WI: Canute loses the Battle of Ashingdon, 1016?

Per the title, and because I know Hastings WIs have been done to death around here :p Historically, the Danish king Canute solidified his progress towards the conquest of all of England by defeating the English under Edmund Ironside, the last king from the House of Wessex (the Cerdicing dynasty, if you will) until his half-brother Edward the Confessor succeeded in 1042 due to Canute's line being extinguished, at the Battle of Ashingdon/Assandun on October 18, 1016. The battle was apparently a pretty close affair, and Canute only gained a decisive advantage when Eadric Streona, the ealdorman of Mercia, betrayed Edmund by pulling his troops off the battlefield. All of England save Wessex was given up to Canute as a result, and the two kings agreed that whoever died first would inherit the other's lands; conveniently for Canute, Edmund was murdered a month after his defeat, completing the absorption of England into his realm. As king of Denmark, England & Norway and overlord of some other territories, Canute's dominion was called the 'North Sea Empire', although it didn't survive for long past his death.

So - what if all of that doesn't happen? Streona either changes his mind and sticks by the English, or his treachery is uncovered and Edmund relieves him of his head before the battle commences, or his horse just gets freaked out by a thunderbolt and throws him to his death on October 17 1016. The important thing is that the Mercians never betray the rest of the Saxon host: thus, Edmund Ironside proceeds to mop the floor with the Danes and possibly even kills Canute, who at this point has only two infant sons to succeed him. The House of Wessex therefore regains its hold on England once more, and the Danes are left in no condition to try a second invasion any time soon. Edmund is never assassinated on the privy in November 1016, and presumably lives a reasonably long life (say to the 1030s or '40s) on the English throne since he appears to have been a strong leader in good health.

How does a Saxon England that is never taken over by the Danes fare? With the Danish threat neutralized and Streona either dead or cowed into submission in the immediate aftermath of Ashingdon, will Edmund or his heirs dare to strike into Scotland (Lothian was part of Northumbria at this time), Wales and/or Ireland (where several Viking settlements exist and the Viking Kingdom of Dublin has been taking a beating from the native Irish in recent decades, culminating in their most recent crippling defeat by Brian Boru at Clontarf, 1014)? Or would they look to the continent and target Normandy, which used to harbor Viking raiders fresh from English shores during the reign of Edmund's father Ethelred the Unready?

Would English culture & language still gravitate towards Scandinavia (ex. replacing the ealdormen with earls), orient towards the continent, or remain insular (more Celtic influence?) without the influence of Canute's North Sea Empire?

Edmund's son Edward (historically Edward the Exile, father of Edgar Atheling), along with his little brother (also named Edmund), was historically sent to Kievan Rus' to save his life from Canute's plotting following his father's defeat. That presumably would not happen if Ironside prevails, since with Canute down for the count he'll have no reason to punt his sons to the other side of Europe. Does Edward the Not-Exiled still marry an Eastern European woman, and what kind of king would he have been should he succeed his father?

What, if anything, happens to the House of Godwin? By the time Ashingdon happened Godwin's a teenager and his father, a wealthy thane from Sussex named Wulfnoth Cild who had some run-ins with Ethelred the Unready, has been dead for two years. He historically profited greatly from his association with the Danes, betrayed Edmund Ironside's other brother Alfred when he tried to challenge Canute and married Canute's sister-in-law (I think) Gytha Thorkilsdottir; what are his chances of advancement under the continued reign of the House of Wessex?

Would the Norse (not necessarily the Danes, although they could conceivably try again once they've recovered) try invading England again? And for that matter, Canute's survival or death post-Ashingdon would also have major effects on Scandinavia, as he historically knocked Olaf II off the Norwegian throne in the 1020s and asserted his power over chunks of Sweden. If he's dead none of that happens obviously, but if he survives, will he try to go for round 2 against Ironside as soon as he can or would he rather concentrate on taking over the rest of Scandinavia, and does he have any shot at creating the Kalmar Union 300+ years early?

