Edward the Exile Lives

[robertp6165]

Edward the Exile, born 1016, was the son of King Edmund Ironside of England who had been sent by the usurper Canute to be murdered in Denmark but had, instead, been spirited away to exile in Russia and Hungary, spent most of his life away from his native England. But when King Edward the Confessor discovered he was alive and in exile, he recalled him to England and named him as his heir. In OTL, Prince Edward died shortly after returning to England in 1057, but he was only 41 years old at the time. What if he had lived (lets assume a natural lifespan of sixty, which means that assuming his life is not cut short by violence, he would die in 1076).

What happens when Edward the Confessor dies in 1066?

--William of Normandy, following a visit to Edward the Confessor (probably in 1052), asserted that King Edward had named him as his successor. So William probably still asserts his claim to the English throne.

--The Godwinsons may or may not attempt to install Harold on the throne. If Edward the Exile proves to be anti-Norman like the Godwinsons, they may support his succession to the throne, perhaps with Harold Godwinson becoming Edward's chief minister. If Edward proves to be pro-Norman like Edward the Confessor, the Godwinsons may move to depose him and install Harold as King.

--Harald Hardrada, who asserted a claim based on descent from King Canute, probably still invades.

The big unknown factors are the military ability of Edward the Exile and the level of support he would receive from the Anglo-Saxon Earls. Assuming that he does survive the crisis of 1066, and lives until 1076 as postulated above, this means that Edward's son, Edgar Atheling, will succeed to the English throne in 1076 as a strong young man of 24 years instead of as a child of 14. Edgar seems to have been a dynamic sort of person and might have made a good king. He lived until 1125 or 1126 in OTL, so he probably would have had a long reign.

Any other thoughts?

 

[G.Bone]

1. That the army would be a wee bit stronger in their shield wall; killing the Normans
2. That the tactic of the Normans would be aped by England (cavarly)
3. That relations would have to be forged with Scotland and Wales
4. Focus on the Navy; prelude to British Navy perhaps?

These ideas are mostly in the short term.

EDIT: foreign aid from those regions that Edward has been from? Early contact with Russia?

 

[Jason]

Hmmm, interesting one! Ok so Godwin doesn't bump him off....

The critical thing is to give Edward the E some sort of powerbase in England, something to counter the Godwin family. Perhaps, to give him experience, Edward the Confessor makes him an earl? This gives him some sort of powerbase from which to win support so that when Edward the C dies he (Edward the E) knows he can rely on the Witan's support to confirm his kingship. Also though the Godwin fmaily was all very happy to confront Edward the C, they never actually disputed his claim to the kingship and I reckon that would never change. If Edward the C said Edward the E was his heir, they would recognise him as rightful king, the Godwins would always be pushing to increase their power but never woudl they consider actually removing the king and replacing him with one of their own.

I reckon Harald H will invade anyway but if Edward the E has the at least nominal support of Harold G then I don't think we ned see a very different outcome at Stamford Bridge.

The issue really is William, his invasion is not just on the basis of his claim that Edward the C offered him the crown (feel I should add supposedly, even today some historians dispute this claim of William's) but because Harold G (again supposedly) swore to help him get the throne. With edward about all bets are off. It is possible with Edward the E on the throne, William won't even risk the invasion, afterall Edwards the C offer (if made) was conditional on the agreement of the Witan and even William never disputed their right to make the decision ove rhwo to supprot, his justification for invasion was Harold G supposed swearing of loyalty and the fact Harold G had appointed some churchmen who were for various reasons not recognised by the Pope, thats why he got the Papal Banner (that and a big bribe to Popey). So we get the Norwegian attack thats defeated and lets say no Norman attack.

Longer term I could see Edgar as king and a more Anglo-saxon approach to Scotland and Wales (no over-right conquest, just a continuation of the idea of an English overlordship). Perhaps the most importnat difference however is that as the bulk of the English elite is still alive and in pocession of their lands, their beleifs and outlooks will cotinue to dominate (even if Edward the E does bring in foreign advisors as Edward the C did) and an importnat element in this was a tendenacy to see themseleves as part of Scandinavia rather than western Europe.

 

[arctic warrior]

Wouldn't Edward Exile have a stronger claim than Harold being the son of the last anglo-saxon king before the Danish conquerors? With Edward Exile on the throne William might have a harder time convincing the pope of his legal right to conquer England, because of the royal line being intact? Maybe the pope wouldn't at all give William the blessing to rid England of the Godwinson usurpers.
William would probably have a go anyway but this being a private venture without papal blessing would attract far fewer followers. A chance for Edward Exile to defeat both Harold Hardrada and William!
Perhaps afterwards relations established between the English, Russian and Hungarian courts.

