|
|
Post by raedwald on Jan 24, 2019 18:06:23 GMT
The Battle of Hastings was an extremely close-run thing and, in the early stages, it appeared as though the English would triumph. A Norman cavalry charge had failed, while rumours began to emerge that William had been killed in the fighting. What if those rumours were true, with William falling in battle and the Normans collapsing shortly thereafter (much like the Norwegians after Harald died at Stamford Bridge)?
|
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 24, 2019 18:25:03 GMT
The English language as we know it would probably be very, very different. Much more Germanic/Nordic, fewer words ending with -age, -ent, -ant, -ty, - ary, -ion and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 24, 2019 18:28:42 GMT
The Battle of Hastings was an extremely close-run thing and, in the early stages, it appeared as though the English would triumph. A Norman cavalry charge had failed, while rumours began to emerge that William had been killed in the fighting. What if those rumours were true, with William falling in battle and the Normans collapsing shortly thereafter (much like the Norwegians after Harald died at Stamford Bridge)? The tapestry industry would go into a steep decline. |
|
myth11
Non-Aligned
too busy at work!
Posts: 2,841 
|
Post by myth11 on Jan 24, 2019 18:35:11 GMT
We would be in EFTA  |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 24, 2019 19:29:19 GMT
Actually,in the end nothing much would change. Norman influences were already making themselves felt in the days Edward the Con. The Normans would still have arrived and infiltrated into the Saxon courts. The change might have been a lot less dramatic,slower and less bloody, but by the time the twelfth century came along Normans would have elbowed the Saxons out of most positions of influence including the Kingship.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 24, 2019 20:04:10 GMT
On that note, yellowperil , it is worth remembering that Edward the Confessor's mother was Emma of Normandy, and that William I's son, Henry I, married into the Anglo-Saxon royal line via way of Matilda, great-granddaughter of Ethelred II ("Ethelred the Unready"). They assimilated very well into the culture of the British isles, such that "Williams" became a common Welsh surname even though the name William (or rather Guillaume) is of French origin, and that FitzGerald ("Fitz" has Norman origins as well) became a notable Irish surname. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 24, 2019 22:40:42 GMT
Actually,in the end nothing much would change. Norman influences were already making themselves felt in the days Edward the Con. The Normans would still have arrived and infiltrated into the Saxon courts. The change might have been a lot less dramatic,slower and less bloody, but by the time the twelfth century came along Normans would have elbowed the Saxons out of most positions of influence including the Kingship. Some interesting points, but I'm not so sure. Short-term, an arrow hitting William would have won the battle for Harold, who would now be remembered as the great warrior who crushed two invading armies in a single autumn. The points you and greenhert make about existing Norman influence would have been severely undermined by the arrival of a new dynasty, secure in the judgement of God on the battlefield, and with no Norman links (and in fact a tradition of hostility to Normans). The duchy of Normandy itself would have been in trouble with the death of its duke and with the heir aged just 15 - probably another chance for the King of France to try to assert control. The Anglo-Saxon landowning elite would not have been eliminated in the way that Domesday tells us they were. Judging from previous history, there would not have been the almost continual civil war that characterised Norman and early Angevin rule, nor would there have been such an aggressive policy towards Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Without an English royal family who were also vassals of the King of France, it's unlikely there would have been any Anglo-French wars (there were none at all in 500 years of Anglo-Saxon history.) I agree that most of the social, cultural, technological and religious developments of the C12th Renaissance would have crossed the channel, since such developments always had in the past, but English culture would have remained more Scandinavian and less French. As royal power increased, and without the distractions of Normandy or Aquitaine, I'd expect the English monarchy to have gradually increased it's influence over weaker neighbours, either towards Scandinavia or (more likely) in Scotland and Wales, but more cautiously and under direct royal control rather than the sort of freebooting by warlords that happened in reality. |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jan 24, 2019 23:07:39 GMT
Harald Hardrada is often the forgotten figure of 1066.
When I was 10 we were asked by our trainee teacher at school to create a crossword including words and names associated with England in the year 1066. She asked me why I had included Harold twice, not noticing the slight difference in spelling between Harold and Harald. She didn't seem to understand when I explained it.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 24, 2019 23:30:38 GMT
Harald Hardrada is often the forgotten figure of 1066. When I was 10 we were asked by our trainee teacher at school to create a crossword including words and names associated with England in the year 1066. She asked me why I had included Harold twice, not noticing the slight difference in spelling between Harold and Harald. She didn't seem to understand when I explained it. Another "special one" who failed to survive at Stamford Bridge....... |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,801
Member is Online
|
Post by john07 on Jan 25, 2019 0:39:17 GMT
When I saw the heading, I thought that it was related to the 1964 General Election.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Jan 25, 2019 0:52:49 GMT
Amber Rudd would have a majority of 347.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 25, 2019 1:38:05 GMT
When I saw the heading, I thought that it was related to the 1964 General Election. Of course Labour didn't win the old Hastings seat in 1945, 1964 or 1966.
If we are talking Saxon/Norman though look no further than the Liberal MP for Hastings (1869-80) Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth. Ughtred is a name first recorded in the early eleventh century as the son of Earl Waltheof of Northumberland.
The Normans could fight back with Artur Du Cros, Tory MP for the seat (1906-18) but the family were Irish and the Du Cros named goes back to Auvergne, not Normandy.
