Successful Saxon rebellion

I don't know much about this topic and I can't find any threads on it. Is it possible that after the Battle of Hastings the Normans still lose. For example I heard that many cities surrendered due shock of the battle being lost but if every city had put up resistance and a new army had been raised could the Normans have been driven out. I mean England did apparently have a much larger population then Normandy and some say it was the most well run kingdom in Western Europe at the time. I know William used mercenaries but obviously he did not have a limitless supply of them.

Another possibility is that he is crowned king but the Normans are eventually overthrown by rebels. Is that possible, I don't know much about this topic or why the Saxon rebels failed.
 
I know that London fell by treactury but the Saxon's basically acted like headless chickens. Some elected a new king, but not everyone was happy with a young boy as king. Some went North to raise an army (this lead to the Harrying 3 years later).
William mean while did everything right. He secured his supply lines, took the English treasury and crushed the small pockets of resistance. He actually acted like the King and seems therefor to have been accepted as such.
 
If I remember well, it failed because Saxons were divided : if one raised the others or did nothing to help them (when not allying with Normans directly).

Apart the revolt of 1069-70 that had fair chances to suceed (or at least to make the north of England a distinct kingdom), the Godwin and clientale never managed to stand united against the Normans.

And even in the case of this revolt, it's made in the idea to place a danish king on the throne : at short term, I don't see a great chance to have a Saxon king back.
 
Danish King? ... with the reasoning that while not saxon, at least they're the known foreigner which arguebly have the best claim of any? ... well ... then again ... it was initiated in and around York which was the Danelaw center of influence
 
The Danelaw had really few leftovers in England. I think it can be comparated to tatar rule in Russia : vital for the creation of the english/russian state but with little remaining traces for itself.

They choose a danish king because he was the only in the region able to fight William : Norway was out of the game, France was regularly defeated by Normandy, Aquitaine didn't gave a shit, Flanders were allied with Normans, Scotland didn't had enough forces...
 
Top