Norman King divides England between his sons

In OTL, several Norman/Angevin kings try to divide their territories between their sons with certain lands in France going to some (see Henry II) while England is always handed down as one. What if England had been divided just at one point along regional lines to different sons? Would it see a radically different country today?
Would England, and in extension the rest of the British Isles have been more decentralised as a result in terms of culture and institutions?
Would it,in the critical stage of development for the English language, have resulted in the emergence of several english languages eventually more disparate than their Anglo-Saxon mother dialects?
Would it also mean more war within England and a stronger Scotland,Wales and Ireland?
 
What if England had been divided just at one point along regional lines to different sons?
You'd need England to be divided politically after the conquest then : at the exception of Welsh Marches or Lancaster, it always was concieved as a whole entity, when Anjou or Aquitaine weren't, historically, "legally", customary, etc.

You could change it with the right PoD (probably in the late Xth) but giving the narrow conditions of Norman conquest, it could butterfly it really easily.

The closest thing I could see would be having William dying in England shortly after Hastings, and being replaced in a blurry way by his sons with a greater feudal take on England (Odon de Bayeux forming its principality in Kent, for instance)

Eventually, it could be enough for that a king may have to use an apanage-like feature (admittedly it was the case for Lancaster IOTL) in order to control more efficiently a more divided England.

I stress that it would be certainly more limited (would it be only for demographical reasons) than what existed in France or Germany.

Would it see a radically different country today?
Closer to contemporary France maybe, but the butterflies would be too huge to really have a take on "today".
Lesser parlementarian tradition, English king seen as an arbitle of public order and political balance, and *if* continental holdings in addition of Normandy ITTL, a more politically unstable Norman/Angevin ensemble (giving that it was pretty unstable historically, it's going to be "interesting".)

Would England, and in extension the rest of the British Isles have been more decentralised as a result in terms of culture and institutions?
Hard to say : more regional particularism and historical tradition is a given, but historical decentralization doesn't hold anything sure for 1000 years onwards (compare feudal France to modern and contemporary France in matter of decentralization for instance).

Would it,in the critical stage of development for the English language, have resulted in the emergence of several english languages eventually more disparate than their Anglo-Saxon mother dialects?
Probably not. Not enough population, or exclusive geographical borders to ensure the appearance of ansbau language (to say nothing of their maintain).

Would it also mean more war within England and a stronger Scotland,Wales and Ireland?
It's possible that a part of English ressources would be diverted to inner infighting.
It doesn't mean that Wales, Ireland or Scotland would have it better : these were pretty much divided themselves (the celtic high-kingship being the rule, up to Davidian Revolution in Scotlant)
 
(probably in the late Xth)

In 957 England was divided between the brothers Eadwig the Fair and Edgar the Peaceful along the River Thames, but Edgar inherited the whole shebang two years later when Eadwig died without issue. If Eadwig survives longer and had children, then we could see something akin to the Carolingian Empire writ small. Then, the multiple Kingdoms in England would tempt Norse and Norman warlords to come and take over even more than OTL due to their weakness, so William the Conqueror isn't necessarily butterflied. That was the latest time England was divided between sons (AElfweard controlled Wessex in 924; AEthelflaed and her daughter were in charge of Mercia from 911 to 918; AEthelwold AEtheling, son of AEthelraed, was King of Viking Northumbria 899 to 903 and of Essex from 902 to 903)
 
In 957 England was divided between the brothers Eadwig the Fair and Edgar the Peaceful along the River Thames, but Edgar inherited the whole shebang two years later when Eadwig died without issue.

(Such PoD is likely to butterfly away the Norman conquest, hence why I proposed a 1066 PoD, but let's ignore that for the sake of the discussion)

The Thames divisions (that you can find in other occurences, Edmund and Cnut for instance) are less a "definitive" separation than a temporary share of the kingship that isn't concieved as to last (and it never did).

It's to be noted that Eadwig remains the prime king, coins bearing his name only during this short period.
Rather than a political separation of the kingdom, what you had there was probably more the establishment of a sub-kingdom to a possible heir and/or to face external threats (the practice was relativly current in the continent : Aquitaine was a constitutent kingdom of Francia from time to time, being usually devolved to the heir, but Spanish conception of kingship in the same period is interesting as well).

The easiness of separation (without revolt) and of reunification (some shenanigans and it's done) make me lean in this direction.

Would the practice continues, of course, you may have more ground for the establishment of principalities by Normans, but certainly not by a share of kingship : the low population of the island, the destruction of saxon aristocracy and the weak numbers of Normans would probably introduce some principalities creation on these grounds. (But no more than the already quite divided, on the regard of AS political history, England of 1066)

Actually, Normans had brought a more centralized government much like their own duchy to England.
The Duchy of Normandy was a clusterfuck of rebelling barons. Every new ruler had to face troubles on this regard.
It was less politically divided than Blois or Anjou, and far less than Aquitaine, but it's far from being centralized.

"Centralized" is, anyway, completly opposed (and alien) to the feudal political and ideological organisation of the world. That William and Henri I managed to prevent the political desintegration of the island (both due to the far less important population, and the destruction of saxon elites at the benefit to a small number of Normans) doesn't mean it was centralized (that means, every decision being taken at one center of power) but unified (such unification being dependent of the context, the Anarchy is quite telling)

I think you had enough ground for a Norman conquest resulting in a more important feudal political division and the appearance of principalities in England (while in a more reduced way than in the continent) but that touch to the initial conditions of conquest.
 
IMHO the kingdom of England will stay united, but I can see former kingdoms of the Heptarchy being granted as (appanage) duchies to younger sons. These dukes will have the king of England as liege or maybe even suzerain. As time progresses these large duchies may be split up even further.

At the same time the rank of earl will be available to the nobility.
 
Top