WI: Edward the Confessor names Fulk of Mantes his heir?

The last de facto King of the House of Wessex, St Edward the Confessor, seems to have variously named as his heir his cousin once removed William of Normandy (who eventually triumphed) and his brother-in-law Harold Godwineson. The best genealogical claim belonged to his great-nephew, Edgar Atheling, who was briefly acclaimed King in 1066 by the Witan.

My question is: what if Edward preferred his nephew Fulk instead?

Edward's full-blooded sister Godgifu (or Goda) married the Count of the Vexin. Their eldest son Ralph died long in the 1050s, leaving a young son named Harold, and the second son Walter died in 1063, while a captive of William the Bastard. This left the third and final son, Fulk, who died in 1068. Given his mother's death in 1047 Fulk would have certainly been an adult in 1066, and the King's closest kinsman by blood and only full-blooded heir (William was a bastard and distant, Edgar Atheling the grandson of a half-brother). Why not prefer him and move him into the succession instead? And what are the chances of the three-quarters Norman Fulk prevailing against William and Hardrade?
 
Where are you getting your information from, all I can find is Bishop Fulk (Fulques/ Foulques) who was born 1021 in, Mantes, Normandy, France, son of CountDreux(Drogo) "Valois, Comte de Amiens & Vexin" Mantes (formerly Vexin) Godgifu Wessex and died 1058
 
Where are you getting your information from, all I can find is Bishop Fulk (Fulques/ Foulques) who was born 1021 in, Mantes, Normandy, France, son of CountDreux(Drogo) "Valois, Comte de Amiens & Vexin" Mantes (formerly Vexin) Godgifu Wessex and died 1058

Straight from wiki... so he was dead?
 
I'm assuming you got all of this info from English Wikipedia?

In fact, Fulk was Bishop of Amiens from a young age, meaning he'd probably been in the Church for several years before that, and maybe destined for that from birth. Nobody's going to accept a Bishop as King of the English, given that the role required a warrior at all times, not only 1066. Also, he's not going to start a dynasty exactly, is he? The succession after him depends on the relative popularity of the leader of the Godwinsons, Edgar AEtheling, Harold son of Ralph, and various other grandees.

Plus, almost every other site on the net seems to agree that Fulk died in 1058, not 1068 (apart from a couple who confuse him with a later Bishop Fulk of Amiens, who died c.1077) so this renders the whole thing a bit pointless. For instance: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foulques_d'Amiens
 
What about Harald Sigurdsson, becoming the king of England, with the Sigurdssons becoming the uniting force behind a united kindom, being a fairer ruler in the north.
Uniting British Isles into the Scandinavian Union.

Or .... On 8 June 1042, when Harthacnut attended a wedding for his former standard-bearer, Tovi the Proud and his bride, Gytha, daughter of the courtier Osgod Clapa. Instead of getting blind drunk and dying at the wedding, what if a stomuch problem keeps him from drinking, meaning instead of dying aged 23 without wife or issue, he lives long enough to marry and have an heir?
 
In case anybody is interested, here are the male descendants of King Edmund that were around in 1066. Obviously this is only the ones who became prominent, and almost any Ealdorman or North Sea ruler could have become king by right of conquest, but here goes:

- Edgar AEtheling - last male-line descendant, only a kid.
- Harold of Ewias - son of Ralph the Timid, also a kid
- Gospatric of Northumbria - descendant of AEthelred the Unready via a daughter. Living in Scotland.

There were also descendants of Sweyn Forkbeard, principally Sweyn Estridsen, King of Denmark, and AElfwine Haroldsson, a monk. That's basically it for people with hereditary claims to the throne (elective in itself, but rarely eschewing the main House). Other alternatives: Harald Hardrada, any son or grandson of Godwin, Edwin/Morcar, Waltheof - all by tenuous claims or shear brawn.
 
Or .... On 8 June 1042, when Harthacnut attended a wedding for his former standard-bearer, Tovi the Proud and his bride, Gytha, daughter of the courtier Osgod Clapa. Instead of getting blind drunk and dying at the wedding, what if a stomuch problem keeps him from drinking, meaning instead of dying aged 23 without wife or issue, he lives long enough to marry and have an heir?

