Ralph the Timid still alive in 1066

What if Ralph the Timid had still been alive and strong in 1066 as earl of Hereford? Could he have become King?
I think he could have easily become King and he would have only needed to fight Harald Hadraada. Whether he would have fought Harold Godwinson is another matter though it is likely that a) Edward the Confessor would have seen that he become King and b) He and Harold were friends as shown by the fact that Ralph named his son Harold.

What do you think Ralph and his son, Harold Ralphson would have been like as kings of England?
 
First up there would have to be a different outcome to the Battle of Hereford (24 Oct 1055) such that Ralf of Mantes doesn’t earn his later byname of ‘the Timid’. (Although this source suggests he earned it earlier.) Not suggesting Ælfgār or Gruffyd are killed – perhaps a draw. This battle becomes the first successful use of continental warfare (fighting on horseback) in England.



I think that whoever succeeds Edward the Confessor – in this case Ralf - will have to fight William the Bastard.

I also think Ralf or his son will at some point have to confront the House of Godwine.


Didn't they make a movie about King Ralph :D.
 
First up there would have to be a different outcome to the Battle of Hereford (24 Oct 1055) such that Ralf of Mantes doesn’t earn his later byname of ‘the Timid’. (Although this source suggests he earned it earlier.) Not suggesting Ælfgār or Gruffyd are killed – perhaps a draw. This battle becomes the first successful use of continental warfare (fighting on horseback) in England.



I think that whoever succeeds Edward the Confessor – in this case Ralf - will have to fight William the Bastard.

I also think Ralf or his son will at some point have to confront the House of Godwine.


Didn't they make a movie about King Ralph :D.
Why would Ralph have to fight Duke William? William wouldn't have the excuse that Ralph had sworn to support his campaign and certainly wouldn't gain as much support from across Chrisendom. I personally believe that Ralph would have been the best case scenario for England and it is sad that he was beaten by the Welsh and died. If only he had been given a safer earldom and lived.
Had he been King he would have almost certainly modernised England like he did to Herefordshire by building castles and have set up a native English cavalry force and generally brought the kingdom into the chivalric age while preserving the existing earlcund and more importantly, it's Englishness.
He would have also been in a much stronger position than Edward when he came to the throne as he would have already been in England for 25 years and so had the experience of dealing with the nobility.
 
Edward the Confessor’s alleged promise to William the Bastard stems from the period of the Godwines exile in 1051/2. While Earl Harold was William’s ‘guest’ 1064/5 an oath was extracted from Harold to uphold the Duke’s claim. If the dying Confessor bequeathed the kingdom to a still living Ralf, William would still press his claim. That his (and it could be argued the Danish and Norse) claim is bogus is irrelevant – England is too tempting a prize. No matter how they may try to legitimate it, they would only have a claim to the throne by right of conquest. William might not get the support that he did this TL but that would not deter him.
 
A great deal of anguish could have been avoided if Edward had publicly identified a successor.

If that was Ralph, William would not have any claim at all. Edgar Atheling would, however, and some of the Earls -- certainly including the house of Leofric, given Ralph's history -- would have taken his side. Since Harald of Norway's invasion is still going to happen, you have a three-way contest just as in the real 1066, except two of the contenders are different.

Harold Godwinson's support will be crucial, but I don't know who will get it.
 
A great deal of anguish could have been avoided if Edward had publicly identified a successor.

If that was Ralph, William would not have any claim at all. Edgar Atheling would, however, and some of the Earls -- certainly including the house of Leofric, given Ralph's history -- would have taken his side. Since Harald of Norway's invasion is still going to happen, you have a three-way contest just as in the real 1066, except two of the contenders are different.

Harold Godwinson's support will be crucial, but I don't know who will get it.
Anguish is a very mild way of describing the destruction of a nation and the relentless encroachment of its successor on its French and British neighbours.
So you think Edgar would have struggled with Ralph for the throne? Why would he have had any better chance or even the same chance with genuine blood relative as a successor?
 
William might not get the support that he did this TL but that would not deter him.
Trudat. The guy married his cousin and against direct Papal order. I think we can say he didn't give many f*cks in his life.

Bastard son, was the target of assassination several times, escaped them and came back to kick some ass and reconquer his Duchy. Then sailed across the sea and conquered England. Then Wales. The guy didn't give a f*ck: if he somehow was adapted in a US movie, he'd have to be played by Machete, regardless of anything.

I hold him in high regard for being one of the biggest troublemaker in European history. And not just because I'm from Normandy :p
 
Anguish is a very mild way of describing the destruction of a nation and the relentless encroachment of its successor on its French and British neighbours.
So you think Edgar would have struggled with Ralph for the throne? Why would he have had any better chance or even the same chance with genuine blood relative as a successor?

Edgar has roughly the same blood right as Ralph being the grandson of King Edmund Ironside son from King Ethelred Unred's first marriage.
This is before primogeniture so if their is a question over the King's choice of heir it goes down to the Witanmoot and they could be divided over this based on Ralph's history.
 