 

[Jason]

Wouldn't Edward Exile have a stronger claim than Harold being the son of the last anglo-saxon king before the Danish conquerors? With Edward Exile on the throne William might have a harder time convincing the pope of his legal right to conquer England, because of the royal line being intact? Maybe the pope wouldn't at all give William the blessing to rid England of the Godwinson usurpers.
William would probably have a go anyway but this being a private venture without papal blessing would attract far fewer followers. A chance for Edward Exile to defeat both Harold Hardrada and William!
Perhaps afterwards relations established between the English, Russian and Hungarian courts.

With Edward the E around, harold has no claim at all. You also got to remember that without the Papal support there is no way William will get the troops he needs from everyelse so I think William would be smart and stay at home.

 

[Michael B]

Longer term I could see Edgar as king and a more Anglo-saxon approach to Scotland and Wales (no over-right conquest, just a continuation of the idea of an English overlordship). Perhaps the most importnat difference however is that as the bulk of the English elite is still alive and in pocession of their lands, their beleifs and outlooks will cotinue to dominate (even if Edward the E does bring in foreign advisors as Edward the C did) and an importnat element in this was a tendenacy to see themseleves as part of Scandinavia rather than western Europe.

You would slow down the Normanisation of England. You would also keep England in the Norse part of Europe instead of it being transferred to the French part of Europe. Whether the former could be maintained under Edgar is open to question. Eventually Normanistion is going to take place; castles, knights and cathedrals are just too good to turn down.

If Normanisation of England were slowed down, it would be deferred by Scotland to a later date; the Scots imported much of their Normanisation including Robert the Bruce from the Anglo-Normans.

 

[robertp6165]

Hmmm, interesting one! Ok so Godwin doesn't bump him off....

The jury is still out on whether that happened in OTL. I've seen evidence that both supports and refutes it. But for the purposes of this scenario, no, Godwin doesn't have him killed.

The critical thing is to give Edward the E some sort of powerbase in England, something to counter the Godwin family. Perhaps, to give him experience, Edward the Confessor makes him an earl? This gives him some sort of powerbase from which to win support so that when Edward the C dies he (Edward the E) knows he can rely on the Witan's support to confirm his kingship.

That's a good idea. Of course, if Edward the Exile aligns himself with the Godwin family instead of opposing them, that might work too.

Also though the Godwin fmaily was all very happy to confront Edward the C, they never actually disputed his claim to the kingship and I reckon that would never change. If Edward the C said Edward the E was his heir, they would recognise him as rightful king, the Godwins would always be pushing to increase their power but never woudl they consider actually removing the king and replacing him with one of their own.

Okay. That removes one obstacle to Edward the E's survival.

I reckon Harald H will invade anyway but if Edward the E has the at least nominal support of Harold G then I don't think we ned see a very different outcome at Stamford Bridge.

That is true.

The issue really is William, his invasion is not just on the basis of his claim that Edward the C offered him the crown (feel I should add supposedly, even today some historians dispute this claim of William's) but because Harold G (again supposedly) swore to help him get the throne. With edward about all bets are off. It is possible with Edward the E on the throne, William won't even risk the invasion, afterall Edwards the C offer (if made) was conditional on the agreement of the Witan and even William never disputed their right to make the decision ove rhwo to supprot, his justification for invasion was Harold G supposed swearing of loyalty and the fact Harold G had appointed some churchmen who were for various reasons not recognised by the Pope, thats why he got the Papal Banner (that and a big bribe to Popey). So we get the Norwegian attack thats defeated and lets say no Norman attack.

As ambitious as William was, I have a hard time with the idea that he is just going to give up his designs on England. He might not have the Papal Banner...although, with a big enough bribe, he even still might have that, too...but even so, he would be able to attract a lot of warriors to his standard just by promising them lands and booty from the conquest. Most of Williams knights joined him for that reason anyway.

Longer term I could see Edgar as king and a more Anglo-saxon approach to Scotland and Wales (no over-right conquest, just a continuation of the idea of an English overlordship).

Agreed.

Perhaps the most importnat difference however is that as the bulk of the English elite is still alive and in pocession of their lands, their beleifs and outlooks will cotinue to dominate (even if Edward the E does bring in foreign advisors as Edward the C did) and an importnat element in this was a tendenacy to see themseleves as part of Scandinavia rather than western Europe.

Agreed.

