What if Canute doesn't die?

[Ravenclaw]

My dad just texted me with this idea, and it seems rich in possibilities for alternate history.

Canute the great became king if England in 1016, and began to knit it together with his other realms, Denmark, Norway, the Hebrides (possibly including parts of Ireland), and some of Sweden.
He suppressed piracy, increased trade, and laid the foundations of a 'northern empire'. Then he died at age 40, in 1035, and everything fell apart.
What if he hadn't? And what if his sons had outlived him by more than 10 years? And what if his daughter, who was married to the Holy Roman Emperor, hadn't died young? She might have been regent of the HRE, as the second wife was. Instead, her daughter was shunted off to become a nun.
Imagine a world in which the Norman 'Conquest' was successfully resisted, or never even attempted. And Britain was much more closely tied to Scandinavia and Germany, instead of fighting the 100-Year's War in an attempt to control France. British law, language, and society would be very different. And then Lief Ericsson was exploring America about that time...
Plus, Canute's mother was the daughter of the first Christian ruler of Poland, so perhaps that's another connection.
Imagine an England that did not become Feudal on the French model, but instead developed semi-democratic institutions much earlier. Like the Icelandic 'Althing'.

What do you think?

 

[LSCatilina]

The problem with "North Sea empires" (Canute's dominion is the best known, but not the only one, even if not all included England) is that they tended to crumble really easily under their own weight : each nobility and elite had its own interets and culture, and the royal hegemon wasn't popular even in Scandinavia.
Basically, every part of it regularly rebelled, forcing the king to take ressources to crush it, that in turn make nobles of other regions rebelling.

Giving that scandinavian succession was a bit particular (long story short, succession of titles was less a matter of dynastic succession than kingship succession : if your predecessor was both king of Danemark and England, even if you weren't related to him and elected in Danemark, you still had a legit claim on England), you'd have much room for infighting.

Specifically for Knut/Canute, it wouldn't change much stuff on this regard : I could even see Anglo-Saxon nobility supporting his son Harold against Knut ITTL. Regardless of the winner, it would be yet another exemple of the unstability of these North Sea empires : at best, even if Knut knows a perfect and ever-victorious reign, (in spite of much likely revolts there and there), things would end after his death, his dominion being largely tied up by charismatic/military rule rather than deep unity.

Eventually, the best that could be attempted would be a lasting House of Danemark on the English throne, but England being distinct of other scandinavian kingdoms and essentially similar to IOTL Late Anglo-Saxon period. (With less interection with Normandy, of course, which means less Normans in English court).

Now for the geopolitical consequences of a longer reign : I don't think Gunhilde's fate would be radically changed. While she was briefly sent to a convent, it didn't last IOTL.
Maybe that ITTL, she doesn't succumb to an epidemic and still alive when Henry is crowned King of the Romans? Well, it could change dynastic outcome of the Salians, but eventually little on Henry III's policies, altough his influence on Holstein and northern Germany could be greater (maybe a lesser involvement in Lorraine?)

As for Frankish influence, it would still be there, even if obviously not similar to historical Anglo-Norman : that Canute married Emma of Normandy is yet another sign.

TTL Anglo Saxon England would likely be more focused on North Sea rather than Channel, looking more towards Saxony, Flanders and Northern Germany (altough it won't be more Scandinavian focused than IOTL before the Norman conquest, IMO)

Economically and Politically, late Anglo-Saxon England knew a similar process than what happened in the continent : desintegration of the kingdom into smaller independent political entities (unified by a common kingship).
Earldomancies, with a possible more important Scandinavian influence when it comes to organisations and customs, would be a probable base for these to appear, on the ground of old AS entities (Bernicia, East-Anglia) or late AS subdivisions (Western Mercia, etc.).

I think the traits of English institutions would have probably lasted, making *English feudality looking more a mix between German feudalism (huge, distinctive entities, with an important royal political role), Scandinavian land organisation (a greater military role in succession and balancement) and Frankish (lack of public lands, or conquest over non-Christians allowing the landed redistribution)
But at this point, it's more an educated guess.

 

[Sian]

if the core idea is a succesful North Sea Empire, there's Kingdom of the North which is based around Hardeknud (Son of Canute) surviving much longer. Although its abandoned by now after having gotten to ~1800

 

[The Professor]

if the core idea is a succesful North Sea Empire, there's Kingdom of the North which is based around Hardeknud (Son of Canute) surviving much longer. Although its abandoned by now after having gotten to ~1800

It started well but began generating too much convergence.


LSCatilina is pretty much right, they tend not to last long the before the early modern period.
However that does not rule multiple attempts over time that eventually sort of succeed provided regions have an element of autonomy cf Danish Iceland

 

[Sian]

It started well but began generating too much convergence.


LSCatilina is pretty much right, they tend not to last long the before the early modern period.
However that does not rule multiple attempts over time that eventually sort of succeed provided regions have an element of autonomy cf Danish Iceland

Iceland was actually De Jure Norwegian (if anything) up till 1814

 

[LSCatilina]

However that does not rule multiple attempts over time that eventually sort of succeed provided regions have an element of autonomy cf Danish Iceland

Iceland is pretty much a peripherical, if not remote, region, tough.
England is eventually too close of main geopolitical/geoeconomical regions to not be involved largely with Western European politics, with an already established nobility (while Icelandish is relatively new and not that rooted).

Even assuming a repeted over and over conquest and reconquest cycle (which would eventually turn into wars of attrition over decades, if not centuries and more than certainly weaken a lot Scandinavian possibilities over time), Anglo-Saxon nobility and structures are too much present and Scandinavia too far away (which was a blessing for Anglo-Saxon revolts*) for that the first just gives up.

At best, I'd see a distinct Danish kingship in England, as it was attempted several times (as in, not established over the whole kingdom), but these agreements tended to be really unstable as well, until someones wins the whole of it.

*Don't forget that a lot of the Late Anglo-Saxon identity was based on "definitely not Scandinavian" after the trauma of the IXth/Xth centuries.

Which is why I'd rather see a "Scandinavized" Scotland, rather than England : less deepened structures (and less political rivality), already present Scandinavian influence...It wouldn't be a piece of cake, but maybe more doable in the long run.