Big difference from being a "Kingdom of England" and a "Region of England".It would just stay England, I would think.
I think it could go either way. Even if the circumstances are not the same as OTL's, an eventual unification is still possible in my opinion, though one would need to find reasons for that.
Unification would happen for pretty much the same reasons it did in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, a Jarl gaining enough power to be able to lay claim the whole of the country and make it stick.
Yes, that would work. There were some precedents for "high kings" in the region, like the Bretwalda. It's not impossible that a very competent one could assert a more complete dominance.
But likewise, Denmark Sweden and Norway did not unify with each other. Could not England remain divded into 2 or 3 kingdoms?
If it's not being united by a native Anglo-Saxon Kingdom though, would unification of the Anglish-Kingdoms as such have any strength? Seems to me it'd be just as likely they'd end up paying fealty to a Danish Overlord individually than being united as a political unit.This could have happened both in our TL and this one. However, I think english geography is better for unification than Scandinavia's (the three countries have considerably large barriers between each other, while England is mostly flat).
But at the point of this PoD "England" was barely a thing, being more of an broad shared identity between different kingdoms. It gained a lot more strength when Alfred and his descendants began to fight the Danes and use the concept of Angelcynn ("English-kind" or English people) to legitimate themselves as liberators. Alfred's early defeat could weaken this identity, as now all of these Germanic kingdoms of Britain would be under people with a different identity.It would just stay England, I would think. Thats what the Vikings called it and William of Normandy's conquest didnt change its name.
At this point, would it make any difference? The angles were too a germanic people who emigrated to the islands and assimilated their conquered subjects, yet they didn't bowed immediately to the "old saxons" of Low Saxony (though in our timeline we had danish kings of England, like Cnut and his son).If it's not being united by a native Anglo-Saxon Kingdom though, would unification of the Anglish-Kingdoms as such have any strength? Seems to me it'd be just as likely they'd end up paying fealty to a Danish Overlord individually than being united as a political unit.
By the time of Sweyn Forkbeard's conquest and Cnut the Great. Edgar the Peaceful had created something that functioned as an "English Monarchy" for them to claim; TTL, such a thing doesn't exist, meaning the individual kingdoms would more like than not be swearing fealty individually. This also means that any other norse-held territory in the British Isles -- like in Ireland or in the Scottish Isles -- is politically more politically connected to such an norse overlord than they'd be to their more specific regions.At this point, would it make any difference? ... (though in our timeline we had danish kings of England, like Cnut and his son).
It really depends of the circumstances, as there is no magical factor preventing these kingdoms from unifying the region at some point. Besides, they'd still have a shared history and heritage of of both Anglo-Saxon and Norse origin.By the time of Sweyn Forkbeard's conquest and Cnut the Great. Edgar the Peaceful had created something that functioned as an "English Monarchy" for them to claim; TTL, such a thing doesn't exist, meaning the individual kingdoms would more like than not be swearing fealty individually.
Probable. Even in our timeline the kings of Dublin, Mann and the Isles were tied either to Scandinavia Jorvik (at the time just known as "Northumbria") or Norway.This also means that any other norse-held territory in the British Isles -- like in Ireland or in the Scottish Isles -- is politically more politically connected to such an norse overlord than they'd be to their more specific regions.