And for that matter, would the Normans try pushing their luck against the House of Wessex in the future? (by this point, Ethelred the Unready has already married Emma of Normandy, who gave birth to Edmund's half-brother Edward the Confessor thirteen years before Ashingdon)
 
Last edited:
So much is contextual almost anything can happen.
However, I doubt anything serious against Normandy happens - ie normal punitive raids against particular targets - and there will probably be some further links made following Unready's example.
The rise of the Godwins is forestalled unless young Godwin is as unscrupulous as I suspect and worms his way into Edmund/Edward's favour.
Young Edward would probably be married to one of Cnut's suitable relatives or perhaps link in with Flanders.
 
So much is contextual almost anything can happen.
However, I doubt anything serious against Normandy happens - ie normal punitive raids against particular targets - and there will probably be some further links made following Unready's example.
The rise of the Godwins is forestalled unless young Godwin is as unscrupulous as I suspect and worms his way into Edmund/Edward's favour.
Young Edward would probably be married to one of Cnut's suitable relatives or perhaps link in with Flanders.
Thanks for the response.

-Hm, why would the Saxons just limit themselves to small-scale reprisals against Normandy? Is it a fear of Norman power (not only were the Capetians' vassals, Normandy included, stronger than them at this time, but I believe Ethelred the Unready already went to war with Normandy and lost thanks to the Norman cavalry prior to his marriage to Emma), greater interest in other parts of Britain (ex. Wales), fear of further Viking raids or some combination of all of the above? Could Edmund Ironside or his descendants attempt to adopt the Norman cavalry tradition, not just to counter the Normans themselves but also as a speedy response to Viking raids, in due time?

-Understandable. I don't think an English triumph at Ashingdon would really change Godwin's character much, so let's say he follows OTL's trajectory with his close ties to the Scandinavians replaced by efforts to ingratiate himself with the Cerdicings & fellow Saxons (perhaps he marries the daughter or sister of an ealdorman or powerful thegn instead of Canute's sister-in-law). Would it be fair to assume that even if he were to secure control over SE England (Sussex, Kent, Middlesex & Essex, East Anglia) he never quite gets his hands on Wessex? I'd imagine the House of Wessex would want to hang on to their territorial namesake as a royal demesne of sorts.

-Interesting marriage prospects, for sure...I can understand why Edward might be set up with one of Canute's relations (to rebuild bridges between England & Denmark), but why Flanders?
 
While it's a bit outside my period, I understand that the one word that best describes the House of Godwin is ambitious. They seemed ready, willing, and able to do whatever it took to gather power for themselves. Loyal army commander going to Wales to bring back heads of Welsh kings? Not a problem. Rebellion against the King if the odds seemed right? Not a problem.

My guess would be that whoever was king, the House of Godwin would be right up there, too powerful to be ignored, and not to be trusted.
 
-Hm, why would the Saxons just limit themselves to small-scale reprisals against Normandy? Is it a fear of Norman power (not only were the Capetians' vassals, Normandy included, stronger than them at this time, but I believe Ethelred the Unready already went to war with Normandy and lost thanks to the Norman cavalry prior to his marriage to Emma), greater interest in other parts of Britain (ex. Wales), fear of further Viking raids or some combination of all of the above? Could Edmund Ironside or his descendants attempt to adopt the Norman cavalry tradition, not just to counter the Normans themselves but also as a speedy response to Viking raids, in due time?

Why would England invade Normandy? Respond to any attacks coming from there, yes, but no need to invade Normandy unless at the invitation of France itself. Just because Normandy invaded England doesn't make the reverse equally likely.

-Interesting marriage prospects, for sure...I can understand why Edward might be set up with one of Canute's relations (to rebuild bridges between England & Denmark), but why Flanders?
It's a nearby neighbour that has already made or will make links with Normandy, Denmark, and other Lowland counties
 
While it's a bit outside my period, I understand that the one word that best describes the House of Godwin is ambitious. They seemed ready, willing, and able to do whatever it took to gather power for themselves. Loyal army commander going to Wales to bring back heads of Welsh kings? Not a problem. Rebellion against the King if the odds seemed right? Not a problem.

