WI: Stephen never took the throne

What if Stephen honoured his commitment to Matilda, daughter and heir to Henry I of england, and she became queen in her own right?

how would this have affected england, france and europe....would the anarchy happen still with another pretender or would she become the first queen of england (de jure, not de facto)...how would her reign go?
 
If she proves a good ruler, it could give the English a better view of female monarchs in the early modern period. While Victoria's grandmother following her birth in 1819 quipped that, "The English sure love their Queens.", during the renaissance Henry VIII desperately wanted a male heir to avoid anything like the anarchy from happening again, or reigniting the War of the Roses.

Mary and Elizabeth did succeed, and I suppose Elizabeth cemented that a woman could be Queen, but those regnant after her, Mary II (who ruled with her husband), and Anne aren't well remembered and Anne especially had some negative press against her. George IV's daughter, the Princess Charlotte was seen as a hope of her time as has even been called the Hannoverian Diana. England had plenty of Queens in their time, but I'd say Elizabeth wiped away the stain of Matilda, no matter how stubborn she'd been.

With a successful Matilda we may see less prejudices against the possibility of succession in England, and hell, perhaps France. Salic Law was not cemented mainly due to the Capets managing to always have a son to succeed them. When they died out, one of the former king's daughters and the inheritor of the Kingdom of Navarre, was considered a definite contender for the crown despite her sex, but she had the stain that could've possibly been illegitimate. France had a totally different situation, of course, but it's worth mentioning.
 
This is an interesting question. Firstly, Stephen is not the only other claimant to the throne in 1135, though he is the principle one. The Norman nobility had considered naming his elder brother, William I's eldest (mentally able, legitimate) grandson, Theobald, Count of Champagne, as king, and if Stephen does not press his own claim then perhaps Theobald can arrive in England before Matilda does in order to try and take the throne for himself. Given that Theobald accepted the crown from the Norman nobility it seems that the desire is there, even if he does lack some of the conniving and drive of his younger brother. Theobald has the benefit of having three sons in 1135, compared to Stephen's one.

So it is possible that England would not avoid a civil war. It is difficult to say how the Anarchy might go with Theobald fighting Matilda instead of Stephen (of course, we can expect Stephen still to have some involvement supporting his brother, much as Theobald did). However, one of the key factors in ending the civil war was the death of Eustace of Boulogne, leaving Stephen without a son old enough to strongly claim the throne. As mentioned previously, Theobald is in a stronger position and is less likely to be left without an heir of sufficient age, and so can continue fighting. Additionally, given that he had a great deal of support among the Norman nobility, this could deny Matilda her main base of power (excluding Anjou), and thus prevent her drawing the civil war out long enough to force a favourable peace (as she did OTL).

If Theobald keeps the throne out of the hands of Matilda and her descendants (as I am suggesting is possible) it sets a dangerous precedent for the succession. Are women to be able to ascend to the throne in the absence of male heirs (agnatic-cognatic primogeniture)? Does succession pass through the male line only (agnatic primogeniture)? Does the succession exclude females from inheriting but is able to pass to a male through the female line (uterine primogeniture - the method by which Theobald pressed his claim)? And for how long will Theobald and his heirs be able to prevent Matilda and her descendants from attempting to press their claims again, assuming he does not remove them from Anjou? It would seem that England would be destined to return to civil war before too long - perhaps soon, when the Angevins attempt to press their claims, or later if there are question marks over the succession.

If Matilda did take the throne unopposed, I think her rein may have been somewhat disastrous. Matilda showed little talent for governing when she was presented with the opportunity, and also had an unfortunate habit for annoying the barons.

With dissatisfaction at her methods, and a general distaste for having a female monarch, the barons might have tried to get some sort of Magna Carta-type document forced upon Matilda in order to curtail her power. This is not a far-fetched idea, as the barons in 1215 took their inspiration from 1100's Charter of Liberties, which would have been far fresher in the minds of the barons, given that it would have only fallen by the wayside in 1135 (her character suggests that Matilda would not have allowed to herself to be bound in the way that the Charter of Liberties had her father, which is the same response that Stephen had).

If the barons did not attempt a legislative solution, then there are always two counts in France with claims to the throne who might prove better monarchs than Matilda...
 
Top