Harold wins decisively against the norman invasion.

I wrote "norman invasion" instead of "Battle of Hastings" because with this PoD the battle can be fought on another location, because even if Hardold did won at Hasting, he hardly would have won a decisive victory.

With this scenario, Harold crushes the norman army (it doesn't need to be on a single battle) and capture William alive. What does happen under that circunstances? Bonus points if you describe what most likely happens on the following centuries, since England remains predominantly anglo saxon.
 
OTL the Normans came close to being beaten a few times but got lucky.
If the Normans lose then Harold is truly the Great and any dissent against his rule diminished. There's a brief falling out with the Pope, over his apparent backing of the invasion, but this is later smoothed over.
England probably follows the (East) Scandinavian path of slow feudalism and semi-elective kings.
While English kings would be quick to have themselves seen as overlords of Britain it'd be less feudal supremacy and more recognition of their power. At least until the equivalent of the 16/17th century.
 
OTL the Normans came close to being beaten a few times but got lucky.
If the Normans lose then Harold is truly the Great and any dissent against his rule diminished. There's a brief falling out with the Pope, over his apparent backing of the invasion, but this is later smoothed over.
England probably follows the (East) Scandinavian path of slow feudalism and semi-elective kings.
While English kings would be quick to have themselves seen as overlords of Britain it'd be less feudal supremacy and more recognition of their power. At least until the equivalent of the 16/17th century.

Would the english colonial empire be close to how it was OTL? What about the United Kingdom, could it be formed?
 
No harrowing of the North (barstewards), no baronnial carving up, no Norman castle building, no English king owning half of France so no reason for the Hundred Year War (probably just find another reason anyway though).
 
the English language would be quite different. i would probably be telling people "i will be eating cow tonight" instead of "beef".
 
Feudal inheritances would provoke another 100YWar probably, in time, not necessarily in France. Regardless, the King of France was already very isolated to Ille de France by the sacre of Philip I in the 10th Century, which means that without English intervention (and Norman invasion), the big powers in France are the Duke of Aquitaine, the Count of Toulouse and the Duke of Normandy (if William has managed to return; if William is dead or his army utterly beaten, then Normany may fall to enemies such as the King of France himself. The Dukes of Normandy were notoriously absent from Philip I's coronation, and the Archbishop of Reims mentions it as extraordinary.

Interestingly, he doesn't mention the Southern lords (Aquitaine, Toulouse, etc) as "notoriously" not being there, which implies that the popular idea of France at the time had receded to Northern France, from the Loire to the sea. The south is sometimes called Gaul in some documents (Gallia in Latin).

+++
As for England, can you see a bigger Welsh, Cambrian and "Pictish" presence in the isles? Less Saxon interference in Ireland?
 
Top