|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 0:52:38 GMT
Another one - again slightly complicated. Shropshire West or Oswestry.
The Tory Leighton was elected unopposed in 1900 but died in 1901 causing a by election held by the Unionist G Ormsby-Gore. But in July 1904 Ormsby-Gore succeeded to the peerage as Lord Harlech and the Liberal Allan Bright beat the Tory W.C. Bridgeman. At the 1906 general election Bridgeman reversed the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 26, 2019 0:57:38 GMT
Another one - again slightly complicated. Shropshire West or Oswestry. The Tory Leighton was elected unopposed in 1900 but died in 1901 causing a by election held by the Unionist G Ormsby-Gore. But in July 1904 Ormsby-Gore succeeded to the peerage as Lord Harlech and the Liberal Allan Bright beat the Tory W.C. Bridgeman. At the 1906 general election Bridgeman reversed the result. All through the 50s I remember Oswestry having an Ormsby-Gore Conservative MP. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 0:58:06 GMT
And another one two (this is live folks!) Sussex East or Rye. Held by the Tory Colonel Brookfield over the Liberal Dr C F Hutchinson in 1900, Brookfield accepted a crown appointment and the resulting March 1903 by election saw Hutchinson triumph. However the result was reversed in 1906.
Barkton Ash: Colonel H Gunter won unopposed in 1900 but his death in 1905 caused a by election won by J G Andrews for the Liberals. In 1906 G R Lane-Fox avenged his defeat by Andrews.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 7:56:01 GMT
Another one - again slightly complicated. Shropshire West or Oswestry. The Tory Leighton was elected unopposed in 1900 but died in 1901 causing a by election held by the Unionist G Ormsby-Gore. But in July 1904 Ormsby-Gore succeeded to the peerage as Lord Harlech and the Liberal Allan Bright beat the Tory W.C. Bridgeman. At the 1906 general election Bridgeman reversed the result. All through the 50s I remember Oswestry having an Ormsby-Gore Conservative MP. 1950-61 before he became the ambassador in Washington.
John Biffen won the resulting by-election, with Brian Walden as Labour candidate. There was also a candidate of the Patriotic Front, although presumably not the same group later active in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe........ |
|
Toylyyev
Mebyon Kernow
CJ Fox avatar
Posts: 1,067 
|
Post by Toylyyev on Jan 26, 2019 10:54:49 GMT
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is religion. In 1065 there were still some traces of Celtic Christianity in England, which had vanished within a couple of decades of the conquest. It's possible that English Christianity would have remained a bit more distinct from continental Catholicism for a while. Though it's anyone's guess how the changes would have impacted England's reaction to the Reformation. Wild guess and punching way above my pay grade here, but without the 100 years war, there should have been nothing like the fights for the monarchy that preceded the assession of Henry VIII, a state of affairs which motivated many of his policies, not the least of which the importance he devoted to his succession. Tough looking at my preconceptions on the Saxons i wouldn't rule out other matters of an emotional nature, cue the Brexit debate. [1] It should be possible for people with a good insight on the top aristocray (thats not me) to roughly guess the dynastic patterns, and extrapolate their spirituality needs from there. The Electorate of Saxony was quite central to the Protestant Reformation... [1] Never learned as much about Southern England than through watching the staff of the Leipzig zoo in action on German telly and Saxon comedy broadcasts. Another thing that helps with educated guesses is reading up on the interactions between Saxons and the Frankish Confederation or Francia, inclusive of the surprisingly intensive ones with those on the island. Bertha of Kent for instance, looking at the topic at hand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2019 11:18:58 GMT
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is religion. In 1065 there were still some traces of Celtic Christianity in England, which had vanished within a couple of decades of the conquest. It's possible that English Christianity would have remained a bit more distinct from continental Catholicism for a while. Though it's anyone's guess how the changes would have impacted England's reaction to the Reformation. Is that really true? The Celtic tradition has been claimed by Protestants in both Britain and Ireland as an "authentic" form of indigenous Christianity less tainted by Rome than the continental Catholicism imported by Augustine of Canterbury and his successors. However, not much that was really distinctive survived as late as the Norman conquest, except some eccentric practices such as the existence of clerical dynasties in Wales and Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 26, 2019 12:35:33 GMT
All through the 50s I remember Oswestry having an Ormsby-Gore Conservative MP. 1950-61 before he became the ambassador in Washington.
