I like this, precisely because it is contrary to the so-familiarity hostility in OTL. And in practical terms, from the English point of view, so long as the Scottish kings restrain some of the endemic lawlessness in the north, they're serving as de facto viceroys.
But - and I may have missed this somewhere - do the English kings make some claim to be Bretwalds, i.e., suzerains of all Britain?
-- Rick
Thank you very much!
If you have read "Coronation of the Hun", you'll know I'm quite fond of the... historically unusual.
The idea of suzerainity over all Britain is still in its infancy, however ever since Harold Godwinson intervened in that war in Scotland, it is an idea which has been growing (very slowly).
Yes, sir!
I was all set to comment on England adopting a Gaelic succession system (where the successor is selected from the royal clan), when Albert had to go and win a civil war and reset everything. One quibble - I don't see quite why Albert limited his own authority (vis-a-vis the reformed Witan) quite so much, given that he had just won the civil war and was essentially untouchable. I can see him expanding it to dilute the influence of the great nobles (and especially his relatives), and I can see him wanting some collective responsibility regarding taxation, but not transferring so much authority in legislation. OTL's medieval Parliament was much more of an advisory body (at least at first). Or did the Witan already have legislative powers prior to the civil war?
Albert I was proud of his Anglo-Saxon traditions. The Witan has historically been a counterweight to royal power, and as such Albert I didn't want to change that. (Besides, he really didn't need to. Man could have gotten away with murdering his mother after the Battle of Somerset and people would have still loved him)
And the "legislative power" of the Witan is more a formality than anything, not really different from what it has been all along. ("Hey king, we suggest you make this law, and if not that's fine because you DO have the final say...")
One question - what's going on in Spain? OTL this was the most active period of the Reconquista, with the break-up of the Almoravids in the 1140s, major Christian advances around mid-century, the Muslim resurgence under the Almohads after 1175, their decisive defeat in 1215 and the fall of most of Al-Andalus between 1220 and 1250. The armies of the Albigensian crusade also fought against the Almohads - with a different France and a different Crusade, does Spain still go the same way?
Basically, assume OTL. I couldn't find any reason why it would be TOO divergent...
An even bigger question is what happens in the southern islands. As I understand it, OTL the Lords of the Isles (based in the Sudries) were pretty much independent and controlled most of Argyll and Lochaber into the fourteenth century. With the Scots kings controlling Ulster, they'll pretty much have to lock down at least Kintyre and Cowal just to secure their communications - which is likely to draw them into trying to control the West Coast a lot earlier than OTL. Which, in the long run, could lead to an earlier growth of places like Glasgow and Dumbarton (even Campeltown or Inverary) and a general tilt of the Scottish economy and population balance away from the Forth and the eastern strip towards the Clyde and the south-west.
Interesting! I hadn't thought of that. Not to mention the Scots are going to need a navy to maintain said communications, which in turn creates none other than a Scottish maritime tradition. Could prove interesting in the coming centuries.
The late history of the kingdom of Strathclyde is the greyest of grey areas - some authorities say the Scots took over around 1016, others that it was still independent into the 1050s. Either way, I don't think it controlled much of Cumbria (which also had significant Norse influence) in the 11th century. Likewise, some sources say the Scots gained Lothian in the 10th century, others not until the battle of Carham in 1016. OTL's Malcolm III did try to claim the Cumbrian parts of old Strathclyde after 1066, (taking advantage of the disorder in England) and various successors tried later during periods of English weakness, but I don't think any of it ever came to anything. The western end of the Anlo-Scottish border seems to have solidified earlier than the eastern.
True. Which is why I basically assumed the borders of c.1066. It was so fluid, might as well choose something.
I think that's the big problem with this entire period. Can't seem to find agreement in sources as to whether Carham was 1016 or 1018, let alone on what side the Lothian English were. Most sources do suggest that Lothian was transferred by Edward in ~975 but others do say it was only conquered after Carham. [Have a TL I've played around with which has a POD in which the Lothians forces are with the Scots army but a rebellion by them during Carham turns the battle the other way].
I thought that after the king of Strathclyde died while supporting the Scots in the Carham campaign - some suggestions he was killed by the Scots king - he placed his son on the Strathclyde throne? When he became king of Scotland the two were united.
Have a feeling that during part of the early Norman period Malcolm III [or possibly a later successor?] was recognised as the earl of Cumberland by the Norman king but that was more a case of them recognising him as a earl rather than accepting any Scottish claim to rule the area. One of the problems with the later so called Scottish wars of independence was that much of the fighting was involved with disputes between various nobles, some of whom had lands in both kingdoms. [That's why I added the 'so called' as often the fighting was about local rivalries and frequently very little involved the aims of the two royal houses. Scotland emerged as an independent state but to a degree that was almost an incidental bi-product of the squabbles for power that went on].
Steve
I know. Record keeping was notoriuosly bad during the Early Medieval Ages, and a lot concerning political boundaries et al has been left to the speculations of folks like you and I.
Rick
I agree and it would definitely suit the English monarchy if there were peaceful relations. However given how much conflict, from major wars to border raids, occurred in the region, I suspect it is rather unlikely, which was why I used the ASB phase earlier. Between the blood feuds that often developed, the tradition of raiding and the wealth that could be gained from this and the weaknesses of the two governments even if the monarchs wanted peace I think it would be very difficult. The Scots king was I think very much a 1st amongst equals, highly dependent on their own power and prestige. The English monarchy was stronger but its rite was often weak in the north, compounded by the distrust of the north for the southern Wessex based dynasties and also the much stronger Danish presence in this TL. Also disputes between Strathclyde and the Anglos of both Lothian and further south were even older than with the Scots so any Scottish king would have had real problems keeping them under a tight leach. I think Malcolm, or one of his successors, actually imported a lot of Normans as local nobles to strengthen his hold and modernise his state. This may be a lot less likely in this scenario but could mean that the local tribes and clans are even more disorderly.
Steve
Way I see it Scotland has for almost five/six whole generations been ruled by a (mostly) pro-English king. The Scots are currently happy with their borders. They have control of Cumbria, the English king doesn't mind it, and the Earldom of Northumbria is controlled by relatives of the English king. So border problems really aren't so great ITTL. But you're right, everlasting peace is ASB. But it has been less than 200 years with no Scots-English wars, give it a little more time.
(I keep pondering Basileus Robertos I, the barbarian who restored the Empire and founded the great Norman dynasty.)
Now THAT is a COOL idea!
I wish I had integrated it.
I might have been able to work it in as late as the c.1190s, but damn it you were too late!
Could make for a cool TL.
