WI: Hardrada Conquers England

POD: William the Conqueror beats Hardrada to England in 1066. William's army is defeated at Hastings, but Hardrada arrives two weeks later, and King Harold marches north quickly, where he is defeated at Stamford Bridge (or nearby). Just to throw in a twist, Tostig (Harold's brother, who was with Hardrada) dies in battle, so Hardrada claims the throne of England.

Politically, we'd probably see a Danish England for some time. But would that endure, or would England later break away? For that matter, how would French history play out without significant English involvement?

I'm also interested in the cultural consequences. What might England look like with a Scandinavian aristocracy instead of a French one?
 
Tostig was never promised England's throne, iirc. Hardrada would probably be King of England until his death. Norway would certainly be ruled by Magnus separately.

Here's some other things to consider:

1. there may be a Danish invasion shortly after
2. Magnus pursued an Irish alliance historically
3. Hardrada had really poor relationship with the Catholic church, expecting a much closer control over his bishops than was done in Continental Europe.
 
A lot would depend on the other casualties of the battle. If either Leofwine or Gyrth survived they would retreat to London with the remnants of the army and rally a new force from those unable to respond quickly enough to Harold's rush north or else sent home to recuperate from wounds gained fighting the Normans. The size and composition of this army would depend on the nature of the fighting against the Normans and the losses sustained. As in OTL the Atheling Edgar would be proclaimed King.

The actions of Earls Morcar and Edwin would be crucial. With Tostig dead it would a simple step for Hararda to confirm both of them in possession of their earldoms. How significant this would be would depend on how heavy the casualties were in the Northumbrian and Mercian fyrds who would have borne the brunt of the fighting in the north.

In order to take the throne King Harald would need to move quickly towards London and like William the Bastard in OTL force the Witan gathered there to abandon the boy Edgar and recognise him as King. William’s success was secured by the Archbishops and the Bishops lack of bottle when faced by someone wielding a supposed papal banner. With respect to Hararda they might show more fight.

If the Witan in London did decide to recognise Hararda then any of King Harold’s surviving brothers would not have supported this given that he had killed at least one of their brothers. Like the sons of Harold in OTL they would have fled aboard possibly to Ireland or else to their kinsman Sweyn II Estridsson of Denmark. King Sweyn would see a Harald Hararda with the resources of England at his back as a major threat to himself and would be willing to sent a Danish army to England as a pre-emptive attack. If commanded by one of Harold’s brothers, Gyrth for example, the former Earl of East Anglia, and if it landed in an area formerly part of his Earldom then it would prove to be a serious threat to Hararda.

If none of King Harold’s brothers survived then King Harald would face the same problems William the Bastard faced. In 1067 the west country rose in revolt against the Normans, there were similar risings along the Anglo Welsh border, in Northumbria and in the fens of East Anglia and the sons of King Harold Godwinsson raided the new Norman Kingdom with mercenaries drawn from Dublin and farther a field. There was also at least two Danish invasions plus of course Edgar Atheling might still be able to mount a claim to the throne of his ancestors. These revolts and raids were suppressed by scorched earth tactics and the building of many castles which nailed down the country. Hararda’s ability to put down these rebellions would, I believe be the acid test of his kingship. Unlike the Normans, the Norse would be seen as less alien to the English, especially those living in the old Danelaw and thus revolts against Hararda might be less severe than ones against the Normans. On the other hand many of those in the Danelaw were the descendants of Danes rather than Norsemen between whom there was a historical enmity and Hararda does mean “Hard Ruler”.

And there again a lot would depend on how long King Harald Hararda survived after being crowned. At Stamford Bridge he was 50 or 51 years of age, a good age for that period especially given the adventurous and warlike life he’d led. As with all early medieval empire builders a lot would depend on those who succeeded him. The possibility is that two or three generations after Hararda the empire he created would have been split between squabbling heirs with the occasional attempt to re-unite his legacy gradually fading into history.

Hararda’s main legacy would have been more words of Norse origin in the English although I would hope we would be eating as part of our Sunday roasts pig or cow rather than pork or beef!
 
Politically, we'd probably see a Danish England for some time.

This you have to explain a bit ... Hardrada was a Norwegian King, that had been in a near constant war with Denmark for the last nearly 20 years about the crown of Denmark for which the inheritence of was unclear at best.

Sure Sweyn II (whom just might have the strongest claim of Hardrada, Bastrad and himself, given that he is the son of the daugther of Sweyn Forkbeard, and nephew of Cnut the Great) might come over to give it a shot and try and beat up Hardarada, but he'll at least wait till Hardada have just barely won a civil war or something against say a Anglo-Saxon revolt
 
I would assume Sweyn would invade in 1069 to contest the throne, then it depends on who was left standing after 2-3 years of Hardrada's rule. The north would probably rest easier under Danish rather than Norse rule.
What happens to Normandy? Does the French Monarchy attempt to seize it or the Bretons? Mind you Robert was more than capable of holding his own militarily once he achieved his majority.
 
What happens to Normandy? Does the French Monarchy attempt to seize it or the Bretons? Mind you Robert was more than capable of holding his own militarily once he achieved his majority.

Depends on how hard the Norman invasion is beaten up.

Prime contenders would probably be Maine, the crown and Flanders (using their ties through Mathilda to make Robert a de facto vassal) ... sure Bretons might rattle their swords but i doubt that they would actually get far with the French making a unified front against them before bickering about the 'loot'
 
3. Hardrada had really poor relationship with the Catholic church, expecting a much closer control over his bishops than was done in Continental Europe.

The Saxon church wasn't exactly immune to kingly displeasure (Archbishop Dunstan springs to mind)
 
What happens to Normandy?

Normandy had survived two minorities before (Richard I and William II) and would survive this one too. The Normans didn't want to be incorporated into a rival duchy and the stronger neighbors, Anjou and Flanders, didn't have a plausible dynastic claim. In fact, Flanders would be Robert's ally because his mother was from the ruling family. The French king had limited means, and attempting to incorporate Normandy into the Royal Domain would likely unite all the northern magnates against him.
 
Assuming Harald's reign is short, then it all hangs on how Olaf Kyrre - the likeliest successor - makes out. Most of what little I've read on him sounds encouraging, so maybe things settle down into another Canute-style reign.
 
Top