WI: William Clito Lives?

Revisiting this topic, I saw that Robert Curthose died in February 1134, while Henry died in December 1135. What if Robert had still been alive when Henry dies? Might Stephen/Étienne still get some support (IDK if William the Conqueror had somehow barred Robert from succeeding in England, though), or is it Matilda (daughter of the last king) versus Robert (brother to the last king)? And will anyone be more likely to support Robert over Matilda?

(Note: the POD here is that William Clito lives past in 1128, so Henry dying earlier, or Robert living a blip longer doesn't seem too ASB)
 
I think commentators here are over-estimating the ability of England, or someone in control of English resources, to stand up to an attack from one of the continental nobles. The continental nobles in what is now France and Germany seem to have been much more advanced militarily. There is a reason why, outside of Scandinavia and Scotland, pretty much all the European ruling dynasties wound up either of French (I'm including Norman) or German descent.

So yes, a Count of Flanders definitely had the resources to conquer England, as much if not more than a Duke of Normandy, a Count of Anjou, or a Count of Blois. The claim to the throne just provides a motivation.

William either would have become King of England or have been assassinated before he could make the attempt.
 
I think commentators here are over-estimating the ability of England, or someone in control of English resources, to stand up to an attack from one of the continental nobles. The continental nobles in what is now France and Germany seem to have been much more advanced militarily. There is a reason why, outside of Scandinavia and Scotland, pretty much all the European ruling dynasties wound up either of French (I'm including Norman) or German descent.

So yes, a Count of Flanders definitely had the resources to conquer England, as much if not more than a Duke of Normandy, a Count of Anjou, or a Count of Blois. The claim to the throne just provides a motivation.

William either would have become King of England or have been assassinated before he could make the attempt.
?
Explain then how difficult and grueling a process it was for Matilda to assert her claim, even with many nobles on her side? She had the resources of Anjou, and soon afterward Normandy behind her, so what gives?

William the Conqueror's success in 1066 was a freak accident that almost didn't happen. Solidification of his rule took at least a decade, but by late 1066 he at least had dozens of castles in the south for control.

By 1120, however, there are hundreds of Norman castles all over England. Without some combination of popular, noble, and church support, Clito is screwed. Bishop Henry of Winchester is King Stephen's brother, and Stephen was very generous to the church. I don't see them going Clito's way unless Matilda defeats Stephen clearly first. As mentioned before, the nobility of England owes almost all of its power to the graces of Henry. The powerful marcher lords, in particular, enjoyed his patronage.

As for ruling families, that's silly. France and Germany are much more centrally located than England, and marrying out to the rest of Europe gives an advantage. To Anglo-Norman nobility there was little advantage in marrying outside northern France, Flanders, and Scotland.

England at this time was one of the wealthiest areas of Europe, with a highly developed ruling structure and legal system. The king controlled all the mint and theoretically the nobles were at his beck and call...practical as well as theoretical most of the time after 1070. If such a wealthy nation was truly so easy to conquer, then surely it would have fallen more than...what, thrice? to foreign invaders. It's actually more telling that the English kings were able to keep a presence on the French mainland for 500 years, despite the meteoric rise of French royal power in the late 12th and early 15th centuries.
 
What if Robert had still been alive when Henry dies? Might Stephen/Étienne still get some support (IDK if William the Conqueror had somehow barred Robert from succeeding in England, though), or is it Matilda (daughter of the last king) versus Robert (brother to the last king)? And will anyone be more likely to support Robert over Matilda?

I would rather see a nobiliar support for Robert II ITTL, than from Etienne. Robert's legitimacy being clear enough.
It would be a double-edged support tough : Robert II's successive emprisonements clearly affected his prestige in England, and will make him far more dependent on Anglo-Norman nobility than Étienne did. Giving his relatively influencable psychology (altough chroniclers did exagerated it) and not particularily competent, I think it would be a relatively lesser reign in Anglo-Norman history.

Arguably, Robert could attempt to take the situation at its advantage, and playing one side against the other in order to enforce his power : I doubt we'll see Mathilda or Étienne claiming the throne, especially if Guillaume Cliton is still alive, but they could attempt (especially Étienne) to claim some influence in England, possibly regency if Robert dies early enough.

I generally agree with what @William Adelin said on England, altough I'd nuance a bit the geographical reasons, and would stress the distinction of feudal clientele in Normandy and England, less to a dissimilar nature (altough institutions in Normandy and England grew apart relatively quickly), than dissimilar interests and resources : the authority of Anglo-Normans king being significantly less imposing that, interestingly, it became under Plantagenêts that really enforced their rule (altough not everywhere, and irregularily).
 
So, in other words, he would be an unlikely candidate for the throne when his uncle dies - in spite of being a male-line descendant of William I (as opposed to Stephen who was via the female line)? Even if, like Matilda, he has kids by that point?

