WI: Edgar the Aethling marries Urraca of Castille and Leon

Is this match even possible to begin with Urraca, the Queen regnant of Castille-Leon and Edgar are contemporaries.
 
They're a generation apart (Edgar in 1051, Urraca in 1079). And Urraca gains nothing from the marriage unless Edgar Aetheling actually becomes King.
 
They're a generation apart (Edgar in 1051, Urraca in 1079). And Urraca gains nothing from the marriage unless Edgar Aetheling actually becomes King.

He will gain something if Urraca becomes the Queen of Castile-Leon which means that he will be the King dejure-uxoris.
 
Edgar leads a Saxon-centric crusade to Iberia, carves out a fief of his own adjacent to Castille, is widowed early on and marries Queen Urraca.
 
Edgar leads a Saxon-centric crusade to Iberia, carves out a fief of his own adjacent to Castille, is widowed early on and marries Queen Urraca.

Someone played too much CK2? Urraca is a good grab early on, regardless of where you're starting in.
 
Someone played too much CK2? Urraca is a good grab early on, regardless of where you're starting in.

Actually, now that I think about it, Edgar Atheling could go on crusade and carve out a kingdom on the peninsula. Perhaps he and a bunch of Saxon men can go south to fight the Umayyads, align themselves with with the king of Leon and Castile, and establish alt-Portugal.

Though I'm not sure how feasible that is.
 
I've read somewhere (no idea where now), that Edgar commanded a (the?) fleet on the First Crusade (to the Holy Land). I've never been able to find anything to confirm this, or provide more details.

AFAIK he had no surviving children (any such would have course have had a good claim to the English crown, and one could make an argument that any present-day descendants would have a legitimate claim to replace the Windsors ;)), and may never have married.

Personally as a bit of a lefty I'd love to see the British aristocracy slighted as being descendants of a bunch of piratical freebooters, all their land rights being declared null and void, and the legitimate Anglo-Saxon royal house restored ;)

Unfortunately I tried to trace the succession once, and I believe it devolves through Margaret of Scotland and merges with the current line after a few generations.
 
Actually, now that I think about it, Edgar Atheling could go on crusade and carve out a kingdom on the peninsula. Perhaps he and a bunch of Saxon men can go south to fight the Umayyads, align themselves with with the king of Leon and Castile, and establish alt-Portugal.

Though I'm not sure how feasible that is.

The Ummayads are gone by the mid 11th century, your into the Taifa period now, so it should actually be easier to carve out some territory.
 
I did give some thought to Edgar the Aethling becoming King of England. In 1069, there was a rebellion in the north in Edgar's favour which was supported by Malcolm III of Scotland and Sven II of Denmark. Malcolm was (or would soon be) married to Edgar's sister, so I'd wager Edgar's best choice would be to marry one of Sven's daughters. Sven himself had a claim to the English throne, but I read on another forum here that he would have preferred a puppet ruler if it suited him.

EDIT: Not sure how well-entrenched the Norman nobles are by 1069, but if Edgar becomes King and they decide they don't want to stay, perhaps some of them might make the trip to Iberia instead.
 
Last edited:
I've read somewhere (no idea where now), that Edgar commanded a (the?) fleet on the First Crusade (to the Holy Land). I've never been able to find anything to confirm this, or provide more details.

AFAIK he had no surviving children (any such would have course have had a good claim to the English crown, and one could make an argument that any present-day descendants would have a legitimate claim to replace the Windsors ;)), and may never have married.

Personally as a bit of a lefty I'd love to see the British aristocracy slighted as being descendants of a bunch of piratical freebooters, all their land rights being declared null and void, and the legitimate Anglo-Saxon royal house restored ;)

Unfortunately I tried to trace the succession once, and I believe it devolves through Margaret of Scotland and merges with the current line after a few generations.
No Edgar Atheling didn't command the fleet supporting the crusade,because he was invading
Scotland at nearly the same time.
On the issue of issue there may be more hope, as there was an Edgar Atheling on the rolls, in 1158 and 1167, this as is pointed out, is ether Edgar at 110 or someone else, who was Edgar Atheling.
 
