Early William the Conquerer Death?

"William's illegitimacy affected his early life. As a child, his life was in constant danger from his kinsmen who thought they had a more legitimate right to rule. One attempt on William's life occurred while he slept at a castle keep at Vaudreuil, when the murderer mistakenly stabbed the child sleeping next to William.[4] Nevertheless, when his father died, he was recognized as the heir."
Copied from Wikipedia (I know, unreliable source).

I was researching him for a history essay, and came across this. I wondered, if this murderer did kill William at this early age, what would happen to Normandy and England in the next one hundred years or so? 200 years? 500 years?
 
In brief, a lot.

Anglo-Saxon England stays Anglo-Saxon. England is not tied up with the continent in the same way. Still involved, yes, but not the tension between English and French kings.

Not sure if Normandy would collapse (as a quasi-independent duchy) or not, but it would probably not go as OTL.
 
You could see Odo take over the Norman throne, and lead something like the invasion of England. Whether or not he'd either try for the throne or succeed in taking it is an open question. If England remains an Anglo-Saxon kingdom.....initially a lot of the Norman Kingdom's policies were consolidation of existing Saxon ones. Whether the Witangemot would evolve into a Parliament-analogue is an open question, and certainly the English language bar a Norman conquest would be more like modern-day Frisian than like the present-day English language.

An interesting question is whether or not an Anglo-Saxon England would feel more tied to Northern Europe (the heritage of the Danelaw and Canute) or to the region of France/former Western Roman Empire (in which case things would be very different). If the former English culture will be more like that of contemporary Scandinavia, if the latter....absent any claims to a larger portion of France than that ruled by the French King the politics of the British Isles will have a greater focus on the Isles themselves.

Whether some future, ambitious Saxon monarch would thus unify the British Isles earlier is an interesting question.
 
If the death of William could prevent the Norman conquest of England, it would have repercussions on the whole of the British Isles. The Anglo-Saxon kingdom was quite decentralized, having only recently been part of the Danelaw. Wales and Ireland were as much tied to the Danes as they were to the English, and without Norman adventures carving out fiefdoms in those areas, both areas could either form more independent polities, or become part of some sort of Danish/Norwegian Kingdom.

Scotland, IMHO would be the biggest beneficiary. Though plagued by constant feuding amongst the nobles, there at least was a clearly established King by this time. Without the establishment of a strong kingdom to the South, the Scottish King could have established his hegemony over parts of Northumberland, or even Northern Ireland.

Another interesting question would be what would become of the surfeit of ambitious Norman knights without the British Isles open to their depredations. You could see a greater migration of Normans to the Med. region, and a stronger Norman Kingdom of Sicily, which could mean a greater headache for Alexius I. OTOH, it would also mean more available manpower for the crusades, and more knights willing to settle in the Holy Land, without as attractive fiefs to return to.
 
Anglo-Saxon England stays Anglo-Saxon. England is not tied up with the continent in the same way. Still involved, yes, but not the tension between English and French kings.

Not necessarily. Whether or not England gets dragged into European affairs depends entirely on whether or not the Anglo-Saxon Kings of the House of Wessex can work out a stable succession...
 
The Anglo-Saxons were by no means isolated from Continental affairs. They even married off Noble daughters to the Kievan Rus.
 
Not necessarily. Whether or not England gets dragged into European affairs depends entirely on whether or not the Anglo-Saxon Kings of the House of Wessex can work out a stable succession...

Which they seem to have done, OTL, prior to Harold being usurped. Or Edgar being usurped if you want to be technical about who was the last king.

The Anglo-Saxons were by no means isolated from Continental affairs. They even married off Noble daughters to the Kievan Rus.

Indeed, but they avoided the issues that were present in English-continental relations with the French nobles whose vows as feudal underlings to the Kings of France chafed at their egos as kings in their own right.
 
As a West Anglian (a genuine Englishman)...

...I'd say (hope?) that Odo is more likely to go after the Papacy than soggy England. Furthermore, the French nearly re-took Normandy several times in William's life.

I like the Scandinavian connection - a Nordic Union might emerge instead of an EU, with Britain more Danish and Norse. This might mean a fairer deal for Denmark, a stronger and longer-lived Swedish Baltic Empire and (hope boings eternal) a better deal for Poland and Finland.

Maybe no 'Irish Question'? Certainly no Hundred Year's War and maybe England has a home-grown monarchy instead of a succession of foreign-sourced rulers.
 
If the death of William could prevent the Norman conquest of England, it would have repercussions on the whole of the British Isles. The Anglo-Saxon kingdom was quite decentralized, having only recently been part of the Danelaw. Wales and Ireland were as much tied to the Danes as they were to the English, and without Norman adventures carving out fiefdoms in those areas, both areas could either form more independent polities, or become part of some sort of Danish/Norwegian Kingdom.

Scotland, IMHO would be the biggest beneficiary. Though plagued by constant feuding amongst the nobles, there at least was a clearly established King by this time. Without the establishment of a strong kingdom to the South, the Scottish King could have established his hegemony over parts of Northumberland, or even Northern Ireland.

Another interesting question would be what would become of the surfeit of ambitious Norman knights without the British Isles open to their depredations. You could see a greater migration of Normans to the Med. region, and a stronger Norman Kingdom of Sicily, which could mean a greater headache for Alexius I. OTOH, it would also mean more available manpower for the crusades, and more knights willing to settle in the Holy Land, without as attractive fiefs to return to.

maybe the welsh would benifit in some way:confused:
 
If the death of William could prevent the Norman conquest of England, it would have repercussions on the whole of the British Isles. The Anglo-Saxon kingdom was quite decentralized, having only recently been part of the Danelaw. Wales and Ireland were as much tied to the Danes as they were to the English, and without Norman adventures carving out fiefdoms in those areas, both areas could either form more independent polities, or become part of some sort of Danish/Norwegian Kingdom.

Actually, England was quite centralized. It had permanent administrative centres controlling the Shire system. Even Winchester, the capital of the former Kingdom of Wessex, was the location of England's treasury. The Anglo-Saxons of the Eleventh Century even used writs to help with the administration of their kingdom. While its true that William and his successors would advance on this system, Normandy was as feudal as the rest of France, and prone to rebellion.
 
Top