1135: RIP Centralised England (at least for a few centuries)

During the period of English history known as the Anarchy from 1135 to 1154 in which Empress Matilda and Stephen of Blois fought for the English throne, royal authority broke down and England was de facto shattered into different regional principalities over which the local lord was de facto King. Matilda's son Henry offcourse won and spectacularly reversed all that, but how can we make the outcome be different and have that decentralised England survive until at least the reformation?
What would the long term consequences of a decentralised England lasting throughout the Middle Ages be to this day?
 
The British Empire doesn't form/ is weaker, much more likely to see continuously independent Scotland Ireland Wales, maybe even Cornwall. Spanish and Portuguese colonize OTL USA.
 
The British Empire doesn't form/ is weaker, much more likely to see continuously independent Scotland Ireland Wales, maybe even Cornwall. Spanish and Portuguese colonize OTL USA.
I agree, it would certainly give Ireland a few more centuries breathing space to get its act together and unite, Scotland would certainly be in a strong position during those centuries and maybe Wales too, with Gwynedd having more of a free reign. Nevertheless Wales' annexation by England was certainly inevitable in the long term and the best Cornwall could be by this point would be a disctinct region of England with its De facto independence, like every other English region, being dependent on weak central control.
 

Driftless

Donor
Also, a British Isles made up of small kingdoms becomes a ripe target for invader, including the Scots, Welsh, & Irish, along with poachers from the continent.
 
The British Empire doesn't form/ is weaker, much more likely to see continuously independent Scotland Ireland Wales, maybe even Cornwall. Spanish and Portuguese colonize OTL USA.

Why would Portugal or Spain colonize OTL USA. They didn't in OTL for a good reason : they concentrated in what was more easily exploitable. If England is too divided to participate in the colonization of north America, then France is going to get a bigger part of the north atlantic coast, as well as Netherlands maybe.

But what is more important is that England is not going to be able to project anywhere for centuries : No hundred years war and no valance of powers policy.
 

Driftless

Donor
How does a (weaker) non-centralized England affect the Reformation? I'm specifically thinking of the events connected to the 1588 Spanish Armada ( or is that too far out in time?...)
 
Why would Portugal or Spain colonize OTL USA. They didn't in OTL for a good reason : they concentrated in what was more easily exploitable. If England is too divided to participate in the colonization of north America, then France is going to get a bigger part of the north atlantic coast, as well as Netherlands maybe.

But what is more important is that England is not going to be able to project anywhere for centuries : No hundred years war and no valance of powers policy.
I think given enough time without Englishmen in America one of them would have eventually made it there.

Could this do for England what the HRE did for Germany? Making it more populous and overall smarter/richer due to the competing factor and closer capitals?
 
AFAIK medieval England was more ''centralized'' than France or the Holy Roman Empire.

So an ATL England more like those would give some breathing space to their neighbours, but a disunited Ireland might still be invaded by ambitious powerful English nobles. Just like how IOTL the king of France wasn't able to stop William the Conqueror's invasion of England.
So instead a united Norman kingdom of Ireland could arise, which position towards England probably would be somewhat similar to the position of Scotland.
 
AFAIK medieval England was more ''centralized'' than France or the Holy Roman Empire.

So an ATL England more like those would give some breathing space to their neighbours, but a disunited Ireland might still be invaded by ambitious powerful English nobles. Just like how IOTL the king of France wasn't able to stop William the Conqueror's invasion of England.
So instead a united Norman kingdom of Ireland could arise, which position towards England probably would be somewhat similar to the position of Scotland.
You're right, and if I can add to that Richard De Clare's ascendancy in Ireland would have been unchecked by Stephen's son I think so Ireland would become a united Norman Kingdom though whether it would have developed more like ATL England and OTL France or like OTL England is uncertain. Either way, A Norman invasion and unification of Ireland not under the rule of the King of England would have certainly changed the future of the British Isles and probably added the Emerald isle to the list of nations ready squabble over North America.

While I think a different end to the Anarchy would have certainly resulted in England being more decentralised, I don't think it would have incapacitated England when it comes to North American Colonisation. I certainly would like to think that a Philip Augustus/Henry II type descendant of King Stephen would have recovered some of the royal authority lost.
 
Well, consider this : which far-away territories did decentralized HRE, Italy and Poland colonize ?

None. A central strong enough government was a condition for such a kind of colonization.

Conquering Ireland took centuries to centralized England. So it's not a kinglet of Wales of Northumbria that is going to succeed in doubt this.

Being unités and centralized did not prevent England from being one of the most innovative countries. Having it divided will probably condemn it to perpetual internal wars that will jeooardize its development and prevent it being an actor in the international stage.

Divided England will not be able to sustain a significant Navy.
 
So if we have England be a France like Kingdom under the House of Blois and put off a Henry II/ Philip Augustus like figure even for just a century, radical differences would be visible, a United Norman Kingdom ruling Ireland, Scotland ruling down to the Tees and maybe either Lord Rhys or Llywelyn Fawr might do something magical in Wales in the direction of unification.
 

Cueg

Banned
The title "King of England" will still exist and eventually a duke will become powerful enough to acquire the title and thus, vassalize the other dukes. Furthermore, the reason England did not conquer Ireland until the 16th century was due to factors that didn't involve an inability to do so(the focus on France and the general lack of wealth that could be extracted).
 
Well, consider this : which far-away territories did decentralized HRE, Italy and Poland colonize ?
The Brandenburger Gold Coast, the Dutch Republic's Empire...
The premise is, if England is decentralized for 100 years or so what affect would it have? England would presumably be centralized by the 1600s ITTL.
 
Top