My guess would be that whoever was king, the House of Godwin would be right up there, too powerful to be ignored, and not to be trusted.
Aha, interesting. I know that historically, Edward the Exile's son Edgar Atheling was the most legitimate heir of his granduncle Edward the Confessor from a 'Cerdicings only' standpoint, but Harold Godwinson was elevated above him by the Witan anyway. Could the House of Godwin (Godwinings?) still usurp the throne from a more firmly established House of Wessex, which never got knocked off the throne by the Danes? Or would Godwin and his heirs prefer to try marrying their way onto the throne instead? (say, if Edgar dies young and his sister Margaret's married to a Godwinson, or Edward the Not-Exile only sires daughters)

I can think of only one recorded Saxon queen so the Witan elevating a princess directly to the throne might be unlikely, but how would they view a Godwin/Godwinson candidacy sweetened by a female connection to the House of Wessex? Would they have given the Godwining candidacy more consideration or simply, agnatically brushed it off?
Why would England invade Normandy? Respond to any attacks coming from there, yes, but no need to invade Normandy unless at the invitation of France itself. Just because Normandy invaded England doesn't make the reverse equally likely.


It's a nearby neighbour that has already made or will make links with Normandy, Denmark, and other Lowland counties
To shut down all possibility of future raids from that direction, perhaps? And/or an opportunistic landgrab to secure a continental foothold at the expense of the decentralized France, maybe with the former as a figleaf (the Capetian Kings obviously haven't done much to stop earlier Norman raids & sheltering of Vikings, so maybe Edmund or Edward could go 'if you're not going to stop your vassal from launching so many damned raids on my shores, I'll do it myself'). I think the Capetians at this time were pretty weak (Robert the Pious had serious and chronic problems with his wife & sons IIRC), so I'm not entirely sure the French Crown could put a stop to a major English incursion or outright invasion of Normandy.

I see, that makes sense. A match with Judith of Flanders (admittedly she's like 14 years Edward's junior) or another daughter of Baldwin IV born via butterfly effect sounds like a plan then, especially if it provides Edmund's heir with more dynastic connections in one go than a marriage to Gytha Thorkilsdottir or another Danish princess.
 
Last edited:
Aha, interesting. I know that historically, Edward the Exile's son Edgar Atheling was the most legitimate heir of his granduncle Edward the Confessor from a 'Cerdicings only' standpoint, but Harold Godwinson was elevated above him by the Witan anyway. Could the House of Godwin (Godwinings?) still usurp the throne from a more firmly established House of Wessex, which never got knocked off the throne by the Danes? Or would Godwin and his heirs prefer to try marrying their way onto the throne instead? (say, if Edgar dies young and his sister Margaret's married to a Godwinson, or Edward the Not-Exile only sires daughters)

I can think of only one recorded Saxon queen so the Witan elevating a princess directly to the throne might be unlikely, but how would they view a Godwin/Godwinson candidacy sweetened by a female connection to the House of Wessex? Would they have given the Godwining candidacy more consideration or simply, agnatically brushed it off?

I think it would depend on many factors. In OTL, the Godwin Clan (with the notable exception of Svein), were astonishingly ambitious, and their ambition was helped by the fact that they were able to exert their power against a comparatively weak King in Edward the Confessor. Harold and Tostig were successful in leading armies against Welsh raiders, and developed the forced march as an effective strategy (which later was dramatically successful against Harald, and less so against William). I suspect the Godwin bunch will do whatever seems most likely to benefit themselves, be it marrying assorted offspring into the right group, being loyal warriors of the King, or engaging in armed insurrection against the King.

If the Normans are raiding England, and are damaging Wessex, then if there is a strong king on the throne of England, we can look to see him making sure that the raids are answered such that it is clear to everyone that raiding England costs more than it's worth, and so that probably results in Godwins undertaking reprisal raids against Normandy. The Kings of France at this stage were not the strongest that there have ever been, couldn't keep Normandy in check. I'm not sure it would develop into an invasion - there was no suggestion in the Welsh and Scottish campaigns that it was anything other than persuading neighbours to behave themselves. There was a tendency to get neighbouring Kings to swear loyalty to an English Over-King, but that wasn't really any intention of rulership, more an expression of: "You're my loyal friend, whether you like it or not. Just remember what happens if you're not my friend."

I would suspect that the first priority of Edmund would be to make his control of the Ealdormen secure, and solidifying England from a collection of Earldoms into a more unified entity. If Streona was caught in betrayal and revealed at the last minute, then Edmund would probably want to make sure that it didn't happen again. If Streona had succeeded, England might have fallen to Canute.