John Biffen won the resulting by-election, with Brian Walden as Labour candidate. There was also a candidate of the Patriotic Front, although presumably not the same group later active in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe........ I remember that by-election as I was recuperating with relatives who lived just in the constituency at the time. I was very impressed by Brian Walden and remained so for the rest of his career. He was a richly interesting and pleasant man in the same way as Bryan Magee another particular favourite labour MP. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 26, 2019 13:21:23 GMT
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is religion. In 1065 there were still some traces of Celtic Christianity in England, which had vanished within a couple of decades of the conquest. It's possible that English Christianity would have remained a bit more distinct from continental Catholicism for a while. Though it's anyone's guess how the changes would have impacted England's reaction to the Reformation. Is that really true? The Celtic tradition has been claimed by Protestants in both Britain and Ireland as an "authentic" form of indigenous Christianity less tainted by Rome than the continental Catholicism imported by Augustine of Canterbury and his successors. However, not much that was really distinctive survived as late as the Norman conquest, except some eccentric practices such as the existence of clerical dynasties in Wales and Ireland. It's my understanding that some differences remained that late. Including things like the design of church buildings. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 26, 2019 15:42:34 GMT
I think Adam in Stroud has the key difference. The hundred year war(s) between France and the Angevin Empire (of which England was a part) would not have happened. The manpower, money, and energy expended by this struggle (on both sides) was phenomenal. Imagine those resources used for increased prosperity instead. It is tempting to add the Chaos of the struggle between Stephen and Matilda to that - but there is no reason to think that similar struggles might have happened anyway. I would guess the other important aspect would be that the Normans imported Feudalism. That may well have happened anyway, but would presumably have been more gradual and less extreme - the Scandinavian/Saxon model would have presumably slanted it away from serfdom and towards the concept of freemen I wonder if, were this the case, England would have joined Portugal at the vanguard of the Age of Discovery. Given that the Genoese amongst others are known to have visited the Canaries, and there are myths of English sailors landing on Madeira, it is not impossible that an even more maritime-orientated England could have focussed its resources on discovery as well. I wonder though- in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge and a victory at Hastings, does Harold make peace with Olaf of Norway in the way that Olaf did with William? |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 15:57:44 GMT
I think Adam in Stroud has the key difference. The hundred year war(s) between France and the Angevin Empire (of which England was a part) would not have happened. The manpower, money, and energy expended by this struggle (on both sides) was phenomenal. Imagine those resources used for increased prosperity instead. It is tempting to add the Chaos of the struggle between Stephen and Matilda to that - but there is no reason to think that similar struggles might have happened anyway. I would guess the other important aspect would be that the Normans imported Feudalism. That may well have happened anyway, but would presumably have been more gradual and less extreme - the Scandinavian/Saxon model would have presumably slanted it away from serfdom and towards the concept of freemen I wonder if, were this the case, England would have joined Portugal at the vanguard of the Age of Discovery. Given that the Genoese amongst others are known to have visited the Canaries, and there are myths of English sailors landing on Madeira, it is not impossible that an even more maritime-orientated England could have focussed its resources on discovery as well. I wonder though- in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge and a victory at Hastings, does Harold make peace with Olaf of Norway in the way that Olaf did with William? Colonise Madeira, m'dear You really have nothing to fear Replace sherry with very warm beer and man o' war at the end of the pier.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 26, 2019 16:00:39 GMT
I wonder if, were this the case, England would have joined Portugal at the vanguard of the Age of Discovery. Given that the Genoese amongst others are known to have visited the Canaries, and there are myths of English sailors landing on Madeira, it is not impossible that an even more maritime-orientated England could have focussed its resources on discovery as well. I wonder though- in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge and a victory at Hastings, does Harold make peace with Olaf of Norway in the way that Olaf did with William? Colonise Madeira, m'dear You really have nothing to fear Replace sherry with very warm beer and man o' war at the end of the pier.