Freeman Freeman-Thomas , Liberal MP (1900-06) is also worth a mention. Freeman being, of course, a Saxon name indicating that you were, well a free born man.
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure.
|
|
seanf
Non-Aligned
Posts: 631
|
Post by seanf on Jan 25, 2019 3:49:10 GMT
Actually,in the end nothing much would change. Norman influences were already making themselves felt in the days Edward the Con. The Normans would still have arrived and infiltrated into the Saxon courts. The change might have been a lot less dramatic,slower and less bloody, but by the time the twelfth century came along Normans would have elbowed the Saxons out of most positions of influence including the Kingship. French would probably have still become popular as a literary language in the 12th century, and Latin would have become more important as a language of government and diplomacy. I think the dynasty would have remained English, |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 25, 2019 7:59:16 GMT
Actually,in the end nothing much would change. Norman influences were already making themselves felt in the days Edward the Con. The Normans would still have arrived and infiltrated into the Saxon courts. The change might have been a lot less dramatic,slower and less bloody, but by the time the twelfth century came along Normans would have elbowed the Saxons out of most positions of influence including the Kingship. Some interesting points, but I'm not so sure. Short-term, an arrow hitting William would have won the battle for Harold, who would now be remembered as the great warrior who crushed two invading armies in a single autumn. The points you and greenhert make about existing Norman influence would have been severely undermined by the arrival of a new dynasty, secure in the judgement of God on the battlefield, and with no Norman links (and in fact a tradition of hostility to Normans). The duchy of Normandy itself would have been in trouble with the death of its duke and with the heir aged just 15 - probably another chance for the King of France to try to assert control. The Anglo-Saxon landowning elite would not have been eliminated in the way that Domesday tells us they were. Judging from previous history, there would not have been the almost continual civil war that characterised Norman and early Angevin rule, nor would there have been such an aggressive policy towards Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Without an English royal family who were also vassals of the King of France, it's unlikely there would have been any Anglo-French wars (there were none at all in 500 years of Anglo-Saxon history.) I agree that most of the social, cultural, technological and religious developments of the C12th Renaissance would have crossed the channel, since such developments always had in the past, but English culture would have remained more Scandinavian and less French. As royal power increased, and without the distractions of Normandy or Aquitaine, I'd expect the English monarchy to have gradually increased it's influence over weaker neighbours, either towards Scandinavia or (more likely) in Scotland and Wales, but more cautiously and under direct royal control rather than the sort of freebooting by warlords that happened in reality. I take all the points you make, and you may well be right. I was putting up a different argument as, hey, that's what you do with counterfactual history, and I always tend to cling to the view of history that says that whatever happens it all finishes up the same anyway. 10666 is a biggy to take that approach to, I have to admit. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 25, 2019 8:01:20 GMT
Harald Hardrada is often the forgotten figure of 1066. When I was 10 we were asked by our trainee teacher at school to create a crossword including words and names associated with England in the year 1066. She asked me why I had included Harold twice, not noticing the slight difference in spelling between Harold and Harald. She didn't seem to understand when I explained it. What a precocious little 10 year old. I feel for that poor teacher. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 25, 2019 8:09:38 GMT
Harald Hardrada is often the forgotten figure of 1066. When I was 10 we were asked by our trainee teacher at school to create a crossword including words and names associated with England in the year 1066. She asked me why I had included Harold twice, not noticing the slight difference in spelling between Harold and Harald. She didn't seem to understand when I explained it. What a precocious little 10 year old. I feel for that poor teacher. bit harsh yp. I remember a similar sort of discussion with a scout leader who maintained that all British monarchs were in direct familial sucession to each other..... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 25, 2019 8:14:58 GMT
What a precocious little 10 year old. I feel for that poor teacher. bit harsh yp. I remember a similar sort of discussion with a scout leader who maintained that all British monarchs were in direct familial sucession to each other..... .. and I'm sure every British monarch would think that was right- it's called hereditary monarchy. Okay the direct bit has to be a bit elastic at times. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 25, 2019 8:19:25 GMT
bit harsh yp. I remember a similar sort of discussion with a scout leader who maintained that all British monarchs were in direct familial sucession to each other..... .. and I'm sure every British monarch would think that was right- it's called hereditary monarchy. Okay the direct bit has to be a bit elastic at times. A bit elastic???
If only King Louis had got around to being crowned...
|
|
froome
Green
Posts: 4,550
Member is Online
|
Post by froome on Jan 25, 2019 8:35:12 GMT
There would have been an awful lot of babies christened Harold, and we would have been spared Norman Wisdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 25, 2019 8:42:49 GMT
When I saw the heading, I thought that it was related to the 1964 General Election. Of course Labour didn't win the old Hastings seat in 1945, 1964 or 1966.
If we are talking Saxon/Norman though look no further than the Liberal MP for Hastings (1869-80) Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth. Ughtred is a name first recorded in the early eleventh century as the son of Earl Waltheof of Northumberland.
The Normans could fight back with Artur Du Cros, Tory MP for the seat (1906-18) but the family were Irish and the Du Cros named goes back to Auvergne, not Normandy.
Freeman Freeman-Thomas , Liberal MP (1900-06) is also worth a mention. Freeman being, of course, a Saxon name indicating that you were, well a free born man.
Yes, Hastings was a seat that the Liberals won in 1900, but lost in the landslide of 1906. Go figure.
Inspiration for The Last Kingdom TV series and central to Richard Fletcher's book Bloodfeud |
|
