WI Englisc vs Angliais

So I have been thinking a lot of about dialects and stuff today of which eventually led to me thinking of this. What if by whatever reason/s there remains a Englisc (Old English) speaking elite most likely in hiding or somewhere that those now on top could not give a rat's about. So in short we have potentially three forms of English coming about, that of the aristocracy, that of the commons and now a third, the native 'elite' who ensure that the tongue bliven lutter like the lave of this seting. (remains pure like the rest of this sentence)

What is everyone's thoughts about such a scenario. A further idea that through a level of cultural conservatism by the part of those who upload ensure the survival of this "High English" if you will re-adopted the usage of Futhorc as another layer of language protection so to an outsider any writings would just look like a load of nothing or just generally ignored. Potentially if these wardens are from the right area maybe the old ways will carry on through them considering we do not know exactly when the entire peasantry became Christians or at least entirely discarded the bulk of the old ways. That later it more wishful thinking though undoubtedly it would be awesome if that did occur.

I guess all there is to say is just have at it Ladies and Gents!
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
The difficulty with this is the practicalities of maintaining a culturally distinct elite in a time when the principal concern of elite actors was extending power through marriage alliances. The landed classes of were culturally rather homogenous at this time, as we can see from the expansion of French elite culture into Scotland this meant a spreading of language. There were religious and social continuations of Old English, in conservative versions of Middle English written down up to the 14th century in the West Midlands, but your big task here is to create a continued division between Saxon and French. By about 1150, nobody thought of themselves as Saxon, everybody was a subject of the English king, but lords spoke French and peasants spoke English.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
This is an interesting idea, but the execution is rather tricky. I wouldn't call it outright impossible, and I have some caveats regarding @Brunaburh's (generally correct) statement that by 1150 nobody thought of themselves as Saxon. Specifically, even if not explicit, elements of pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon culture did remain within the cultural consciousness for quite a bit longer. One may well argue that the latter-day romantic notions of "proud Anglo-Saxons wanting to throw off the Norman yoke" were pure revisionism, but the idea that such things as the Magna Carta were in part inspired by an "ancient English constitution" protecting certain freedoms, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, is not actually that far-fetched. This notion has been lauded at times, more recently it has been criticised, but I am noticing a reversal of that trend. A certain continuity of tradition can be identified.

The problem is that this made no difference. Even if a half-conscious reference to "ancient rights and freedoms" played such a role, it was clearly never enough to actually inspire any kind of revolution. (In fact, the only time it did inspire a revolution was in 1776: Thomas Jefferson explicitly cited Anglo-Saxon liberties as the basis for the rights of Englishmen!) Anyway, to have an Anglo-Saxon cultural identity (and thus, a language) survive, you'd need a) this identity to be a lot stronger before 1066 or b) a part of England to remain unconquered by the Normans.

Option a is very difficult, as the culture of the Anglo-Saxons pretty much existed by default. It had no institutional framework to defend it. The main reason the Normans were so succesful in taking over all of England post-conquest is that they introduced a far more developed institutional framework. Since there was no competing Anglo-Saxon framework, the norman way became the norm on short notice. A way to change this would be a very early POD, whereby England retains much more of its pre-Christian cultural characteristics (including fuþorc). This would make alt-England far more of an outsider vis-à-vis the continent. Such a relation of being "opposite" would further encourage a distinct sense of cultural identity. Needless to say, a POD that early would butterfly the OTL events of 1066. Yet an ATL conquest from the same quarters may be imagined, and this could then yield the outcome you desire.

Option b is easier. Simply change things a bit. Maybe Harold defeats Harald, but is knocked out in the battle. When he wakes up, he's too late to meet William at Hastings. Gathering his army, he manages to fight William to a draw further inland. Later battles are similarly inconclusive. Result: a southern English state ultimately under Norman control, and a more northern state that remains Anglo-Saxon. The fact that William has "less England" but the same number of Normans means more Norman influence per capita in his country, which makes the development of "Angliais" there more likely. At the same time, the Anglo-Saxon country naturally defines itself in opposition to this invading power, and will thus be inclined to stress its own Anglo-Saxon nature. Result: Anglisc as the common tongue.
 
Last edited:
I think you could have such a situation if someone other than William the Conqueror came along. Simply because he was... ruthless. I don't think the Saxon Lords in any stretch would have been left alone.

I think if you want "Englisc" and "Anglais" - I'd suggest a PoD where William the Conqueror doesn't kill Harold Godwinson, but wins enough to be able to bring reinforcements - eventually leading to Harold signing a treaty that divides England - leaving the Saxons with the lands of the Danelaw, and William the South. This is still a huge blow to Godwinson, but it could lead to a permenant divide along these two lines.

I do like the idea of a follow up war that is a half-victory, half-loss - that leads to the Saxons invading because William was being too rough with his subjects (see Treaty), and whilst there is no outright victory for the Saxons, they evacuate a vast number of people to the North - allowing it to be populous enough to stop the Normans long-term, but still leaving enough Saxons in the south to influence/be influenced by the Normans.
 