It started well............ but that was the Flanders bit. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 26, 2019 16:03:18 GMT
Colonise Madeira, m'dear You really have nothing to fear Replace sherry with very warm beer and man o' war at cricket at the end of the pier.
It started well............ but that was the Flanders bit. edited.
this certainly isn't a Swann song.  |
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,285
|
Post by cj on Jan 26, 2019 16:07:59 GMT
I wonder if, were this the case, England would have joined Portugal at the vanguard of the Age of Discovery. Given that the Genoese amongst others are known to have visited the Canaries, and there are myths of English sailors landing on Madeira, it is not impossible that an even more maritime-orientated England could have focussed its resources on discovery as well. I wonder though- in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge and a victory at Hastings, does Harold make peace with Olaf of Norway in the way that Olaf did with William? Colonise Madeira, m'dear You really have nothing to fear Replace sherry with very warm beer and man o' war at the end of the pier.
I think you're looking for the Sack |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 26, 2019 18:48:40 GMT
I think Adam in Stroud has the key difference. The hundred year war(s) between France and the Angevin Empire (of which England was a part) would not have happened. The manpower, money, and energy expended by this struggle (on both sides) was phenomenal. Imagine those resources used for increased prosperity instead. It is tempting to add the Chaos of the struggle between Stephen and Matilda to that - but there is no reason to think that similar struggles might have happened anyway. I would guess the other important aspect would be that the Normans imported Feudalism. That may well have happened anyway, but would presumably have been more gradual and less extreme - the Scandinavian/Saxon model would have presumably slanted it away from serfdom and towards the concept of freemen I wonder if, were this the case, England would have joined Portugal at the vanguard of the Age of Discovery. Given that the Genoese amongst others are known to have visited the Canaries, and there are myths of English sailors landing on Madeira, it is not impossible that an even more maritime-orientated England could have focussed its resources on discovery as well. I wonder though- in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge and a victory at Hastings, does Harold make peace with Olaf of Norway in the way that Olaf did with William? As the king who had just repulsed all challengers to his throne, Harold Godwinson would have been able to dictate pretty much whatever terms he wanted had he gone for that option. I suspect that if William had fallen at Hastings, the Duchy of Normandy wouldn't have survived much longer; it would have been conquered by the king of France in short order. And that would have left a strengthened French monarchy free to pick on and annex other targets - Anjou, Aquitaine, Burgundy and the like - much more quickly than happened in our timeline. The twelfth century being what it is, the centuries of war between France and the Angevin kings would probably have been replaced by centuries of war between a unified France and the Holy Roman Empire. A unified France taking control of the Crusades is also an interesting prospect to ponder. In the meantime England has a problem with the Scandinavian kingdoms, given that Olaf of Norway and his successors still have a claim to the English throne. The scale of the defeat at Stamford Bridge might mean it would take a while for this to reassert itself, but the Norwegians would probably want a second go at invading at some point. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jan 26, 2019 19:22:39 GMT
We probably wouldn't have had jet airliners by 1320 or Hamlet written for television.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,788
|
Post by john07 on Jan 26, 2019 23:41:22 GMT
All through the 50s I remember Oswestry having an Ormsby-Gore Conservative MP. 1950-61 before he became the ambassador in Washington.
