Which part of England would be the most likely place to successfully repel the Normans and stay independent? And if that did happen, what would be the effects on the development of the English language? Would the English language as spoken there diverge from the rest of England? And if something similar to the Reconquista took place, what would be the effects on English elsewhere?
Most plausible part of England to avoid Norman rule
- Thread starter joeyanonymous
- Start date
I reckon Northumbria feels like a pretty obvious choice. The most distant region from Normandy, potent resistance historically, sizeable-enough area to sustain itself.. If it remained independent, I think it would have a much stronger germanic/nordic influence than the rest of england especially linguistically. Most certainly, it'd diverge from main-line normandised english.
Can't say as to a potential reconquista.
Can't say as to a potential reconquista.
Yeah a reborn Northumbria, lets say under Edgar, seems the most likely candidate. He'd rely on strong ties with Scotland and Denmark, and probably would try to align with the welsh
I've had a pet theory for several years now.
The best option maybe accept William as king. As bad as he was I doubt he would have sent a very expensive expedition and army of the Anglo-Saxons didn't crown someone else. Sure southern England would still probably be Normanized but the north. As long as taxes are paid they may not be worth the trouble.
As a bonus we know his dynasty died out in OTL it wouldn't be a big stretch for it to happen in ATL either.
The best option maybe accept William as king. As bad as he was I doubt he would have sent a very expensive expedition and army of the Anglo-Saxons didn't crown someone else. Sure southern England would still probably be Normanized but the north. As long as taxes are paid they may not be worth the trouble.
As a bonus we know his dynasty died out in OTL it wouldn't be a big stretch for it to happen in ATL either.
The Anarchy did only take another 72 years after William's conquest to kick off. If some rump state can last that long, maybe that would be a potential opening?
I would like to state at the outset that I don’t believe it is possible for a ‘partial’ conquest to take place. The Normans either succeed like they did OTL or they utterly fail. That is, if the English were strong enough “to successfully repel the Normans” at any point, we’re looking at an ATL where they will be strong enough to fully throw the Normans back across the channel.
However, for the sake of argument – and I think @Superninja76 and @piratedude are correct in identifying Northumbria as the region – let’s assume that a stalemate occurs: the Normans cannot establish themselves beyond the Humber and the English, for whatever reason, are ‘happy’ to cede southern England.
How can this new England (or Northumbria) stay independent any actually become a viable state? If it is strong enough to fight the Normans to a standstill, it is probably strong enough to ward off the predatory Scots and Danes as well. I would go as far to say that even if the English king were a southerner, he would have to pay great heed to his northern subjects. Those subjects are more likely to be concerned with the North, a reconquest of the south low on their priorities. This new England would likely extend its border north to the Forth (reclaiming Lothian) and west into Galloway/Ayrshire. As such it would then contain all English speakers not under Norman rule.
How this would effect the development of the English language I’ll leave to those better informed on linguistic development.
Just an idea.
And as ideas go, I do like @Albeques pet theory.
I like this 'dynastic rope-a-dope' idea a lot, as it makes for a more naturalistic insertion of Norman influence and involvement in Britain IMO than OTL saw. Leaving aside the interesting knock-on effects from this development (e.g. Norman nobility sharing space with Anglo-Saxon ones, as well as Flemings and Bretons, the Crown possibly switching between ethnically diverse dynasties, etc.), the linguistic effects would also be interesting. Without such overweening Gallicization of nobility and scripture, what influences the Normans do bring over would be more 'equal' in prestige and perceived worth to the Englisc (possibly resembling the level/degree of French influence in Scots more than OTL English). And at the end of the day, it could equally augur more inter-dynastic conflict or help bolster prosperity in Britain in the long run (perhaps both in alternating measure).
One aspect to consider linguistically is that the Normans removed the Wessex standard which then allowed the modified Midlands dialects to form the new Middle then Modern English standards. This why we have "wall" and "hard" rather than "waill" and "haird" (West Saxon weall, heard vs Mercian/Northumbrian wall, hard).
So you could see a slightly Normanised WestSaxon "Low English" versus a Scotsesque Northumbrian "High English".
So you could see a slightly Normanised WestSaxon "Low English" versus a Scotsesque Northumbrian "High English".
Problem is, that's not really a big enough area to form a viable state and is surrounded by Norman territory. It might resist for a few years, but eventually the inhabitants would grow tired of being essentially a glorified bandit encampment and seek terms, if they haven't been defeated militarily.