What if York becomes the capital of England?

[Byzantine fanatic]

Before the Normans, York was arguably the most important city in England. London didn't become the capital of England until the 12th century.

York was the capital of the Viking Danelaw in the 9th century; it was also the capital of Northumbria, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom which at various times was the most powerful in England. It was well positioned for contact with the Scandinavian and northern European world, which the early Danish and Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were part of.

It was the conquest of York in 927 by Aethelstan of Wessex that created the kingdom of England. Northern chroniclers bitterly resented the victory of the southerners, who had never ruled the north before. At this time Wichester became the capital. Only after the Norman conquest did Henry I (1100-1135) move the capital to London.

Therefore, what if history had gone differently? What if one of the Viking or Northumbrian kings had established himself over all of England, with York as his capital? What if the Norman rule never happens, and England stays firmly within the Scandinavian sphere? What if York was the capital of England today?

 

[Reydan]

On a base level York would be completely unrecognisable to the city it is today. Many people think, perhaps with some basis, that the industrial revolution bypassed the city. Whilst that isn't true, it is much, much, smaller than any of the major population centres that emerged in the modern period.

One of the major problems for York, after the middle ages, is that lack of an estuary. York is much further in land than London and doesn't have the facility for the huge docks and warehouses that fed modern London. What you might see emerge is a symbiotic relationship with Hull down the river at the Humber estuary. Sort of like Ancient Rome and Ostia.

One of the other key differences between York and London will be the central place of religion. At your POD York is a much more developed centre of Christianity than London, and that is only going to increase over time. Expect the Archbishop of York (probably going to be the main primate of England) to, logically, play a much more important role in temporal politics.

Also, its worth remembering that until the Reformation around 1/4 to 1/3 of the city was owned either directly or indirectly by St Mary's Abbey. Obviously this was not quite as important in the Viking period, but it was still there from 1055 and dedicated to a Scandinavian Saint. So a big role for the cloistered church as well as the Archbishop.

I think, with a more Northern capital, more effort will be put into conquering Scotland - maybe before Wales, which will seem more distant despite not being geographically so.

Other than that its very hard to project what a future England might look like!

 

[Lindseyman]

Much as I hate to admit this it is going to take Northern and Southern England to be in different countries for York to be the capital of even the North. Even in Saxon England there was a pull towards London as the major trading city and they had an established capital in Winchester. Most of England's trade was with France and Flanders and London is so much more convenient.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Much as I hate to admit this it is going to take Northern and Southern England to be in different countries for York to be the capital of even the North. Even in Saxon England there was a pull towards London as the major trading city and they had an established capital in Winchester. Most of England's trade was with France and Flanders and London is so much more convenient.

Not true. If England is united by the North instead of the South (e.g. Danelaw extends to all England) then York could stay the capital - now of a larger state.