William is assured of Harold and England's loyalty.

In OTL, William was initially fairly benevolent and it was only the revolts of 1068-70 that led to a much more severe policy. Given a peaceful England, I'm inclined to think William and his sons would have been more Anglicised with time. Indeed, with the economic and military support of Saxon England at his back, William becomes and remains a powerful force in European affairs, decisively defeating Philip of France and establishing a new Anglo-Norman Kingdom by the mid-1070s.

Edgar's meanderings in Scotland would achieve little though Scottish hostility would doubtless continue through Malcolm III's reign.

What then - does the Anglo-Norman Kingdom prove a rival to the Empire for European dominance. With Flanders allied through marriage, you have the main economic strength of Europe based on London and Rouen.

Does it last ? If William dies in 1087 as in OTL, Harold Godwinson might be able to oversee a peaceful transition but it seems unlikely unless William names a singlwe heir to the whole throne rather than his actual decision of giving Normandy to Robert and England to William Rufus.

To speculate aimlessly, you would have a civil war among the Normans and the Saxons between supporters of Robert and William Rufus. I doubt Robert's easy-going anarchy would prevail but it provides the Godwins with a gilt-edged opportunity. Harold's son, Harold Haroldson, leads a revolt which culminates in a battle at Hastings on October 14th 1088. William Rufus and his brother Henry are killed and Harold is crowned king as Harold II on Christmas Day signalling the restoration of Saxon England.

Too neat ?

[MerryPrankster]

Stodge,

A Norman Interlude and a Godwin Restoration? That's pretty interesting, though it is rather neat.

[stodge]

Perhaps a little too neat, Matt I like putting a note of symmetry into my TLs. In all seriousness, if the original premise is a peaceful transition in 1066, that would leave the Godwins in a position of enormous power in England.

In OTL, the Godwins were destroyed at Hastings and in the years following. They had become the dynastic family of England in the years after the accession of Edward the Confessor, replacing the former bloodline which rested with Edmund Ironside's grandson, Edgar the Aetheling. It's often forgotten that Edmund Ironside himself was of Norman descent, his mother having been Emma, mother of Duke Richard of Normandy.

The "oath" extracted from Harold by William gave the latter's claim important moral authority - my guess is that without the oath and had Harold supported Edgar in 1066, William would have done nothing about it. William's claim was stronger than Harold's but weaker than Edgar's.

Anyway, Harold's royal wife bore a son in early 1067 - the son supposedly met Henry I at Chester but that's apocryhal.

In the ATL, the Godwins are still powerful and with a more benevolent William, they would in effect be the most powerful of the English Barons. Unlike the Norman Barons, the Godwins would, I suspect, act as one bloc and with the residual support of the Saxon population, would be in a position to benefit from any Norman division or weakness. In OTL, when William Rufus faced defeat at the hands of Robert, he appealed directly to the English to aid him. The Saxons had no leader to rally to with the Godwins gone and Edgar's family in exile. In the ATL, this would have been very different. The Godwins could have offered William Rufus support to defeat Robert before turning on him and the remaining Normans.

Thus, in 1089, Harold Haroldson is king of England and Normandy is in anarchy with Robert fighting both disaffected barons and the growing power of the king of France.

As I said before, an even more interesting scenario has Edward the Confessor having a son by Harold's sister, Elfrida. The son would have been a teenager in 1066 but would have been the undisputed heir. Harold Godwinson would have been Regent but the "oath" extracted by William would have had far less significance.

Thus, Edmund III becomes king of England in early 1066....

[Jason]

Originally Posted by stodge

As I said before, an even more interesting scenario has Edward the Confessor having a son by Harold's sister, Elfrida. The son would have been a teenager in 1066 but would have been the undisputed heir. Harold Godwinson would have been Regent but the "oath" extracted by William would have had far less significance.

Thus, Edmund III becomes king of England in early 1066....

interesting but if Edward has an heir, it might mean he doesn't offer the throne to William at all. It's the odd thing about the whole situation is, if you were to believe all the claims made in OTL, Edward was going around offering the throne to just about anyone-I sometimes wonder if he believed that the Godwins would try to seize the throne after his death and was working on the theory of anyone but them?

With Edmund III, I think we are not looking at any Norman invasion and Harold hasn't made any oath (if you accept the theory that he was in Normandy on Edward's orders to offer William the throne-sometimes I reckon that the truth is far more complicated than anything we can dream up!). I reckon Hardald Hararada still turns up, gets wiped out and we remember 1066 as the year in which the last invasion of England was so completely wiped out that no one ever tried again. But you could argue that the chaos of the next few centuries-the Anarchy of Stephen and Matilda, War of the Roses, invasions of Wales, Ireland and Scotland, etc-would never have occurred in this 'Anglo-Saxon' England. There would be no attempted Danish attack in 1086. Could the late 11th through to when? really be a time of peace?