Kingdom of the North follows this basic POD, succeding in getting the Godwinsons as dukes of Normandy for giggles
 
I'm assuming you got all of this info from English Wikipedia?

In fact, Fulk was Bishop of Amiens from a young age, meaning he'd probably been in the Church for several years before that, and maybe destined for that from birth. Nobody's going to accept a Bishop as King of the English, given that the role required a warrior at all times, not only 1066. Also, he's not going to start a dynasty exactly, is he? The succession after him depends on the relative popularity of the leader of the Godwinsons, Edgar AEtheling, Harold son of Ralph, and various other grandees.

Plus, almost every other site on the net seems to agree that Fulk died in 1058, not 1068 (apart from a couple who confuse him with a later Bishop Fulk of Amiens, who died c.1077) so this renders the whole thing a bit pointless. For instance: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foulques_d'Amiens

I did, aye. In that day and age I don't think being a bishop would be any more an impediment than being a bishop was: Odo of Bayeux was a bishop and a warrior all at once. If Edward named Fulk as heir, then we'd have the House of Mantes, so as new a house as the Godwinesons were OTL.

Still, if he was dead, then there's his nephew. If Ralph the Timid died in 1057, the very youngest his son could be was 9 in 1066. This website has Ralph married circa 1044 and the son born circa 1055. Still too young to rule in his own right, but perhaps old enough for Edward the Confessor to bring him in as an adoptive son-type-arrangement.
 
The last de facto King of the House of Wessex, St Edward the Confessor
I think you have your terminology mixed up. Edward III was de jure King of England. A case could be made that in the later part of his reign Harold Godwineson, Earl of Wessex was de facto King of England – he is sometimes referred to as sub regulus ie underking.
Still it is an interesting, if somewhat moot, point you raised about Fulk. (I’d never come across his name before – always good to learn something new!:)) I think it says heaps about how the Old English viewed those suitable for kingship. That is why efforts were undertaken to find the sons of Edmund II Ironside – of whom only Edward the Exile was still alive.

In case anybody is interested, here are the male descendants of King Edmund that were around in 1066
Hmmm, I guess technically Edgar AEtheling, Harold of Ewias and Gospatric of Northumbria are all descendants of King Edmund I (r:939-946). It would be more accurate to say they are the descendants of Edmund’s grandson King Æthelred II Unræd (r:978-1013,1014-1016). It is likely Gospatric also had two brothers (Maldred and Dolfin) who can be added to the mix.
 
Hmmm, I guess technically Edgar AEtheling, Harold of Ewias and Gospatric of Northumbria are all descendants of King Edmund I (r:939-946). It would be more accurate to say they are the descendants of Edmund’s grandson King Æthelred II Unræd (r:978-1013,1014-1016). It is likely Gospatric also had two brothers (Maldred and Dolfin) who can be added to the mix.

Well, yes, but the descendants of Edmund and AEthelred were wholly contiguous and Edmund was earlier, so there we go.

I think Harold is a very interesting proposal, but the Witan evidently wanted a grown man in 1066, otherwise they would have chosen Edgar.
 
What about the Angevins and Burgundians gaining Normandy, the Angevins and Burgundians have legitemate claims to Normandy compared to William the Bastard.
 
What about the Angevins and Burgundians gaining Normandy, the Angevins and Burgundians have legitemate claims to Normandy compared to William the Bastard.

Are we just randomly throwing out potential 11th century conflicts now? ;)

Anyway, the Burgundians were cognatic heirs of the Normans, barring the line of William the Bastard (which could be set aside if he embarrasses himself over the English succession, maybe...) while the Comte d'Evreux was the heir by Salic law, which almost certainly wouldn't be applied. However, the Norman nobles would prefer a powerless child like Robert Curthose, going by their previous form.
 
I think you have your terminology mixed up. Edward III was de jureKing of England.
"King of the English", actually, I think. The change in terminology was apparently a Norman one, to match the change in emphasis from leadership of the English people to ownership of the whole country.
 
I think you have your terminology mixed up. Edward III was de jure King of England. A case could be made that in the later part of his reign Harold Godwineson, Earl of Wessex was de facto King of England – he is sometimes referred to as sub regulus ie underking.