The second priority would be to make sure potential troublemakers are busy dealing with the constant raiding from Wales and Scotland and the Norse and the Danes and the Normans, making sure that everyone nearby knew that raiding England just got you a whole heap of pain. If the troublemakers are busy fighting in Wales, they're not busy scheming at home. Of course, they're also building up a reputation, battle experience, and may decide to switch sides, so the trick would be to keep switching the direction they are conducting reprisals in. "Last year, I sent you against the Welsh. This you, you've got the Normans. Next year, it might be the Scots."
 
Random thoughts:
As The Professor said "almost anything can happen" post an Ironside victory and survival in 1016.
Dynastic - after Ironside, you have his two sons (and why is it assumed Edward is the older twin?), his brother Eadwig plus his two half-brothers. Of course the number of Æthelings will probably be different come Ironsides death. At this point primogeniture is not a given however the Witan usually takes account of the dead kings wishes. But it is an 'elected' kingship. Æthelings rarely married European princesses but the dowager Lady (Emma) may have some influence (especially over her own two sons)... Consolidating and solidifying an English kingdom will probably see continued marriage with English noble families for sometime... And I don't think Godwin (despite his ambitious deviousness) will be one of those nobles...
Geopolitical - I don't think Ironside will strike into Scotland or Wales (let alone Ireland) but continue the unofficial policy of slow encroachment. Which is not to say that some later Cerdinga won't have delusions of grandeur... The point about troublesome nobles being appointed to the marches is problematic (independent power base, centrifugal tendencies) but given the period, no other option (apart from murder) is available. Exile?
When did Unræd go to war with Normandy? There was certainly bad feeling but as an international incident it never escalated and was eventually defused by marriage.
I don't think ASE will 'gravitate' or 'orient' anywhere... That is not to say that it is completely insular (and how does that equate to more Celtic influence?) - it is they are confident in who they are. Like most west European nations at this point in time, the ideal of Charlemagne's court still holds tremendous sway... ASE will trade and have diplomatic relations where it is in their interests. For example, as a pious Christian nation it will contribute to the Crusades (if they still occur).
 
I think it would depend on many factors. In OTL, the Godwin Clan (with the notable exception of Svein), were astonishingly ambitious, and their ambition was helped by the fact that they were able to exert their power against a comparatively weak King in Edward the Confessor. Harold and Tostig were successful in leading armies against Welsh raiders, and developed the forced march as an effective strategy (which later was dramatically successful against Harald, and less so against William). I suspect the Godwin bunch will do whatever seems most likely to benefit themselves, be it marrying assorted offspring into the right group, being loyal warriors of the King, or engaging in armed insurrection against the King.

If the Normans are raiding England, and are damaging Wessex, then if there is a strong king on the throne of England, we can look to see him making sure that the raids are answered such that it is clear to everyone that raiding England costs more than it's worth, and so that probably results in Godwins undertaking reprisal raids against Normandy. The Kings of France at this stage were not the strongest that there have ever been, couldn't keep Normandy in check. I'm not sure it would develop into an invasion - there was no suggestion in the Welsh and Scottish campaigns that it was anything other than persuading neighbours to behave themselves. There was a tendency to get neighbouring Kings to swear loyalty to an English Over-King, but that wasn't really any intention of rulership, more an expression of: "You're my loyal friend, whether you like it or not. Just remember what happens if you're not my friend."

I would suspect that the first priority of Edmund would be to make his control of the Ealdormen secure, and solidifying England from a collection of Earldoms into a more unified entity. If Streona was caught in betrayal and revealed at the last minute, then Edmund would probably want to make sure that it didn't happen again. If Streona had succeeded, England might have fallen to Canute.

