Edgar as King of the English 1066-1126?

If Edward the Confessor had actually rewarded those subordinate to Earl Godwin and thus prevented him and his sons from coming back and effectively taking control of the kingdom and secured the succession of Edgar, what would Edgar's rule have been like? This is assuming that his father, Edward died due to anything other than Harold Godwinson's machinations. I personally think he would have been an excellent King as in OTL he was recorded as being a great speaker and a skilled diplomat and military commander.
So this thread is about how England would have done under 60+ years of Edgar with the Godwins either in exile or certainly not the power behind the throne.

It should be noted that Norman influence on England was more or less Edward's deed : Edgar being king isn't going to prevent Normans to simply acknowledge this but would probably lead to same effects than IOTL, critically with the anti-Norman faction that involved every great noble of the kingdom (Godwin, but Siward and Leofric as well).

The big problem about screwing Godwin, is that Edward needed his support. He was the main prince in late Anglo-Saxon England, and without him, taking and keeping the crown would be far harder to do.
Screwing Godwin would have been, at best, seen badly by other great houses a bit like in 1051 where they didn't supported Edward when Godwin came back with a̶ ̶v̶e̶n̶g̶e̶n̶c̶e̶ an army and with popular support.

So, what you'd need first would be to butterfly away Norman presence. Which would probably implies no Edward's reign in first place, making Edgar's reign even less likely (I'm unsure about the great speech and military skills of a 14 years old pretender)
Basically, what you'd need would be Edward the Exile being crowned king of England with an earlier death of Edward I (if possible in the late 40's or early 50's) when the other nobles would have to agree on it, lacking the reinforcement of their powers and prestige they obtained by the 50's/60's, and with a lesser Norman presence in England.

Of course, that in turn would imply a different *Edgar would it be only because his birth would be butterflied away, but any surviving son of Edward could inherit himself more likely.

[FONT=&quot]Edgar the Outlaw, one of my favourite Anglo-Saxons. An objective assessment of his career leads one to the conclusion that he was a failure – although the fact, against all the odds, that he managed to survive for so long in the post-Conquest period shows he wasn’t a total failure.

I agree with LSCatilina’s statement

I'm unsure about the great speech and military skills of a 14 years old pretender.

Click to expand...

Indeed I would go further and argue that even as a mature man he was not

a great speaker and a skilled diplomat and military commander.

Click to expand...

(I’m curious – where did you find this assessment?)

However an ATL Edgar, where he becomes king, might be able to develop into a ruler who is a great speaker and a skilled diplomat and military commander.
My suggested POD would be no rebellion against Tostig in Oct 1065. Although technically the POD is probably earlier ie the assassination of certain Northumbrian thegns don’t take place. The Confessor probably lives a bit longer meaning Edgar older when acclaimed and crowned king. Or not – the point here is that Edgar can become king because Tostig would be a counter-balance to Harold.[/FONT]

Intrigued...

...Tostig was very skilled at being greedy and angering his subordinates. He was the weakest link. Replace him by Morcar/Morkhere/Morkere at an earlier date and Edward could balance Harold and his brothers. A stronger north might have trounced HH at Fulford, so the southern fyrd levies and housecarles could then have thrashed the Bastard at Senlac-fight.

Write the TL!

perdu42 said:

[FONT=&quot]Edgar the Outlaw, one of my favourite Anglo-Saxons. An objective assessment of his career leads one to the conclusion that he was a failure – although the fact, against all the odds, that he managed to survive for so long in the post-Conquest period shows he wasn’t a total failure.

I agree with LSCatilina’s statement Indeed I would go further and argue that even as a mature man he was not (I’m curious – where did you find this assessment? d.[/FONT]

Click to expand...

In the book 'the Normans in Scotland' I think. It was said that he had become a great speaker under the Normans and he also was chosen to lead the invasion of Scotland to put his nephew and namesake on the throne.

Abdominalz said:

In the book 'the Normans in Scotland' I think. It was said that he had become a great speaker under the Normans and he also was chosen to lead the invasion of Scotland to put his nephew and namesake on the throne.

Click to expand...

I think the important point there is "under the Normans". That he had potential is a thing, but that this potential was fulfilled in 1066 is another one.
Now, I gladly concede that he could have develloped same skills IATL, but for reasons I listed in my first posts, I think the best way to have an *Edgar Atheling as king would be to partially butterfly him.