I've read somewhere (no idea where now), that Edgar commanded a (the?) fleet on the First Crusade (to the Holy Land). I've never been able to find anything to confirm this, or provide more details.

...

Steven Runciman mentions it on his assessment of the First Crusade. He says a Medieval source claimed that Edgar the Aetheling commanded a ship (or a fleet) together with the Italians, and helped in the conquest of a city southeast of Asia Minor (possibly Antioch, but I can't remember).

The author himself suggests that this source is not credible, and that it was probably a fabrication of some later author to paint Edgar the Aetheling as a pious ruler who participated in the very first Crusade.
 
Steven Runciman mentions it on his assessment of the First Crusade. He says a Medieval source claimed that Edgar the Aetheling commanded a ship (or a fleet) together with the Italians, and helped in the conquest of a city southeast of Asia Minor (possibly Antioch, but I can't remember).

The author himself suggests that this source is not credible, and that it was probably a fabrication of some later author to paint Edgar the Aetheling as a pious ruler who participated in the very first Crusade.

Ah, thanks, that sounds like a reasonable explanation of where it came from. I did doubt it, not having found any reference in any of the histories of the crusade I had looked at.

Edit: wouldn't be the first bit of history fabricated in medieval times ;)
 
Last edited:
Steven Runciman mentions it on his assessment of the First Crusade. He says a Medieval source claimed that Edgar the Aetheling commanded a ship (or a fleet) together with the Italians, and helped in the conquest of a city southeast of Asia Minor (possibly Antioch, but I can't remember).

The author himself suggests that this source is not credible, and that it was probably a fabrication of some later author to paint Edgar the Aetheling as a pious ruler who participated in the very first Crusade.

There are also theories that Edgar went on a pilgrimage shortly after the First Crusade, or went East and served in the Varangian guard, which may have conflated to stories of him being a crusader (the fact that Robert Curthose, whom Edgar attached himself to in the Norman succession struggles, participated in the First Crusade probably contributed to the confusion).

The whole "go to Spain, carve out a fief and marry a Queen" thing is a possibility (it happened OTL with the Burgundians in Portugal and the d'Ivreans, who provided Urraca's husband IOTL).

But, is a relatively impoverished and landless (he supposedly gave up most of his English property when he went to Italy) Edgar able to conjure up the troops/cash to have any success in Spain?

If no, you can potentially have such a situation come about (assuming you don't want Edgar on the throne) either by having Edgar retain his English property and not go to Norman Sicily, have his Sicilian venture be more successful or have a Robert Curthose victorious over William Rufus reward Edgar with land/wealth/power.

As to the match with Urraca itself- the age gap isn't a huge issue (this is the Middle Ages) but would there be any cultural issues? I mean, the Anglo-Saxons were kinda on the fringe of Europe, and the Iberians had much more in common with the French(/Burgundian) houses they wed IOTL.

You might also have trouble voiced by the King of England, who wouldn't want Edgar to get a power base large enough to potentially reclaim England (which is why a victorious Curthose might be useful- Edgar was a trusted advisor, so Robert is likely more amenable to such a match than either of the Williams).

Another heiress is available - Matilda of Canossa.

Aye, but she's older than Edgar and was apparently married until 1076. Though I suppose if you have Edgar go out to Italy earlier (it was the mid-1080s OTL) and be more successful you might pull something off here.
 
Last edited:
Depending on the exact circumstances, Edgar was sufficiently close to power in England and Scotland as to be able to command a fairly significant crusading force - or else, to tag along on one and subsequently rise to prominence once the leader died or returned home.

He was also in Flanders for a time, and then invited to the court of the French King; in 1086 William the Conqueror gave him 200 knights to seek his fortune with the Normans in Sicily. Urraca's eventual husband Raymond of Burgundy arrived in Spain that same year - a man Edgar outranks significantly, both in birth and connection (Edgar's ties to England and Scotland could make him a worthier ally than a lowly Burgundian spare). All you need is for Edgar to be shipwrecked or land in Spain for whatever reason and then secure Urraca's hand before Raymond does - problem solved.
 
Urraca could actually marry Robert Curthose rather than Raymond, Raymond has some succession rights in Normandy which is more legitimate than that of Curthose, Raymond could claim that land if William dies from Hastings.
 
Top