The second priority would be to make sure potential troublemakers are busy dealing with the constant raiding from Wales and Scotland and the Norse and the Danes and the Normans, making sure that everyone nearby knew that raiding England just got you a whole heap of pain. If the troublemakers are busy fighting in Wales, they're not busy scheming at home. Of course, they're also building up a reputation, battle experience, and may decide to switch sides, so the trick would be to keep switching the direction they are conducting reprisals in. "Last year, I sent you against the Welsh. This you, you've got the Normans. Next year, it might be the Scots."
Gotcha. Then, I believe the best and most logical course of action for Godwin (at least in the short to medium term) is indeed to basically just not rock the boat and try to make himself indispensable to Ironside's regime until & unless an opportunity for advancement that makes going against the Cerdicings look like something other than suicide crops up. Ironside's position would surely be pretty strong if he's fresh off driving the Danes back into the sea and teaching Streona a lesson nobody will soon forget. Sending his most capable lieutenants to face different threats every now & then, and thus preventing them from building a stable powerbase in any one area, also sounds like a great idea for Edmund.
Random thoughts:
As The Professor said "almost anything can happen" post an Ironside victory and survival in 1016.
Dynastic - after Ironside, you have his two sons (and why is it assumed Edward is the older twin?), his brother Eadwig plus his two half-brothers. Of course the number of Æthelings will probably be different come Ironsides death. At this point primogeniture is not a given however the Witan usually takes account of the dead kings wishes. But it is an 'elected' kingship. Æthelings rarely married European princesses but the dowager Lady (Emma) may have some influence (especially over her own two sons)... Consolidating and solidifying an English kingdom will probably see continued marriage with English noble families for sometime... And I don't think Godwin (despite his ambitious deviousness) will be one of those nobles...
Geopolitical - I don't think Ironside will strike into Scotland or Wales (let alone Ireland) but continue the unofficial policy of slow encroachment. Which is not to say that some later Cerdinga won't have delusions of grandeur... The point about troublesome nobles being appointed to the marches is problematic (independent power base, centrifugal tendencies) but given the period, no other option (apart from murder) is available. Exile?
When did Unræd go to war with Normandy? There was certainly bad feeling but as an international incident it never escalated and was eventually defused by marriage.
I don't think ASE will 'gravitate' or 'orient' anywhere... That is not to say that it is completely insular (and how does that equate to more Celtic influence?) - it is they are confident in who they are. Like most west European nations at this point in time, the ideal of Charlemagne's court still holds tremendous sway... ASE will trade and have diplomatic relations where it is in their interests. For example, as a pious Christian nation it will contribute to the Crusades (if they still occur).
I thought it wasn't entirely clear that Edmund Jr. was Edward the Exile's twin? I've read that that was a possibility of course, but Edmund Ætheling could've also been the older brother (in which case I suppose Edward becomes less relevant to the succession unless he turns out to be a royal screw-up) or the younger (making him a posthumous son). What English noblewomen of note would have made good marriage prospects for Edmund's sons?

I read Ethelred once launched a punitive expedition to Normandy here, though it doesn't seem to have gone far before being smacked down by the Norman cavalry and was part of the impetus for his eventual marriage to Emma. That said, it does seem the bad blood between England & Normandy stopped flowing between Emma's marriage and the time of William the Conqueror, so I guess Edmund wouldn't pay much attention to Normandy unless they returned to their old ways of raiding English shores/sheltering Vikings.

Ah, I thought they might pick up more Celtic influence if they continued to concentrate on interactions (hostile or otherwise) with the rest of the British Isles (what with Scotland, Wales and Ireland all being Celtic). So, would it be fair to say that an Anglo-Saxon England that has fended off the Norse one more time and (at this point anyway) has no real beef with the Normans would continue to proudly maintain its unique culture & traditions?

BTW, thanks for all the insight so far, everyone. I'm thinking of using this as the starting POD for my first timeline here, the previous one I explored on these forums (Jesus having kids) turned out to be rather too big a bite for a newcomer like myself to chew.
 
My mistake. William of Jumieges (some 70years after) does record said punitive expedition.

Best wishes with your proposed timeline - I'm looking forward to it. :)
 
How does a Saxon England that is never taken over by the Danes fare?
Interestingly, it may backfire a bit, at least in short term. Whatever the fate of Streona, the Danish presence allowed the establishment of an English medieval identity partially focused on a not-scandinavian national dynasty*.

You may end with eldormancies being more identitarian than IOTL, en plus of develloping an autonomous stance earlier than IOTL (think Godwin's desmene-equivalent). Remember that the Anglo-Dane administration did a lot to temper a quasi-feudal development in late Anglo-Saxon England : ITTL, important and powerful lords as Streona may have more importance, making England looking more like France or Germany earlier than IOTL.