John Biffen won the resulting by-election, with Brian Walden as Labour candidate. There was also a candidate of the Patriotic Front, although presumably not the same group later active in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe........ More likely the Rhodesian Front! |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jan 27, 2019 0:18:25 GMT
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is religion. In 1065 there were still some traces of Celtic Christianity in England, which had vanished within a couple of decades of the conquest. It's possible that English Christianity would have remained a bit more distinct from continental Catholicism for a while. Though it's anyone's guess how the changes would have impacted England's reaction to the Reformation. Is that really true? The Celtic tradition has been claimed by Protestants in both Britain and Ireland as an "authentic" form of indigenous Christianity less tainted by Rome than the continental Catholicism imported by Augustine of Canterbury and his successors. However, not much that was really distinctive survived as late as the Norman conquest, except some eccentric practices such as the existence of clerical dynasties in Wales and Ireland. Given the religious situation in western Europe right the way through from the fall of the Western Roman Empire until about the time of the Battle of Hastings, that's not so much true or false as meaningless. Catholicism pretty much originated in the late Roman Empire as the imperially approved version of Christianity and, as the Empire fragmented, itself fragmented into a collection of diverging local Catholicisms - which, however, still generally recognised each other as Catholic, and the Pope as having a very nominal seniority. Celtic Christianity was just an isolated and rather more extreme variant of this - and much of that because Wales had only ever been semi-Romanised, and Ireland was the only European area outside the former Roman Empire (and a very un-Roman one at that) that converted to Christianity during the early post-Roman period. The renewed contact between Celtic and Roman Christianity in the time of Augustine was actually rather less hostile than it may look in retrospect. While there were a few significant doctrinal differences which took quite some time to negotiate, nobody at the time was much bothered about a number of smaller differences, because they weren't very different in scale and type from those between Rome and any other locality outside central Italy (particularly ones without cities and fairly strong rulers). At the same time, Celtic (and later English) missionaries, monks and other clerics on the Continent spread a number of other influences - a few things which we now think of as typically Catholic have a Celtic origin. Meanwhile, the new English Church ended up with a mixture of Celtic and Roman influences - Roman ones where they helped kings of still developing kingdoms to strengthen their rule, and Celtic ones where the Roman ones really needed a far more developed society. At least, Roman at first. Charlemagne and his successors did start introducing a number of Church reforms that started standardising the local Catholicisms within his empire, often using English clerics to establish best practice, and appointed a number of bishops interested in continuing them - but his empire fell apart before the plans had been taken very far. In any case, the Papacy had mostly been left outside his reforms - Charlemagne was interested in imperial, not papal, control of the Church, and the popes remained largely independent of his empire. However, after the Viking invasions, Alfred and his successors did use the Carolingian plans in their most developed form to rebuild the English Church under their control, and the reforms largely stuck. So did the Norman dukes, with their local Church under ducal control. The English Church in 1066 was therefore rather behind on the latest reform movements in continental Catholicism, but no more than most areas of the Continent. And in fact, rather less, as northern France, including Normandy, was active in the reform movements, and one of the reasons Edward the Confessor had been importing some Norman clerics was to keep the English Church in touch with them. So, in Norman terms, the English Church was rather out of date and with some rather peculiar practices (like making far more use of English than most continental Churches did of their local languages - but still largely using Latin; and having larger bishoprics in some parts of the country than was the case in France - but no larger than many German bishoprics), but they would have found the same in some parts of France or Germany. So if Harold had won at Hastings, England might well have held back for a while on further church reform but would still have had to engage with the Papal-led reformers who created what we think of as medieval Catholicism. And, like every kingdom in continental Catholic Europe (and England in our actual history), Harold or his immediate successors would probably have eventually decided that they were better off accommodating the Papacy than not. English Catholicism might well have ended up with more similarities to northern Germany or Scandinavia (or even to, say, Spain) than to France, as well as a few more peculiarities of its own, but probably would still have been well within accepted Catholic parameters. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2019 8:16:05 GMT
