Social and Political Effects of an Averted White Ship Disaster (1120)

Scaevola

Banned
So, in 1120 Prince William "Adelin" of England, the only son of King Henry, perished in a disaster that saw the death of many other important Anglo-Norman nobles. It resulted in the twenty year Anarchy, a long period of civil strife and division during which Henry's sororal nephew Stephen of Blois and Henry's daughter Matilda contested the throne, and the power of barons on both sides of the Channel increased as they offered support in exchange for power and wealth, and for the common people "Christ and his angels slept" and did little to prevent the slaughter and devastation.

I did a quick search and there've been a few thread about the White Ship disaster before, but none focus on some big questions:
With the succession of Henry II "FitzEmpress", also Duke of Anjou and Normandy, to the throne, it's as though the cultural evolution of English royalty to Englishness was "reset" in a way. Henry II had been raised in France, and he and his sons couldn't have written a paragraph in English between them. In addition his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine made him de facto "soft" overlord over half of France, subsequently lost to the French crown through the actions of Richard II, the expense leading to the Magna Carta. Yet English royalty in the body of Edward III remembered their power in France, and used French royal ineptitude and a weak argument to battle for the French throne--the Hundred Years War which would see the evolution of English society and revolutionize French royal power.
So the question is: What far ranging effects do you see with William Adelin's survival. England does hold Normandy at the time, and given luck may not even lose it. How interested and successful would England be in expanding their strength in France. It is their homeland, but England had far more potential and was sovereign. Normandy was nominally subject to France and vulnerable to invasion. Without the Anarchy, Richard II's expensive and foolish involvement in the Crusades, and the expensive wars with and loss of land to France, could England have come into the Late Medieval/Early Modern (1500s) era as a nation more similar socially to France or Spain, with a weak burgher/merchant class, vast and wealthy but weak landowning aristocracy, and vastly rural and serflike peasantry/servant class? Is England fated to industrialize early and successfully due to large coal deposits, likely interest in shipping and thus edge in naval technology and trade, and ideal ground for sheep (textile industry)? With probably less conflict with France, will the textile industry even move to England from Flanders? If it does not, this will further decrease the size, wealth, and influence of cities.

I know it's a lot to ask but what are your thoughts for the far ranging effects.
 
So, in 1120 Prince William "Adelin" of England, the only son of King Henry, perished in a disaster that saw the death of many other important Anglo-Norman nobles. It resulted in the twenty year Anarchy, a long period of civil strife and division during which Henry's sororal nephew Stephen of Blois and Henry's daughter Matilda contested the throne, and the power of barons on both sides of the Channel increased as they offered support in exchange for power and wealth, and for the common people "Christ and his angels slept" and did little to prevent the slaughter and devastation.

I did a quick search and there've been a few thread about the White Ship disaster before, but none focus on some big questions:
With the succession of Henry II "FitzEmpress", also Duke of Anjou and Normandy, to the throne, it's as though the cultural evolution of English royalty to Englishness was "reset" in a way. Henry II had been raised in France, and he and his sons couldn't have written a paragraph in English between them. In addition his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine made him de facto "soft" overlord over half of France, subsequently lost to the French crown through the actions of Richard II, the expense leading to the Magna Carta. Yet English royalty in the body of Edward III remembered their power in France, and used French royal ineptitude and a weak argument to battle for the French throne--the Hundred Years War which would see the evolution of English society and revolutionize French royal power.
So the question is: What far ranging effects do you see with William Adelin's survival. England does hold Normandy at the time, and given luck may not even lose it. How interested and successful would England be in expanding their strength in France. It is their homeland, but England had far more potential and was sovereign. Normandy was nominally subject to France and vulnerable to invasion. Without the Anarchy, Richard II's expensive and foolish involvement in the Crusades, and the expensive wars with and loss of land to France, could England have come into the Late Medieval/Early Modern (1500s) era as a nation more similar socially to France or Spain, with a weak burgher/merchant class, vast and wealthy but weak landowning aristocracy, and vastly rural and serflike peasantry/servant class? Is England fated to industrialize early and successfully due to large coal deposits, likely interest in shipping and thus edge in naval technology and trade, and ideal ground for sheep (textile industry)? With probably less conflict with France, will the textile industry even move to England from Flanders? If it does not, this will further decrease the size, wealth, and influence of cities.