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 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.).


It doesn't mean this Anglo-Saxon feudality would be similar to what existed in Anglo-Norman Englend, of course. While Frankish and German institutional influence would probably exist, it would be impressed on a distinct local situation.
It would be as well influenced, in its prime form, by a lasting slavery (that virtually disappeared elsewhere and probably will there as well) and by proper AS social identities as cotarii or bordarii.
A more important nobility, demographically speaking (closer to continental standards, between 4 to 6% instead to less than 1%), more diverse socially would count as well.

*Arguably, it's in the continuity of the identitarian construction that existed since the fights of Wessex against Anglo-Scandinavians


will Edmund or his heirs dare to strike into Scotland (Lothian was part of Northumbria at this time), Wales and/or Ireland
Wales, Strathclyde and Lothian would be indeed "natural" immediate focuses for England, but I'm not sure it would be that of royal focuses. Wales was traditionally managed by magnates and great nobles, raiding or counter-raiding it, for instance.

As for Strathclyde and Lothian, it's certain that Scots wouldn't have the same free reign to takeover as they did IOTL, but on the other hand they were problematic opponents : the celtic high-kinship nature of their institutions made them relatively unable to pull too much weight but it also allowed a fairly good resiliance.
Even more for Lothian (giving it was already firmly into Scot influence at this point) than Strathclyde, it's going to be hard to simply getting rid of Scots save some repeted major victories. I'd more likely bet on some royal expeditions to make point about "you-won't-cross-the-incredibly-vague-border-and-not-raid-and-plunder-the-shit-of-my-northern-lands" and eventually have the far and vague acknowledgement of his royal authority by the local scottish/brythonic nobles; and more probably on important noble expeditions when it would come to actual political control.

Basically : maybe some decisive (politically and culturally) change when it comes to sphere of influence and eventual borders, but nothing world-shattering in the middle term.

Viking Kingdom of Dublin
Which wasn't much of a kingdom (rather a collection of city-states more or less acknowledging the authority of the King of the Isles) and that went native a long time ago already.
Too far, too unimportant on middle term, I'd say.

Or would they look to the continent and target Normandy, which used to harbor Viking raiders fresh from English shores during the reign of Edmund's father Ethelred the Unready?
Normandy, at this point, was firmly into the Frankish ensemble : while it was the Frankish Far West one generation ago, it settled quickly and Richard II was as much a Frankish lord as you could get, frowning upon piracy like the newt fellow (piracy that he didn't endorsed, that is).

It may look very quick, but the difference between Richard II's minority and actual rule was that decisive to the "normalisation" of Normandy. In fact, you'd certainly see ITTL the same relations between Normandy and Anglo-Saxon England that existed IOTL two decades later. Meaning some Frankish nobles "advising" or serving as mercenaries in British Isles.

Would English culture & language still gravitate towards Scandinavia (ex. replacing the ealdormen with earls), orient towards the continent, or remain insular (more Celtic influence?) without the influence of Canute's North Sea Empire?
The continental influence would be at least as important ITTL than IOTL in the mid XIth century, I'd say : Scandinavia was an historical trade and cultural partner, but the main centers were in atlantic France and Germany when it come to actual Anglo-Saxon interests or references (basically, everything between Brittany and Saxony)

Scandinavian influence would be still there, but maybe more popular and focused on some regions (not unlike what existed in Normandy IOTL)

As said above, I'd expect and earlier feudalisation of England, with "national" ealdormancies turning into "national" duchies-like ensemble (with all caution due to equivalance, of course).[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
<snip>
You may end with eldormancies being more identitarian than IOTL, en plus of develloping an autonomous stance earlier than IOTL (think Godwin's desmene-equivalent). Remember that the Anglo-Dane administration did a lot to temper a quasi-feudal development in late Anglo-Saxon England : ITTL, important and powerful lords as Streona may have more importance, making England looking more like France or Germany earlier than IOTL.
<snip>
As said above, I'd expect and earlier feudalisation of England, with "national" ealdormancies turning into "national" duchies-like ensemble (with all caution due to equivalance, of course).
[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Yeah, not sure I’d agree with that assessment. In fact I’d argue the opposite – the Anglo-Dane administration facilitated the rise of almost autonomous earldoms. The big three (Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria) were the direct result of Danish rule and contributed to English national weakness in 1066 and after.

