What if ... William of Normandy hadn't succeeded in 1066

[Hope]

I recently started reading Stewart Binn's 4-parter series of historical novels.

In the first installment - Conquest - deals with the lead-up to and fall-out from the events at Stamford Bridge and Senlac Ridge in 1066.  It got me thinking what England and/or the British Isles would have been like now had William not won the Battle of Senlac Ridge (aka the Battle of Hastings).

Would an Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England been as 'successful' in encompassing the surrounding nations?  Would it have grown an Empire as has happened?  Would it have been a fairer society without the strict societal divisions introduced by the Normans?

I then decided to have a bit of fun with the names of the 4 Labour leadership candidates.  If you look at sites that dal with the origins of surnames (I used www.surnamedb.com), you will find that Ms's Cooper and Kendall have good, solid Anglo-Saxon ancestry; Andy Burnham is likely Anglos-Saxon by descent as well, though the first written form of his name is in the 'de ...' format, suggesting a French/Norman link.  Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, comes from a family with strong ties to the French and/or Normans.  The name likely comes from the French word for a raven, and it is first recorded north of the Channel (or 'Sleeve') in the late 11th century -

The personal name was recorded as "Corbin(us)" in the Domesday Book of 1086 in Warwickshire and Kent. The surname itself is first recorded in the late 11th Century. Hugo de Corbun was mentioned in the Domesday Book of Norfolk and Suffolk. One Roger Corbin was listed in the Assize Court Rolls of Somerset in 1201, while Walter Corbyn is recorded in the Assize Court Rolls of Yorkshire in 1219.

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Corbyn#ixzz3k6iXgB8z

Please do not read into this anything about who I believe ought to be elected!!

[Nearly Sane]

Just on the subject of Corbyn and the French for raven , It derives from the Latin 'Corvus' and some Romans had the cognomen Corvo/Corvus - so in one sense there might have been people with that as a cognomen Corvo predating the Norman Conquest. In addition the Scottish word for crow is corbie
 which is used in the Scottish poem Twa Corbies which seemingly derives from the earlier Three Ravens ballad


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Ravens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Valerius_Corvus

[Nearly Sane]

Incidentally there is a delightful little book called Ready, Steady, Dig by Rosalind Winter based on a Time Team like investigation of a Roman site which was once owned by a Corvo family and the protection of the site by the family lares.

[Nearly Sane]

On the subject of the alternative history, I suspect that an Anglo-Saxon England would have spent more time associated with Nortren Europe and Scandinavia rather than France. This might lead to an earlier subjugation/sublimation of Scotland as the focus would have been further north.

[Anchorman]

I recently started reading Stewart Binn's 4-parter series of historical novels.

In the first installment - Conquest - deals with the lead-up to and fall-out from the events at Stamford Bridge and Senlac Ridge in 1066.  It got me thinking what England and/or the British Isles would have been like now had William not won the Battle of Senlac Ridge (aka the Battle of Hastings).

Would an Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England been as 'successful' in encompassing the surrounding nations?  Would it have grown an Empire as has happened?  Would it have been a fairer society without the strict societal divisions introduced by the Normans?

I then decided to have a bit of fun with the names of the 4 Labour leadership candidates.  If you look at sites that dal with the origins of surnames (I used www.surnamedb.com), you will find that Ms's Cooper and Kendall have good, solid Anglo-Saxon ancestry; Andy Burnham is likely Anglos-Saxon by descent as well, though the first written form of his name is in the 'de ...' format, suggesting a French/Norman link.  Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, comes from a family with strong ties to the French and/or Normans.  The name likely comes from the French word for a raven, and it is first recorded north of the Channel (or 'Sleeve') in the late 11th century -

The personal name was recorded as "Corbin(us)" in the Domesday Book of 1086 in Warwickshire and Kent. The surname itself is first recorded in the late 11th Century. Hugo de Corbun was mentioned in the Domesday Book of Norfolk and Suffolk. One Roger Corbin was listed in the Assize Court Rolls of Somerset in 1201, while Walter Corbyn is recorded in the Assize Court Rolls of Yorkshire in 1219.