I've always had the theory that if the Anglo-Saxons accepted William the Conquerors rule from the start, than much of the Anglo-Saxons traditions and some sort of language would have been partially preserved, as William would not have invaded and probably just figured that it wasn't worth suppressing the locals if they were loyal.
 
I've always had the theory that if the Anglo-Saxons accepted William the Conquerors rule from the start, than much of the Anglo-Saxons traditions and some sort of language would have been partially preserved, as William would not have invaded and probably just figured that it wasn't worth suppressing the locals if they were loyal.
Yes but why should they? By their own laws Godwinson is the rightful king.
It is worth noting that later in his reign William did have to maintain a vestige of the Witangemot in the Privy Council.
 
With few changes I think having it survive until the 20th is entirely possible on some island or very rural area similar to Irish or Gaelic but keeping it as a distinct cultural elite seems highly unlikely given repercussions of the Norman Conquest.


I've always had the theory that if the Anglo-Saxons accepted William the Conquerors rule from the start, than much of the Anglo-Saxons traditions and some sort of language would have been partially preserved, as William would not have invaded and probably just figured that it wasn't worth suppressing the locals if they were loyal.

I'd agree with this. If William was given the crown from the start I think that the Norman "invasion" would have looked more like the first English wave in Ireland. They'd have been motivated to maintain the traditional power structure and society they were now on the top of. Why tear up the country if they're already paying you taxes?
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

Option b is easier. Simply change things a bit. Maybe Harold defeats Harald, but is knocked out in the battle. When he wakes up, he's too late to meet William at Hastings. Gathering his army, he manages to fight William to a draw further inland. Later battles are similarly inconclusive. Result: a southern English state ultimately under Norman control, and a more northern state that remains Anglo-Saxon. The fact that William has "less England" but the same number of Normans means more Norman influence per capita in his country, which makes the development of "Angliais" there more likely. At the same time, the Anglo-Saxon country naturally defines itself in opposition to this invading power, and will thus be inclined to stress its own Anglo-Saxon nature. Result: Anglisc as the common tongue.
Maybe get the Anglo-Saxons to settle Iceland (or even a successful version of The Unmentionable Viking Colony In L'Anse aux Meadows), preserving the language there. Then we don't need to worry about creating an Old English rump state in Britain.

Later an analogue to William of Normandy conquers England.

However, after a Danish invasion similar to the one that failed in 1069 IOTL but instead succeeds, the King of France moves in and conquers England himself or secures it for his weakened Norman vassal and this brings in a much larger French court into England. Then add as many succession crises as you want to get additional French soldiers and nobles in England.
 
Yes but why should they? By their own laws Godwinson is the rightful king.
It is worth noting that later in his reign William did have to maintain a vestige of the Witangemot in the Privy Council.
So far all I got is Edward the Confessor gives some sort of public declaration about William being his successor, i'm sure there is some reason it could happen however unlikely, I jut haven't thought of it.
 
So far all I got is Edward the Confessor gives some sort of public declaration about William being his successor, i'm sure there is some reason it could happen however unlikely, I jut haven't thought of it.
Perhaps William's invasion is delayed and Stamford is a success for Hardrada? Then he gets to present himself as a rescuer of the kingdom when he does invade.
 
A split between an Norman south and a Englisc north, (presumably along OTL North-South dialect split) is interesting. Presumably, the two would go back and forth fir control of the Midlands, and maybe Wales. And the Englisc would have to keep up good relations with the Scotts, least they be squished between their old enemy and their new ones.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
This is an interesting idea, but the execution is rather tricky. I wouldn't call it outright impossible, and I have some caveats regarding @Brunaburh's (generally correct) statement that by 1150 nobody thought of themselves as Saxon. Specifically, even if not explicit, elements of pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon culture did remain within the cultural consciousness for quite a bit longer. One may well argue that the latter-day romantic notions of "proud Anglo-Saxons wanting to throw off the Norman yoke" were pure revisionism, but the idea that such things as the Magna Carta were in part inspired by an "ancient English constitution" protecting certain freedoms, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, is not actually that far-fetched. This notion has been lauded at times, more recently it has been criticised, but I am noticing a reversal of that trend. A certain continuity of tradition can be identified.

Have you got any sources re: magna carta and an ideology of pre-Norman continuity? I'd be interested to have a look.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Have you got any sources re: magna carta and an ideology of pre-Norman continuity? I'd be interested to have a look.

The main work that is known for really all-out defending this point of view is the great big 19th century classic: The Constitutional History of England, by William Stubbs. It has since been attacked, often viciously, for its perceived "Germanist" bias. I disagree. The work's main weakness is that it's a product of its time, and it is thus dated. But Stubbs has written a masterpiece, and if you take it with a grain of salt, it's eminently worth a read.

There is is, of course, more modern fare. The Roots of Liberty: Magna Carta, Ancient Constitution, and the Anglo-American Tradition of Rule of Law, edited by Ellis Sandoz, for instance. It's a very interesting read, although I've known some people to shun it on account of its publisher being an institure advocating libertarian-ish politics. The book isn't political, but the general attitude of "look how awesome LIBERTY is" is there, and can get on some people's nerves, I guess.