As to “what English noblewomen of note would have made good marriage prospects for Edmund’s sons?”
More research would have to be done to get a definitive answer… indeed the question might be what are the noble English families at this point? Ironside wins Ashingdon but who else survives? IOTL, Ealdorman Aelfric of Hampshire, Godwine of Lindsey and Ulfcetel of East Anglia died.
 
Yeah, not sure I’d agree with that assessment. In fact I’d argue the opposite – the Anglo-Dane administration facilitated the rise of almost autonomous earldoms. The big three (Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria) were the direct result of Danish rule and contributed to English national weakness in 1066 and after.[/QUOTE]

I'd rather argue that these ensemble already had large autonomy before the Danish takeover, which didn't destroyed them. What I argue isn't that Anglo-Danish rule prevented them to exist directly, but that a Anglo-Saxon proto-nationalism targeting Danish overkingship helped unifying (and not merging) these various ensemble...until Danish rule went away.

That said, Danish rule did institutionalized unyfing structures directly : for instance, by formalizing earldomancies, he provided Anglo-Danes or Anglo-Saxon high nobility with a customary structures they couldn't that easily transgress at their benefit; by comparison with the "I'm the law" attitude of main continental princes, I think it tempered the autonomous evolution of Anglo-Saxon demesnes into effective principalties.
 
I can mostly agree with LSCatilina. It's a case that every authority faces: centralization vs centrifugalization.
For a continuing AS England a lot will depend on the personality of the King on how well he controls the tendency towards autonomy and some sort of feudality will appear because it is just plain useful at this time.
 
Godwin's first mention in any documentary source is supposed to be in the will of the Atheling Aethelstan, Edmund Ironside's older brother, in 1014 where he is gifted an estate supposedly confiscated from Wulfnoth Cild after the 1008 naval fiasco. Wulfnoth is often identified as Godwin’s father and the estates returned to him for good service rendered to the Atheling. The next mention of Godwin comes in the early years of Canute’s reign where in 1018, a mere two years after his accession Godwin is recorded as an earl.

The Encomium Emmæ Reginae, the work of self-propaganda produced to glorify Canute’s Queen Emma of Normandy (Edmund’s step mother) mentions that Canute whilst doing honour to those who had been true to their lords ruthless dealt with those who had facilitated or changed sides too regularly. As Godwin was shown considerable favour and trust by Canute it would seem to indicate that he believed Godwin to be true to his word. The possibility is that Godwin after the death of Aethelstan transferred his allegiance to Edmund, the brothers always were close and only came over to Canute after his death. The legend has it that when Canute & Edmund met at Deerhurst they agreed that either would become sole king of England if the other died first. Godwin could well have observed this thus proving to Canute his fealty and faithfulness.

As to Godwin’s dealings with the Aetheling Alfred in 1036 the fact of the matter is that Godwin may have felt no loyalty to the younger sons of Aethelraed, the loyalty he showed to Aethelstan and presumably Edmund was a personal loyalty fuelled by self interest. After the death of Canute his initial loyalty has to Canute’s supposed preferred heir Harthacnut and Canute’s widow Queen Emma. When Harthacnut proved slow in claiming his patrimony and with the supporters of Harold Harefoot, Canute’s son from a previous relationship in the ascendancy the sudden invasion of a landless adventurer to whom he felt no loyalty was a god given opportunity for Godwin to prove his loyalty to the new regime.

Godwin’s method of gaining advancement was to show absolute loyalty to the lord he had pledged his allegiance to. The only serious blip was the crisis of 1051-52 where Edward the Confessor’s long held grudge against Godwin for his involvement in the death of his brother came to surface, probably at the behest of Robert of Jumièges, the Norman Archbishop of Canterbury who had some long standing property disputes with Godwin. Shortly after strong arming his restoration to his estates Godwin died but his sons, most notably Harold, maintained this policy effectively becoming the king’s right hand man and enforcer.

Post Ashington after a victory for the Ironside there would have been opportunities for a man of proven loyalty. Even a victory would have caused attrition in the ranks of the higher nobility and with the King having at least one widowed sister there would be a real chance for Godwin to marry into the royal clan.
 
Top