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Corbyn#ixzz3k6iXgB8z

Please do not read into this anything about who I believe ought to be elected!!


-
Ah, the  'what if' question.
Well, it would have affected the Scots, who supported Harold's enimies at Stamford Bridge, and were also against William the Bastard.
Either the Scots would have retained Northumberland and Tyneside in alliance with the Harold Faction in England, or allied themselves with William the Bastard and his hiers against the Norse/Saxon faction in the remnant of England.
Either way, a Norman would have probably attained the throne, but more bloodshed would have ensued, and, in the process, it's doubtul if, eventually, Maud would have married a Holy Roman Emperor, and the Plantagenets would not have arisen in England.
As for Scotland, since the Atheling and his sister would not have needed refuge there, Malcolm Caen Mhor would not have married Margaret, with the subsequent Romanisation of the Celtic Church, the invitation of Normans into Scotland under David I would probably not have resulted in the rise of the Comyn and Balliols, as well as De Brus.

[OH MY WORLD!]

I believe it would have developed along the same way. You know the Saxons and the Scandinavian Normans were not all that different.

As far as that Corbyn guy. My economist magazine arrived yesterday. Pick up a copy. They predict that guy won't know what to do if he wins the leadership because he never thought he could and the party will want to replace him before the next federal election because he won't be electable, most of the UK wouldn't want him running the nation. And it won't help him or the socialist party that most of his MPs will be wanting to get rid of him the second he becomes the socialist leader.

[Harrowby Hall]

I believe it would have developed along the same way. You know the Saxons and the Scandinavian Normans were not all that different.

But the Saxons came from what is now Germany and the Netherlands. I suspect that Scotland would be firmly Scandinavian and that England and Wales would be closely integrated with a rather different Germany than now exists (perhaps Prussia might not have developed).

As far as that Corbyn guy. My economist magazine arrived yesterday. Pick up a copy. They predict that guy won't know what to do if he wins the leadership because he never thought he could and the party will want to replace him before the next federal election because he won't be electable, most of the UK wouldn't want him running the nation. And it won't help him or the socialist party that most of his MPs will be wanting to get rid of him the second he becomes the socialist leader.

It is a consequence of the First Past the Post electoral system that in almost all cases prime minister's support comes only from a minority in the country. Since the constitution requires the monarch to send for the leader of the majority party in the Commons, it is also the case that prime ministers are not chosen by the electorate.

Do you have the same system in Canada? Is the federal government elected by FPTP?


Edited to correct silly errors.

[Anchorman]

I believe it would have developed along the same way. You know the Saxons and the Scandinavian Normans were not all that different.

But the Saxons came from what is now Germany and the Netherlands. I suspect that Scotland would be firmly Scandinavian and that England and Wales would be closely integrated with a rather different Germany than now exists (perhaps Prussia might not have developed).


-

Possibly a Scandanavian-Celtic  nation state spanning much of Ireland, Scotland, Northumbria and Cumbria (The old kingdom of Strathclyde/Alcluid might have been able to stave off absorbtion from the MacMaelcolms, and a 'super state' in the North might have developed eventually. The Church, less Romanised than it became under Margaret, would have maintained an independence from Rome to some degree, and been a focus for national aspirations, the main centres being Iona, St Andrews and Lindisfarne.
Since there would have been less Norman incomers to Scotland, there would have been no Bruce - and therefor no Stewart/Stuart dynasty whic became rulers of England in 1603.

[Hope]

I believe it would have developed along the same way. You know the Saxons and the Scandinavian Normans were not all that different.

I trust that, by now, you have managed to find some of the material on the interweb that explains the many differences between the Saxons and the Scandinavian Normans (whoever they might have been).  Lest you haven'tr, the Normans were descendents of the Vikings from Scandinavia who interbred with the folk of Normandy (hence the term Normans).  Saxons, on the other hand were tribes who moved West out of what we now refer to as Eastern Europe and Northern Germany.