 

[robertp6165]

With Edward the E around, harold has no claim at all.

If you are speaking of Harald Hardrada, his claim was based on descent from King Canute, and was independent of whether a member of the Anglo-Saxon royal house was on the throne. So his claim still exists.

If you are speaking of Harold Godwinson, you are correct.

You also got to remember that without the Papal support there is no way William will get the troops he needs from everyelse so I think William would be smart and stay at home.

All he has to do is offer lands and booty and the warriors will flock to his standard. Few of them actually came in OTL because of the Papal support William had.

 

[robertp6165]

You would slow down the Normanisation of England. You would also keep England in the Norse part of Europe instead of it being transferred to the French part of Europe. Whether the former could be maintained under Edgar is open to question. Eventually Normanistion is going to take place; castles, knights and cathedrals are just too good to turn down.

But you would likely import those desireable things...castles, knights, cathedrals...without all the other baggage that went with it (French language, Norman feudalism, etc.) in OTL. Anglo Saxon culture would maintain a distinctness to it even after importing some things from Normandy.

If Normanisation of England were slowed down, it would be deferred by Scotland to a later date; the Scots imported much of their Normanisation including Robert the Bruce from the Anglo-Normans.

This is true.

 

[Jason]

If you are speaking of Harald Hardrada, his claim was based on descent from King Canute, and was independent of whether a member of the Anglo-Saxon royal house was on the throne. So his claim still exists.

If you are speaking of Harold Godwinson, you are correct.




Yep mean Harold-that's why I spelt it with an 'o', not an 'a'

 

[Jason]

But you would likely import those desireable things...castles, knights, cathedrals...without all the other baggage that went with it (French language, Norman feudalism, etc.) in OTL. Anglo Saxon culture would maintain a distinctness to it even after importing some things from Normandy.

Depends what you mean by castles, knights, cathedrals. England of course had Cathedrals before the Norman Conquest, no smaller than what was common in Europe at the time. Most were of a different building style and would today look very odd to us. Normanesque architecture was present in England prior to 1066 but it was the conquest that led to its large scale introduction.

Castles, well of course there were a few castles in England prior to 1066, built by 'Norman' favourites of Edward the C. However there were many 'fortified thegnly residences' and quite frankly there was no difference between one of these and a ringwork castle. If no conquest I expect that these 'fortified residences' would have been rebuilt in stone, had mottes added, etc.

Knights-well I suspect that the Thegns and Huscarls would have adopted the use of the horse in battle but please remember that many archaeologists and historians (inc me) would argue that even prior to 1066 the English military elite were capable of using horses in battle and even after the conquest, it was more common for knights to fight on foot than on horseback until after the time of Stephen/Matilda.

 

[david31]

The critical thing is to give Edward the E some sort of powerbase in England, something to counter the Godwin family. Perhaps, to give him experience, Edward the Confessor makes him an earl? This gives him some sort of powerbase from which to win support so that when Edward the C dies he (Edward the E) knows he can rely on the Witan's support to confirm his kingship.

It might probably be as the Earl of Northumbria, the old Earl Siward dies at a convenient time and if Edward C wanted to give his heir some practical experience it might be a good place to start. It was always the most fracious of the great Earldoms and would have given him a good grounding in practical power politics. If Tostig Godwinsson had been in place I think he would have been shunted into a more southerly Earldom better suited to his talents.

Also though the Godwin famaily was all very happy to confront Edward the C, they never actually disputed his claim to the kingship and I reckon that would never change. If Edward the C said Edward the E was his heir, they would recognise him as rightful king, the Godwins would always be pushing to increase their power but never woudl they consider actually removing the king and replacing him with one of their own.

I reckon Harald H will invade anyway but if Edward the E has the at least nominal support of Harold G then I don't think we ned see a very different outcome at Stamford Bridge.

If Tostig wasn't Earl of Northumbria in 1065 he wouldn't be deposed by an uprising and thus forced into a very bitter exile. Without Tostig and his fleet of Flemish mercenaries raiding up the east coast events in the north in 1066 might take on a very different complexion. Without having to fight off Tostig the army of the northern earls at Gate Fulford (whoever Edward choses to replace him in the north) would be stronger and Harald Hararada's forces would be 10% weaker without Tostig and his mercs.

If Harald won at Gate Fulford his loses would have been greater and perhaps he wouldn't have been so complacent to be caught napping at Stamford Bridge. When an army under Harold and Tostig arrived (they worked together well in the Welsh campaign of 1064) Harald might decided to try another day and beaten a retreat to his ships.

