How would English culture develop if Harold Godwinson somehow is able to keep his throne from William (Normandy) and Harald III (Norway)?
I am not 100% certain of this. More Scandinavian influence than OTL? Yes certainly. But more Scandinavian influence than French? I don't know. France was a very important country that is very close and would certainly influence England. It did already, or else William would not have a claim to the English throne. Ennland with or without would the Normans will be influenced by France, although, yes, without the Normans it would be significantly less and England would be able to focus outside of France, like Scandinavia or the HRE (especialy the NW coasal areas).More Scandinavian influence than French influence
I am not 100% certain of this. More Scandinavian influence than OTL. Yes certainly. But more Scandinavian influence than French? I don't know. France was a very important ciuntry that is very close and would certainly influence England. It did already, or else William would not have a claim to the English throne. Ennland with or without would the Normans will be influenced by France, although, yes, without the Normans it would be significantly less and England would be able to focus outside of France, like Scandinavia or the HRE (especialy the NW coasal areas).
I am not 100% certain of this. More Scandinavian influence than OTL. Yes certainly. But more Scandinavian influence than French? I don't know. France was a very important ciuntry that is very close and would certainly influence England. It did already, or else William would not have a claim to the English throne. Ennland with or without would the Normans will be influenced by France, although, yes, without the Normans it would be significantly less and England would be able to focus outside of France, like Scandinavia or the HRE (especialy the NW coasal areas).
Absolutely and there will still be connections to Scandinavia, but France is closer and more important/rich than Scandinavia. France will influence England, no matter what. But yes, Scandinavia will be far more influential in nonorman England than it was in Norman England.No Normans also means no Harrowing of the North and the north of England and York especially would remain important centres of trade which will continue to engage in Scandinavia.
No Norman England would mean no Angevin Empire, no 100 year war. That must be some sort of positive for France.Well, a lot of this depends - how does a Norman failure to take England impact France in the near-to-mid term?
No Norman England would mean no Angevin Empire, no 100 year war. That must be some sort of positive for France.
It's debatable how much he did, and how far the support went.There likely will be changes in the Church too, since the Pope backed the attempted overthrow of the the Saxon regime.
No Norman England would mean no Angevin Empire, no 100 year war. That must be some sort of positive for France.
The Capetians might have a harder time centralizing France without the Normans and Angevins fighting over England.
i figured the same thing (except for Russia)--basically, without being taken over by the Normans, Britain doesn't become part of the western European cultural sphere and is instead considered part of northern Europe, or else is uniquely part of northwestern Europe and is the only part that is consistently part of that region (similar to how France is generally considered only part of western Europe) and, more specifically, is considered part of the broader definition of Scandinavia, like how Finland or Iceland are ScandinavianMore Scandinavian influence than French influence and possibly closer ties to Russia.