The Bowels of Stephen de Blois

What if Stephen de Blois, who was going on the White Ship with William the Aelthing, hadn't had the bout of diarrhea that caused him to disembark at the last minute? With Stephen dead, and assuming limited butterflies, would his brothers Theobald of Champagne or William the Simple have gotten involved in the Anarchy? Would Stephen's removal from the equation have helped Matilda in any way? Would Theobald's vassalage to the French Crown have complicated the situation?
 
Two possibilities:
-Theobald claims the throne in his own right. Seems unlikely because, if he'd wanted it, he could have claimed it in stead of Stephen.
-Robert of Gloucester becomes Regent for Henry II. Maude herself was the issue, so I could easily imagine the great English barons pushing to have Gloucester made regent and the child Henry II crowned.
 
I actually thought that this would be about some sort of reliquary containing them - Cosimo III de Medici on his pilgrimage to Rome returned to Florence with some saint's bowels (ugh) - but I wonder if it wouldn't mean that in lieu of a pretender who was an adult male, a bunch of others start popping out the woodwork - illegitimate and legitimate - descendants in various ways of kings of England - both Saxon and Norman
 
William the Simple allegedly had mental problems, which makes him seem unlikely as a reasonable claimant (and certainly unlikely to succeed in holding the throne against Matilda).
 
Two possibilities:
-Theobald claims the throne in his own right. Seems unlikely because, if he'd wanted it, he could have claimed it in stead of Stephen.

IOTL, Theobold was supposedly discussing that with the Norman nobility and had accepted the offer to become King when he learned that Stephen was to be crowned the next day. If Stephen is dead, he might not be so hesitant.

The only other surviving son of Adela of Normandy is Henry, Bishop of Winchester. What are the chances he tries to take over and turn England into a theocracy?
 
Clergy are disqualified from taking the throne. It's a rule that has been stretched at times, but not in a situation like this; his support would be nonexistent. It's Theobald or Mathilda, at this point.
 
IOTL, Theobold was supposedly discussing that with the Norman nobility and had accepted the offer to become King when he learned that Stephen was to be crowned the next day. If Stephen is dead, he might not be so hesitant.

The only other surviving son of Adela of Normandy is Henry, Bishop of Winchester. What are the chances he tries to take over and turn England into a theocracy?

More likely he'd get the Pope to laicise him and rule as a regular King.
 
Could that even happen?

Clerics do sometimes get laicised, although usually it happens as a result of gross misconduct. I'm not sure whether priests who lose their faith and quit being priests get officially laicised, although I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. I'm not sure if there are any historical examples of a person being ordained and then ending up in the line of succession to a kingdom -- anybody got any?
 
Clerics do sometimes get laicised, although usually it happens as a result of gross misconduct. I'm not sure whether priests who lose their faith and quit being priests get officially laicised, although I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case. I'm not sure if there are any historical examples of a person being ordained and then ending up in the line of succession to a kingdom -- anybody got any?

Henry, the Cardinal-King of Portugal. But he was a very unusual case (the last male-line member of the family). Where you have plausible candidates (like Theobald and Mathilda), a cleric becoming king is much more difficult to justify/
 
"Henry, the Cardinal-King of Portugal." Off topic, but the link says he requested to be laicized and the request was refused. So he ruled as a King-Bishop.

Both laicization happened as did priests ruling territories. The Pope after all ruled over territories. However, in this case there are other plausible candidates for the throne of England, that the Pope would have no reason to take sides against.
 
Two possibilities:
-Theobald claims the throne in his own right. Seems unlikely because, if he'd wanted it, he could have claimed it in stead of Stephen.
-Robert of Gloucester becomes Regent for Henry II. Maude herself was the issue, so I could easily imagine the great English barons pushing to have Gloucester made regent and the child Henry II crowned.
Why did the barons hate Matilda again?
 
because she was haughty and arrogant towards basically everyone?

It's a smidge more complicated, though that was a major reason. The two other reasons pretty much boil down to her first and second husbands. Maude was practically raised at the court of her husband Henry, Holy Roman Emperor, and some of the perception of aloofness came from that. There's a reason she insisted her supporters refer to her as "Empress". But the second husband was, if anything, more problematic. Jeffrey of Anjou was not only phenominally arrogant in his own right, but was also the Duke of a neighboring and rival duchy. Norman barons, prickly at the best of times, despised the thought of Jeffrey ruling over them by proxy through Maude.
 
Top