The issue really is William, his invasion is not just on the basis of his claim that Edward the C offered him the crown (feel I should add supposedly, even today some historians dispute this claim of William's) but because Harold G (again supposedly) swore to help him get the throne. With edward about all bets are off. It is possible with Edward the E on the throne, William won't even risk the invasion, afterall Edwards the C offer (if made) was conditional on the agreement of the Witan and even William never disputed their right to make the decision ove rhwo to supprot, his justification for invasion was Harold G supposed swearing of loyalty and the fact Harold G had appointed some churchmen who were for various reasons not recognised by the Pope, thats why he got the Papal Banner (that and a big bribe to Popey). So we get the Norwegian attack thats defeated and lets say no Norman attack.

Additionally the southern fyrds were called out to muster against raids by Tostig. If there were no raids the fyrds might be called out later and still be in the field when William's army invades. If one of the other Godwinsson's had been left to watch the coast a quick attack by the local fyrd might have given William such a shock that, even if victorious with a royal army following up led by the rightful King, William might elect to follow Harald harada's example and try again another day.

And after the expense of building a fleet and paying off the mercenaries and other non-Normans in his army Duke William, what with French power politics been what they were back then, might never have another chance.

Longer term I could see Edgar as king and a more Anglo-saxon approach to Scotland and Wales (no over-right conquest, just a continuation of the idea of an English overlordship). Perhaps the most importnat difference however is that as the bulk of the English elite is still alive and in pocession of their lands, their beleifs and outlooks will cotinue to dominate (even if Edward the E does bring in foreign advisors as Edward the C did) and an importnat element in this was a tendenacy to see themseleves as part of Scandinavia rather than western Europe.

 

[stevep]

Guys

Interesting idea. I like it. Harold G especially and his father to a lesser extent seem to have been happy being the chief noble and supporting the formal monarchy. It didn't hinder matters that Edward C's wife was one of Godwine's draughters.

The one problem with this might be that Edward E would be younger and possibly more active that Edward C, who seems to have been a lot more insular, at least after his attempt to depose the Godwin's failed in the early 1050's. He might want to be a strong ruler himself and clash with either the elderly Godwine or younger Harold over power and influence.

If that could be avoided then things might be as suggested and go very well. You could even see Edward E siding with the Godwine's over their exile - which came apart in part because of the bloody excesses of some Norman troops serving Edward C. Might even see him more openly in the anti-Norman camp, especially since they could be seen as a rival interest.

One question. It was mentioned that Godwine was implicated in the death of Edward E? Are people thinking of Alfred the Aetheling, Edward C's elder brother who tried to claim the throne, with Norman support, after Canute's death? He was captured by Godwine and died shortly afterwards, and was a major reason for the bad feeling between Edward C and the Godwines's. - Although checking Wiki a similar fate may have befalled Edward E, although on Harold's watch.

If Edward was made earl of Northumbria that might make for some interesting developments. The house of Wessex had relatively little connection with the north so if he ruled well it could have strengthened ties. He would also have had to face attacks from the Scots, which would have given him experience and help build up loyalty if he was successful.

Also, if he became earl of Northumbria would he have given that up when he became king? I don't think Harold gave up Wessex, although he didn't have much time and his reign was marked by crisis and threat.

I agree that Harald would probably still have attacked as I think he was after loot and fame as much as a serious desire for the English monarchy. Given how unsuccessful he had been in conquering Denmark but frequently raiding and looting parts of it instead. As said, presuming Tostig is a loyal relatively minor noble somewhere he would be somewhat weaker and without Tostig's early raids the south would also be better protected.

With William a lot would have depended on whether he could claim Edward C made his promise of the throne. Edward E, as a valid member of the Wessex dynasty and especially if he had the support of the leading English nobles and had established roots would have been a much tougher challenge. [Presuming there was not rivalry between Edward and Harold, which could make things very complex]. He might still have tried however given his desire for power.

At the worst you might see England weakened by rivalry between Edward E and Harold. Possibly especially since Edward C blamed the Godwine's for his elder brothers death. He might have suggested that Edward become earl of Wessex, since that is the core of the family and seek to displace Harold to some lesser position.

At best with Edward E as a strong king and Harold as a loyal leigeman you might see Edward defeat Harald and William gets a nasty surprise from Harold defending the south when he lands.

With no conquest the human and economic landscape would be drastically different. A lot of large castles wouldn't replace the fortified towns so economically it would probably be a richer and more prosperous country. Especially in the north without its ravaging by William. A less powerful monarchy, limited by tradition and various sets of nobles and other interests.

Steve