Edgar has roughly the same blood right as Ralph being the grandson of King Edmund Ironside son from King Ethelred Unred's first marriage.
This is before primogeniture so if their is a question over the King's choice of heir it goes down to the Witanmoot and they could be divided over this based on Ralph's history.

And Edgar's descent was in the male line, unlike Ralph's, which would probably have been considered preferable.

But Edar wouldn't become king surely for the same reasons as OTL?
 
Edgar has roughly the same blood right as Ralph being the grandson of King Edmund Ironside son from King Ethelred Unred's first marriage.
This is before primogeniture so if their is a question over the King's choice of heir it goes down to the Witanmoot and they could be divided over this based on Ralph's history.

Why would Ralph be unpopular?
 
Would a surviving Earl Ralf be offered the crown?

As I suggested above, lets use a POD of 24 Oct 1055 and (yes I think there would be butterflies but) assume for simplicity that events after that date (with the exception of Ralf’s death in 1057) play out the same.

Ralf is a female line descendant (strike 1), Edward designating him heir is no guarantee (strike 2) but the Witan breaking with tradition (like offering it to Earl Harold OTL) means he is in. And yes the attitude of Earl Harold would be crucial as to whether Earl Ralf becomes King Ralf. I agree relations between the two appear to have been friendly and Harold’s power and networks of patronage means he will smooth over any dissent arising elsewhere in the kingdom.

There may have been animosity between Ralf and Ælfgār but I don’t know if that would have extended to his sons Edwin and Morcar, especially as it seems Ælfgār was the disagreeable party. Then again maybe the differences of opinion between the two stem from Ralf being a Marcher lord and therefore in conflict with Ælfgār’s Welsh allies. Edwin and Morcar probably would support Edgar but (based on their “support” post-Hastings OTL) it would be lukewarm. As for Edgar himself – I think if handled correctly he would be a loyal supporter of his first cousin once removed. So King Ralf is “secure” from any internal threat.



Externally however, as noted already: King Harald III Sigurdsson (aka Hardrada) of Norway; King Sweyn II Estridsson of Denmark.

And then there is Duke William II of Normandy, first cousin once removed of The Confessor on his mother’s side which actually makes him Ralf’s second cousin. As an aside, Ralf’s brother, Count Walter III of the Vexin and his wife Biota both died in August 1063 while “guests” of William. I’m not saying William poisoned them but their deaths were convenient because they did not figure into the Dukes plans for the counties of the Vexin or Maine, which Walter had a claim to through his wife. (A still living Ralf should have been the next Vexin count – I wonder why his son Harold never pursued it OTL?)

The Confessor allegedly promised the Duke the English throne, some say while Edward was still in exile (yeah right, when William was 13yo and struggling to stay alive in his fight for the dukedom) or later in 1051/52. There was no meeting between the two at this later date (William was still fighting for control and couldn’t pop over the channel) which suggests the “promise” was conveyed by the embittered Robert of Jumièges, the Norman Archbishop of Canterbury when he went into exile. Whatever the validity of Edward’s promise, it does seem highly likely that while Harold was William’s ‘guest’ in 1064/5 an oath was extracted from him to uphold the Duke’s claim. I apologize if I sound like a broken record but William not having the casus belli like he did OTL will not stop him from having a tilt at the crown of England.
 
Why would he have had any better chance or even the same chance with genuine blood relative as a successor?

Without a plausible claim of their own, two of the OTL contenders (Harold and William) will support somebody who has one rather than claim the throne on the basis of brute force alone. William may not take part in the succession fight at all, but Harold will have to pick sides and Edgar's dynastic claim is stronger than Ralph's.
 
Without a plausible claim of their own, two of the OTL contenders (Harold and William) will support somebody who has one rather than claim the throne on the basis of brute force alone. William may not take part in the succession fight at all, but Harold will have to pick sides and Edgar's dynastic claim is stronger than Ralph's.

Could a civil war erupt between Ralph and Edgar and if so, who would win?
 
Could a civil war erupt between Ralph and Edgar and if so, who would win?

Probably not.

As pointed out earlier all the (admitedly scarce) indications are that Earl Ralph had generally good relations with Harold Godwinsson, and through him the other Godwinsson Earls. Also in the crisis of 1065, when the Northumbrians revolted against Tostig Godwinsson, Harold was forced to resolve the crisis in favour of Morcar, younger brother of Earl Edwin of Mercia which sent Tostig off to the continent an embittered exile. IOTL Harold married the widowed sister of Earls Edwin and Morcar in order to gain their support and some thing similiar may have happened here.

In 1066 Edgar would have faced the same problems as he did IOTL, he was too young and had no kin group or other supporters of sufficient status to push his claim. There would have been some horse trading probably with some vague promise of Edgar being nominated as King Ralph's heir or else a marriage between the new King's son Harold and one of Edgar's sisters.

What would happen when Edgar was a few years older would be anybody's guess and would likely be influenced by the successful (or not) repulse of the Norse and Norman invasions.
 
Top