WI: William the Conqueror was infertile?

A popular what if on this site is to ask what would have happened if Harold II had won the Battle of Hastings in 1066. I am (reasonably) certain, however, that nobody has ever asked what would have happened had William the Conqueror been infertile. In our timeline, when William took the throne six (possibly seven) of his nine children had been born (though crucially, not the future King Henry I, or Adela, mother of King Stephen). But let's apply handwavium here, and say that he has no children, but that this doesn't affect him taking the throne.

Presumably he keeps trying for a child; his apparent faithfulness to Matilda of Flanders in OTL is probably down to the fact that she provided nine children for him. In this timeline he probably takes a string of mistresses, especially given as he has no reason to be opposed to his being succeeded by a bastard, having been one himself. But these attempts to produce an illegitimate heir will be unsuccessful, given his infertility. Presumably he would also try to remarry in 1083, or whenever Matilda of Flanders dies in this timelime, in the hope that he finds a fertile wife. Any guesses on who he might marry?

After he dies, who would succeed him? His nephew, Stephen, Count of Aumale, is probably the closest male relation descended from William's father, Robert, Duke of Normandy. Otherwise there's always his half brothers, Odo, Earl of Kent, and Robert, Count of Mortain. Odo had acted as regent for William when he was not in the country (presumably he does so in this timeline), but given his being a bishop, he's unlikely to be the one to secure the succession to the throne, though as a powerful landowner he would be in a strong position - though this assumes he avoids jail for defrauding the crown. Robert was apparently somewhat more favoured at the end of William's life, and was also a major landowner. Also in his favour is the fact that he had a son, William. Finally for your consideration, Edgar the Ætheling was still alive and had a claim to the throne, though he's likely to require foreign support, given that the Anglo-Saxon nobility had largely been replaced by the Normans.
 
Last edited:
Odo as one of the most powerful landowners could be the Kingmaker in such a case (since himawlf would be "ineligible" due to his status as Bishop) and the power behind the throne.
So the crucial question here is... Who would Odo favour?
 
the remaining english would revolt probaly...especially in the north...youd also get other nations probaly claiming the throne too, so a civil war/invasion would be a high probability
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
William not having children would probably create butterflies for his personality. Would he even bother pressing his claims on England if he hasn't sons to pass it down to?
 
William not having children would probably create butterflies for his personality. Would he even bother pressing his claims on England if he hasn't sons to pass it down to?

Well indeed, I did have to apply a little handwavium in the original post so that I could say he was infertile but still becomes king of England. His claim to the throne supposedly derives from Edward the Confessor leaving him the throne in 1051, though it is fairly dubious that this ever actually happened. His being infertile shouldn't affect his stature as a formidable warrior, as he would have still had to have done an amount of fighting to secure Normandy - that said, his border with Maine would not be secure, as he wouldn't have his son Robert to marry off, so he might not feel secure enough to launch an invasion. But he might have secured Maine through warfare, and he might have still felt that he deserved the throne, and that children would surely follow, if it wasn't for his barren wife (which is presumably how he would have seen it).
 
Well indeed, I did have to apply a little handwavium in the original post so that I could say he was infertile but still becomes king of England. His claim to the throne supposedly derives from Edward the Confessor leaving him the throne in 1051, though it is fairly dubious that this ever actually happened. His being infertile shouldn't affect his stature as a formidable warrior, as he would have still had to have done an amount of fighting to secure Normandy - that said, his border with Maine would not be secure, as he wouldn't have his son Robert to marry off, so he might not feel secure enough to launch an invasion. But he might have secured Maine through warfare, and he might have still felt that he deserved the throne, and that children would surely follow, if it wasn't for his barren wife (which is presumably how he would have seen it).

At the same time, the people and some of the nobles are going to see this as, or use the excuse of this being, a punishment from God, presumably against William's lifestyle, making revolt and dissent more likely.
 
William not having children would probably create butterflies for his personality. Would he even bother pressing his claims on England if he hasn't sons to pass it down to?

well he probaly wouldnt have blamed himself for a start, rulers usually dont...take henry VIII
 
Actually, the Plantagenets are quite happily around, just staying in their Anjou-Poitiers heartland, building up their powerbase and probably soon enough having a major impact on history.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top