I know it's a lot to ask but what are your thoughts for the far ranging effects.
Well everything will depend on butterflies... ATL Henry II will be the son of William (Geoffrey will never marry Empress Maud as his sister Matilda of Anjou is married to William Adelin) and many things will depend on when he will be born, who he will marry and the weddings of his OTL parents and wife
 
Well everything will depend on butterflies... ATL Henry II will be the son of William (Geoffrey will never marry Empress Maud as his sister Matilda of Anjou is married to William Adelin) and many things will depend on when he will be born, who he will marry and the weddings of his OTL parents and wife
Empress Maud can marry some one else...I.E. Charles the Good comes to mind.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Well, the absence of the Anarchy and its power vauüm means the aristocrats will have fewer oppurtunities to leverage that situation. They'll consequently have less power vis-à-vis the monarchy. Less destruction and destitution means the country as a whole (and the treasury) is in better shape, so there isn't really particular popular grievance to exploit, either. The monarhy may retain Normandy, but will at the same time by markedly more "English"-- more successfully entrenched, and presumably with less of an abition to gain overlordship over France (and to see that as the real prize). The monarchy would this be in a better position--well entrenched--and harder to oppose. We may be looking at a senario where the trend started by William the Conqueror ontinues unabated, and the monarchy gradually centralises power. So... the kind of OTL political centralisation we saw in france could instead happen in England. (Not the exact same process, but the basic move towards a monarchy that has the aristocracy on a relatively short leash).

England, due to its geographical position, its insular nature, its natural resources etc. has certain awesome advantages that it exploited in OTL to become a great and mighty power. One might argue that this ATL scenario only puts England in a better position to build towards that and perhaps to kick-start the process early on. Owning Normandy (which means having undisputed control over the Channel and over Southern access to the North Sea) would speak to that. On the other hand, early success leads to wealth, and can also lead to complacency. Which can lead to an alliance of opportunity forming against you... (But then again, France faed that down repeatedly in OTL, and England has the advantage of having a great natural border.)


Obviously, if we are to believe GURPS, the whole scenario ends with a more rapidly avancing world, and then someone detonates a nuke in London, and the whole world collapses, and the survivors set up a totalitarian regime in Australia. But that goes without saying. ;)
 
Well, the absence of the Anarchy and its power vauüm means the aristocrats will have fewer oppurtunities to leverage that situation. They'll consequently have less power vis-à-vis the monarchy. Less destruction and destitution means the country as a whole (and the treasury) is in better shape, so there isn't really particular popular grievance to exploit, either. The monarhy may retain Normandy, but will at the same time by markedly more "English"-- more successfully entrenched, and presumably with less of an abition to gain overlordship over France (and to see that as the real prize). The monarchy would this be in a better position--well entrenched--and harder to oppose. We may be looking at a senario where the trend started by William the Conqueror ontinues unabated, and the monarchy gradually centralises power. So... the kind of OTL political centralisation we saw in france could instead happen in England. (Not the exact same process, but the basic move towards a monarchy that has the aristocracy on a relatively short leash).

England, due to its geographical position, its insular nature, its natural resources etc. has certain awesome advantages that it exploited in OTL to become a great and mighty power. One might argue that this ATL scenario only puts England in a better position to build towards that and perhaps to kick-start the process early on. Owning Normandy (which means having undisputed control over the Channel and over Southern access to the North Sea) would speak to that. On the other hand, early success leads to wealth, and can also lead to complacency. Which can lead to an alliance of opportunity forming against you... (But then again, France faed that down repeatedly in OTL, and England has the advantage of having a great natural border.)


Obviously, if we are to believe GURPS, the whole scenario ends with a more rapidly avancing world, and then someone detonates a nuke in London, and the whole world collapses, and the survivors set up a totalitarian regime in Australia. But that goes without saying. ;)
Or rather, England becomes more 'French'.
 
I think with the surviving Norman dynasty focused far more on affairs in England and with Normandy as their main continental holding, I think we could see English influence and dominance over Wales, Ireland, and Scotland much sooner, leading possibly to a more unified "British" culture. Another thing I can see happening is that as King of England becomes the far more important title to the Normans, the title of Duke of Normandy is instead bestowed on the eldest son of the king and nominal heir. That could prevent the English king from having to travel to the French court to do homage to the King of France for Normandy, the responsibility falling instead to the titular duke.
 

Scaevola

Banned
I hadn't considered that England might become even more wealthy and powerful. In OTL by 1600 the French monarchs were more powerful in their state relative to the English (later British), yet as far as I know the prosperity of common English people began to diverge from the French, increasing more, even before the industrial revolution. I know that England and France were in very different situations geographically and resources-wise. Yet with a strong king who allies himself with weak nobles, rather than a weak king who allies himself with a strong burgher class/Parliament, could social inertia prevent the developments of so much joint-stock investment and capitalism that Britain saw?
Or rather, England becomes more 'French'.
Why would England become more French? I rather think that England would become less French as it would not have its king be so involved wasting time and money trying to hold onto duchies and loyalty of French nobles.
 
Top