Is that really true? The Celtic tradition has been claimed by Protestants in both Britain and Ireland as an "authentic" form of indigenous Christianity less tainted by Rome than the continental Catholicism imported by Augustine of Canterbury and his successors. However, not much that was really distinctive survived as late as the Norman conquest, except some eccentric practices such as the existence of clerical dynasties in Wales and Ireland. Given the religious situation in western Europe right the way through from the fall of the Western Roman Empire until about the time of the Battle of Hastings, that's not so much true or false as meaningless. Catholicism pretty much originated in the late Roman Empire as the imperially approved version of Christianity and, as the Empire fragmented, itself fragmented into a collection of diverging local Catholicisms - which, however, still generally recognised each other as Catholic, and the Pope as having a very nominal seniority. Celtic Christianity was just an isolated and rather more extreme variant of this - and much of that because Wales had only ever been semi-Romanised, and Ireland was the only European area outside the former Roman Empire (and a very un-Roman one at that) that converted to Christianity during the early post-Roman period. The renewed contact between Celtic and Roman Christianity in the time of Augustine was actually rather less hostile than it may look in retrospect. While there were a few significant doctrinal differences which took quite some time to negotiate, nobody at the time was much bothered about a number of smaller differences, because they weren't very different in scale and type from those between Rome and any other locality outside central Italy (particularly ones without cities and fairly strong rulers). At the same time, Celtic (and later English) missionaries, monks and other clerics on the Continent spread a number of other influences - a few things which we now think of as typically Catholic have a Celtic origin. Meanwhile, the new English Church ended up with a mixture of Celtic and Roman influences - Roman ones where they helped kings of still developing kingdoms to strengthen their rule, and Celtic ones where the Roman ones really needed a far more developed society. At least, Roman at first. Charlemagne and his successors did start introducing a number of Church reforms that started standardising the local Catholicisms within his empire, often using English clerics to establish best practice, and appointed a number of bishops interested in continuing them - but his empire fell apart before the plans had been taken very far. In any case, the Papacy had mostly been left outside his reforms - Charlemagne was interested in imperial, not papal, control of the Church, and the popes remained largely independent of his empire. However, after the Viking invasions, Alfred and his successors did use the Carolingian plans in their most developed form to rebuild the English Church under their control, and the reforms largely stuck. So did the Norman dukes, with their local Church under ducal control. The English Church in 1066 was therefore rather behind on the latest reform movements in continental Catholicism, but no more than most areas of the Continent. And in fact, rather less, as northern France, including Normandy, was active in the reform movements, and one of the reasons Edward the Confessor had been importing some Norman clerics was to keep the English Church in touch with them. So, in Norman terms, the English Church was rather out of date and with some rather peculiar practices (like making far more use of English than most continental Churches did of their local languages - but still largely using Latin; and having larger bishoprics in some parts of the country than was the case in France - but no larger than many German bishoprics), but they would have found the same in some parts of France or Germany. So if Harold had won at Hastings, England might well have held back for a while on further church reform but would still have had to engage with the Papal-led reformers who created what we think of as medieval Catholicism. And, like every kingdom in continental Catholic Europe (and England in our actual history), Harold or his immediate successors would probably have eventually decided that they were better off accommodating the Papacy than not. English Catholicism might well have ended up with more similarities to northern Germany or Scandinavia (or even to, say, Spain) than to France, as well as a few more peculiarities of its own, but probably would still have been well within accepted Catholic parameters. That's an interesting perspective. The differences between the Celtic and Roman parties were surely more about authority and practice than doctrine, though the boundary between these concepts was perhaps less clear in the early mediaeval period. Relations between the two sides were also bedevilled by ethnic tensions and personality clashes. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jan 27, 2019 18:20:35 GMT
A few thoughts to discuss:
1. Does English entrench itself as the language of prestige earlier as Anglo-Norman does not take hold?
2. Does English retain any of its inflections?
3. Does London become the permanent capital or does somewhere else on the circuit take the position? Given he has had to fight at both ends of the country, I wonder if Harold might have found somewhere more central.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 27, 2019 22:41:06 GMT
3. Does London become the permanent capital or does somewhere else on the circuit take the position? Given he has had to fight at both ends of the country, I wonder if Harold might have found somewhere more central. Coventry?  |
|