I wanted to pre-empt those who would cite Godwineson or Atheling as the last Anglo-Saxon Kings. Edward the Confessor was the last to sit on the throne and govern all of England, versus Godwineson who spent his short reign fighting off invaders and Atheling who never truly ruled at all.
 
Simreeve wrote:
"King of the English", actually, I think. The change in terminology was apparently a Norman one, to match the change in emphasis from leadership of the English people to ownership of the whole country.
Quite correct, my mistake.
Velasco
wrote:
I wanted to pre-empt those who would cite Godwineson or Atheling as the last Anglo-Saxon Kings. Edward the Confessor was the last to sit on the throne and govern all of England, versus Godwineson who spent his short reign fighting off invaders and Atheling who never truly ruled at all.
Ah, yes, I see what you are getting at now. Apologies.

Well, yes, but the descendants of Edmund and AEthelred were wholly contiguous and Edmund was earlier, so there we go.

I think Harold is a very interesting proposal, but the Witan evidently wanted a grown man in 1066, otherwise they would have chosen Edgar.

Eh? Is that another way of saying Edgar Ætheling, Harold Ralphson and Gospatric Maldredson (and his brothers) were all second cousins? That is they were all great-grandsons of King Æthelred II Unræd.

The Witan chooses the king. I agree the Witan chose Harold Godwineson, Earl of Wessex, to succeed Edward III because they needed a grown man. Gospatric was a grown man but (like Harold Ralphson) his descent from Æthelred II was through the female line. Even though Harold Godwinson was only Edward III’s brother-in law, he was the ‘man on the ground’ so to speak – Gospatric wasn’t.

It is speculated that Edward III promoted his nephew Ralph of Mantes so that he would be considered for the throne. If so, that plan came seriously undone in 1055 and with Ralphs death in 1057 obviously never revived. But WI Ralph lived? That he somehow recovered his stocks - eg. successfully campaigning with the Godwinsons against the Welsh. The Witan in OTL showed itself to be flexible in choosing Harold Godwinson as king. Would they have chosen Ralph if he had lived?
 
Having looked at the House of Wessex tree and history of that time it's extremely difficult to get anyone else named as Edward the Confessor's heir (NB "Edward III" is anachronistic and actually refers the third Edward after the Conquest) who isn't Harold Godwineson.
Especially since anyone else more suitable would have been more suitable than Edward himself and either be done away with or replace him
 
Eh? Is that another way of saying Edgar Ætheling, Harold Ralphson and Gospatric Maldredson (and his brothers) were all second cousins? That is they were all great-grandsons of King Æthelred II Unræd.

No, just that there were no descendants of Edmund in 1066 who weren't also descendants of AEthelred. I mentioned Edmund solely to reinforce the fact that the next-closest relatives to the people I mentioned were pretty bloody distant and therefore all but irrelevant in the eyes of any member of the Witan who cared about the hereditary principle.

I agree that a surviving Ralph would be a - if not the - front-runner in 1066. His appointment seems to have been part of the formation of a short-lived counter-weight to the Godwinsons on the part of the Confessor: AElfgar of Mercia (father of Edwin and Morcar) was given East Anglia at this time while Siward of Northumbria was favoured. In 1066, these were the Ealdormen: Harold Godwinson, Gyrth Godwinson, Leofwine Godwinson, Edwin, Morcar and Waltheof. I expect that an extra Ralph, plus the approval of Edward, could swing the vote, although campaigning alongside Harold wouldn't necessarily endear Ralph to his major rival.
 
Having looked at the House of Wessex tree and history of that time it's extremely difficult to get anyone else named as Edward the Confessor's heir (NB "Edward III" is anachronistic and actually refers the third Edward after the Conquest) who isn't Harold Godwineson.
Especially since anyone else more suitable would have been more suitable than Edward himself and either be done away with or replace him

[FONT=&quot](Laughs) Well I asked for that. Quite correct. Shorthand on my part but I thought it preferable to Pious Ned.[/FONT]
 
I've seen speculation that Godwin was actually descended [in the male line] from King AEthelred of Wessex, an older brother of Alfred the Great, whose sons were excluded from the succession because -- unlike Alfred -- they were too young at the time of their father's death to lead armies against the Vikings. I've also been told that that speculation only began in Victorian times, and lacks historical evidence, but it certainly isn't entirely implausible...
 
Top