Edgar Aetheling

I've been doing some reading on the above, Edgar Aetheling, and was wondering, how plausible would it have been for him to become and remain King in 1066 if William the Conqueror died during the norman invasion?
 
I have always wanted to follow a surviving Anglo-Saxon England TL, but everyone else has chickened out on it.
 
He was actually elected King in 1066 after Hastings but it was moot as William survived. If William died but the Normans still won Eustace of Boulogne? However the English might well rally to Edgar he WAS the legitimate heir to Edward the Confessor but Gyrth or Leofwine might be seen as a better option (if they survived this alt Hastings).
 
He was actually elected King in 1066 after Hastings but it was moot as William survived. If William died but the Normans still won Eustace of Boulogne? However the English might well rally to Edgar he WAS the legitimate heir to Edward the Confessor but Gyrth or Leofwine might be seen as a better option (if they survived this alt Hastings).

Hmm true enough, if William did die, who would take up the norman cause?
 

jahenders

Banned
I think, if William dies, it's highly debatable whether the Papal "bull" /seal of approval for Norman invasion would still be good. Some other Norman might want to continue the effort regardless, but that would impact his support.

Hmm true enough, if William did die, who would take up the norman cause?
 
Assuming we're talking of a still victorious, for Normans, Hastings.

It's admittedly a bit blur, but giving that William was the soul of the coalition he lead, you *may* end with Edgar as king (critically we're talking of a young king without overwelming support from Anglo-Saxon nobility): no Norman or French lord could really take the lead, not without much quarrel IMO; and William's sons were too young and you won't have much fuss about getting rid of the whole affair, at least partially.

I don't think, however, it would remove the Norman influence in Late Anglo-Saxon England : more likely, it would reinforce it, with Normans at least taking over Southern England and Godwinsson's lands, and having a strong place on Anglo-Saxon politics (stronger than during Edward's reign, that is).

Meaning a stronger Norman and North-Western French nobility, established on both sides of the Channel.

If Edgar would refuse, however, I don't think Normans are just going to leave. It would be more chaotic, England would be more akin, politically, to what exist in France at this point with Robert not being an hegemonic king.

I think, if William dies, it's highly debatable whether the Papal "bull" /seal of approval for Norman invasion would still be good.
Critically when actual evidence it ever existed is really thin at best.
The only real evidence we have is an aposteriori acceptence of the invasion and takeover, which is quite different.
 
Assuming we're talking of a still victorious, for Normans, Hastings.

It's admittedly a bit blur, but giving that William was the soul of the coalition he lead, you *may* end with Edgar as king (critically we're talking of a young king without overwelming support from Anglo-Saxon nobility): no Norman or French lord could really take the lead, not without much quarrel IMO; and William's sons were too young and you won't have much fuss about getting rid of the whole affair, at least partially.

I don't think, however, it would remove the Norman influence in Late Anglo-Saxon England : more likely, it would reinforce it, with Normans at least taking over Southern England and Godwinsson's lands, and having a strong place on Anglo-Saxon politics (stronger than during Edward's reign, that is).

Meaning a stronger Norman and North-Western French nobility, established on both sides of the Channel.

If Edgar would refuse, however, I don't think Normans are just going to leave. It would be more chaotic, England would be more akin, politically, to what exist in France at this point with Robert not being an hegemonic king.


Critically when actual evidence it ever existed is really thin at best.
The only real evidence we have is an aposteriori acceptence of the invasion and takeover, which is quite different.

Okay interesting, so are you suggesting, that in order for Edgar to become King, he might well need to resort to allowing some normans to settle in England? And perhaps marry one as well?
 
Okay interesting, so are you suggesting, that in order for Edgar to become King, he might well need to resort to allowing some normans to settle in England? And perhaps marry one as well?

It may be the case, yes. That said, Normans in Anglo-Saxon England wouldn't be a novelty : Edward's reign is filled with Normans advisors. It would "only" increase it up to 11.
 
It may be the case, yes. That said, Normans in Anglo-Saxon England wouldn't be a novelty : Edward's reign is filled with Normans advisors. It would "only" increase it up to 11.

True enough.

So with the backing of these somewhat leaderless Normans, would Edgar be able to defeat the threats of other interested claimants? Particularly the House of Godwin?

And relations with Scotland might well be a whole lot different.
 

libbrit

Banned
So there is a possibility of an Anglo Saxon `King in the North` and a Norman `King in the South`. How very Westeros.
 
So with the backing of these somewhat leaderless Normans
Not exactly leaderless, but having many leaders of their own.

, would Edgar be able to defeat the threats of other interested claimants? Particularly the House of Godwin?
Godwinssons would be exiled ITTL, critically with their powerbase being likely taken over by Franco-Norman nobles.
As for other claimants...whatever Anglo-Saxons or Danes, I'd say they could.

But if William's sons try something, Edgar would have an hard time going against : he could be eventually forced to acknowledge Robert as a successor.

And relations with Scotland might well be a whole lot different.
Maybe. Depend a lot from the PoD and its immediate consequences, too much for being forseeable.
That said, the suzerainty over Scotland would likely remain a main feature of English perception.
 
I think, if William dies, it's highly debatable whether the Papal "bull" /seal of approval for Norman invasion would still be good. Some other Norman might want to continue the effort regardless, but that would impact his support.

Well, "bull" is the right word, it was a load of bull, apparently.
Still, all the support for William was for him personally, not for some random Norman general.

If William dies, but it's still a Norman victory (which probably means he has to die after the battle's pretty much decided, or the Normans are likely to rout), hmmm... Maybe, one of the generals keeps on, nominally in the name of William's son.

If both William and Harold die, and it's an Anglo-Saxon victory, then Edgar might well become king.
 
Hmm true enough, if William did die, who would take up the norman cause?

I think, if William dies, it's highly debatable whether the Papal "bull" /seal of approval for Norman invasion would still be good. Some other Norman might want to continue the effort regardless, but that would impact his support.

Would not surprise me if the Normans would fall into infighting between the uncles/brothers and Williams children.
 
So there is a possibility of an Anglo Saxon `King in the North` and a Norman `King in the South`. How very Westeros.


Aha indeed, though not sure how long such a thing could last

Not exactly leaderless, but having many leaders of their own.


Godwinssons would be exiled ITTL, critically with their powerbase being likely taken over by Franco-Norman nobles.
As for other claimants...whatever Anglo-Saxons or Danes, I'd say they could.



But if William's sons try something, Edgar would have an hard time going against : he could be eventually forced to acknowledge Robert as a successor.


Maybe. Depend a lot from the PoD and its immediate consequences, too much for being forseeable.
That said, the suzerainty over Scotland would likely remain a main feature of English perception.

Okay interesting, hmm Malcolm III might hafe something to say about that.

Well, "bull" is the right word, it was a load of bull, apparently.
Still, all the support for William was for him personally, not for some random Norman general.

If William dies, but it's still a Norman victory (which probably means he has to die after the battle's pretty much decided, or the Normans are likely to rout), hmmm... Maybe, one of the generals keeps on, nominally in the name of William's son.

If both William and Harold die, and it's an Anglo-Saxon victory, then Edgar might well become king.

Interesting

Would not surprise me if the Normans would fall into infighting between the uncles/brothers and Williams children.

Also interesting
 
Top