I think he has a better claim than OTL William III. He has no supporters (even the Empress had her own supporters among the Anglo-Norman elites) but if he can take control of the royal castles (with... mercs I guess? You can't really call your levies for an overseas expedition) and get Stephen and Matilda to bow out, he'll be accepted. in short for him, legitimacy will be acquired if he (somehow) gets military success. In contrast, if Louis Capet ordered the Duchy revoked and took control of the key castles in Normandy and launched an amphibious invasion that took the royal demense in England then... the Anglo-Norman elite will revolt and pull themselves behind the strongest Norman claimant, fighting until Louis took every last castle. Same with any other "non claimant." Unless Henry I had promised the throne to some non-relative and some of his earls heard that promise (the kingdom is not supposed to be personal property, but Richard treated it like that when he "willed" England and Normandy to John, so I take that as a basis for a claim)
 
?Explain then how difficult and grueling a process it was for Matilda to assert her claim, even with many nobles on her side? She had the resources of Anjou, and soon afterward Normandy behind her, so what gives?.


As I understand it, Matilda's marriage was the biggest problem. There was a lot of bad blood between Normans and Anjevinc, and few people wanted Geoffrey as a Royal consort.
 
As I understand it, Matilda's marriage was the biggest problem. There was a lot of bad blood between Normans and Anjevinc, and few people wanted Geoffrey as a Royal consort.

I'm not speaking of the particulars of Matilda, but generally why it cannot be assumed that Clito will succeed just because he's a duke on the continent. As well as the wild assertion that England is an unadvanced, unresourceful nation at this time.

William the Conqueror, a foreigner practically unrelated to the previous king, whose countrymen had been slowly filling England's administration and were then expelled, had it even worse. No English nobles supported him, and yet he gained (nominal) loyalty of the entire country in a month. So what made it so grueling for Matilda?

Firstly William's success is a freak accident, practically the best timeline for him. Secondly, castles. Lots and lots of castles. No invader has guaranteed success at this time unless he has the support of most of the country. Stephen and Matilda were at least part of Henry's court at times, and close to him. They had relationships of substance with the English barons. Clito is just some bandit on the continent that many have never met.
 
. Stephen and Matilda were at least part of Henry's court at times, and close to him. They had relationships of substance with the English barons. Clito is just some bandit on the continent that many have never met.

Hs father was Duke of Normandy for several years, so he can probably find a following there. And if he gets Normandy while someone else gets England, that makes life awkward for the many barons who hold fiefs on both sides of the Channel, so some of them may turn to him.
 
What impact could Theobald of Blois, Stephen's older brother, have on the succession?

Hard to say, but basically he was never keen. When Henry died, the Norman barons (or some of them) offered him the Duchy, but when he got to the border he learned that his brother had been proclaimed King of England, whereupon he withdrew and returned to Champagne.

Istr that when Stephen was captured in 1141, some of his supporters again offered the crown to Theobald, but he declined. I think he said that it would be "dishonourable" to take advantage of his brother's misfortune. More likely, it was because he had done a workmanlike job of reducing the barons of Champagne to obedience, and didn't want to risk undoing his work there by getting caught up in the English "quagmire".
 
Hs father was Duke of Normandy for several years, so he can probably find a following there. And if he gets Normandy while someone else gets England, that makes life awkward for the many barons who hold fiefs on both sides of the Channel, so some of them may turn to him.

Which is fine and dandy when talking about conquering Normandy. Not so for England.
 
What impact could Theobald of Blois, Stephen's older brother, have on the succession?
None, if we're talking of a Robert II surviving TL. Thibaut and Étienne could claim, ITTL, some influence in England (especially in the case of a regency for a young Guillaume), but Thibaut is essentially busy with his struggle against Capetians, and the Blesian nobles' interest and networks were initially much more present in Normandy than in England : let's not forget that Étienne's honores in England were largely dependent on Henri's favours.
ITTL, maybe Blesians would recieve more influence in Normandy (I'm especially thinking of Mortain there) and less in England proper.

Depending on how the reign of Robert II and *William III unfoalds, you might arguably see another tentative of Norman secession or autonomism, arguably. But the Blesian hegemony was shattering then, even without the efforts of Capetians, so in face of a possible Capetian/Norman conjugated effort... It's not bound to happen, but would be in line with Early Capetian strategical tradition.

Other than that, still mostly agreeing with @William Adelin, again maybe nuancing a bit by pointing that, for several matters, Late Anglo-Saxon England was kinda vulnerable (as he pointed out, you already had Norman presence before Guillaume, coming from Edward ties with the continent during his exile), and knowing a delayed structural evolution compared to Europe at this point.
Anglo-Norman England, by comparison, was much more unified and structurated, including strategically as he described.
 
Top