What they nowadays call a "golden oldie" is, from 1914 (so still quite modern compared to Stubbs!), Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John, with an Historical Introduction, by William Sharp McKechnie. Also a classic, and more nuanced (but in my opinion, somewhat less eloquent).

A.K.R. Kiralfy, in The English Legal System, and as editor of Potter’s Historical Introduction To English Law And Its Institutions, stresses the importance of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, and its continuity into the Norman era. It would be a bit much to get the whole book for just a couple of pages on the relevant topic, however!

Nicholas Vincent has furthermore stressed the importance of the precedent of king Henry's coronation charter in various lectures, which had previously guaranteed the rights of the nobility. This charter, in turn, is very typical of the kind of confirmation of rights that we see in all of Germanic Europe. (In the Low Countries, for instance, we had similar charters, referred to as a Groot Privilege: "great privilege", where "privelege" has the literal meaning, and refers to the rights of the nobles to make their own laws.) This all goes back to Germanic law, codified back in Charlemagne's day. In Anglo-Saxon England, it was no different. Even after Christianisation, old Germanic law prevailed, and the liberties of the nobility in particular remained a guarantee. The coronation charter of King Henry and the Magna Carta, then, certainly have their roots in these Germanic principles dating far back.
 
Going back to your point @Skallagrim about a sort of "rump state" there is more likely possibility though I will probably have to track down sources for it. I do believe Gytha, the mother of Harold was involved in a siege around the West Country trying to hold out in the name of her son but more likely her grandsons. Furthermore there is the failed invasion of Devon. Perhaps that invasion could succeed and so Godwin through some sort of peace assuming a military stalemate gains control of the surrounding region but has to swear loyalty to the bastard. So not only does this become a bastion of the folc but it could also provided for a largely surviving use of West Welsh > Cornish. Could say Edmund marrying into what is left of the Cornish royal line or maybe he returns to Ireland marrying into the royal line of Dublin where his son becomes tanist or something. In short we could see a continued alliance between Devon and Dublin of which would provide an interesting curveball at an assumed future invasion of Ireland by the Normans.

As for the question about Futhorc usage, I do remember reading somewhere that it was in some very limited use by antiquarians around the 11th century. Surely a revival cannot be ruled out entirely as the knowledge was definitely there. The motive for such most likely to be increase the idea of us and them otherwise could be used within the fyrd under the Godwining as a kind of military cipher. If such a revival were to take place then maybe we could see a cultural version of the Domesday Book commissioned from Devon as a record of England's social wealth and not just the taxable kind.
 
As for the question about Futhorc usage, I do remember reading somewhere that it was in some very limited use by antiquarians around the 11th century. Surely a revival cannot be ruled out entirely as the knowledge was definitely there. The motive for such most likely to be increase the idea of us and them otherwise could be used within the fyrd under the Godwining as a kind of military cipher. If such a revival were to take place then maybe we could see a cultural version of the Domesday Book commissioned from Devon as a record of England's social wealth and not just the taxable kind.

Idk about that, so long as they stay catholic there'll be a pressure to latinize the script. So maybe some fuþorc runes stick around, some Latin letters brought in, possibly switching the order to be closer to latin, etc.
Also their forms will change with the medium. From engraving to quill to printing press
 
@piratedude I think you will find we English certainly were not Catholic during the period but the Normans were. England was in a state of pre-Schism Christianity and maintained ties with Eastern Patriarchs will up until 1066. It was the Normans that enforced the Papal Mandate and their descendants who ensured it was supreme in the rest of the Isles.
The English variant of the Latin Alphabet at the time did have some runic influence as well as Irish (the Irish derivation of the Latin script). Certainly the most well known that died survive into the English derivative and post-Conquest was Thorn to which was only killed off in use due to the printing press for economic reasons. In the place of Thorn we use 'Y', as in the famous Ye Old....
 
@piratedude I think you will find we English certainly were not Catholic during the period but the Normans were. England was in a state of pre-Schism Christianity and maintained ties with Eastern Patriarchs will up until 1066. It was the Normans that enforced the Papal Mandate and their descendants who ensured it was supreme in the rest of the Isles.
The English variant of the Latin Alphabet at the time did have some runic influence as well as Irish (the Irish derivation of the Latin script). Certainly the most well known that died survive into the English derivative and post-Conquest was Thorn to which was only killed off in use due to the printing press for economic reasons. In the place of Thorn we use 'Y', as in the famous Ye Old....

That is interesting - an Orthodox England (Or Celtic Christian? I'm not so strong on that bit of history) is an interesting contrast to Catholic Europe.
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast Well the Great Schism was only rather recent and so it was more of a Status Quo thing. Certainly if there is to be a sovereign England from such ideas as discussed then in terms of organised religion, a new Englisc Orthodoxy would develop, an atl Church of England if you will.
It should not be forgotten that the conquest was blessed by the Pope, a crusade in all but name really.
 
Top