On the night of 25th November 1120 a Norman vessel, the White Ship, left the port of Barfleur for England. The crew and many passengers drunk, as the ship set sail it struck a submerged rock and sank with the loss of all on board. This event was of particular note as it carried the heir apparent to the Kingdom of England and the Duchy of Normandy, William Adelin, Henry I's only legitimate son. Also on board were: two of Henry I's illegitimate children, Matilda Fitzroy, Countess of Perche, and Richard of Lincoln, Earl of Suffolk; Richard d'Avranches, Earl of Chester and his wife Lucia-Mahaut; and Thomas FitzStephen, who captained the vessel, and had been a sea captain for William the Conqueror in 1066.
The sinking of the vessel threw the succession, seemingly secure, in to doubt. Henry, widowed for two years, hastily arranged a marriage to Adeliza of Louvain in a vain attempt to produce a male heir before his death. With no issue being produced by this marriage, Henry named his daughter, Matilda, as his heir, and got his nobles to swear allegiance to her. Even though they had done this, the barons instead supported the claims of Stephen of Blois, a nephew of Henry and grandson of William I. The resulting civil war, named 'the anarchy' by Victorian historians, and described as a time when "Christ and his saints were asleep" by contemporary chroniclers, eventually saw the throne pass to Matilda's son, Henry II.
So what if the ship had arrived safely? Perhaps Stephen FitzStephen decides against setting off at night while drunk - given that he was an experienced sailor he should have recognised that attempting to cross the Channel at night while drunk was foolhardy, or perhaps he sets sail anyway and despite the odds arrives safely. The obvious consequence is that William Adelin survives and inherits his fathers thrones when he dies (assuming he doesn't have a hunting accident - which was a suspiciously common occurrence for descendants of William I). Whether William Adelin would have made a good William III is up for debate. As it had been known that he would become king since his birth, he had received a deal of teaching to make him a better king, and he had recently begun exercising his father's role as Duke of Normandy. Henry had also secured him a marriage to Matilda of Anjou, daughter of Fulk V, Count of Anjou, turning Anjou from an opponent of Henry to an ally. That said, contemporary chroniclers did not seem to have a high opinion of William - Henry of Huntingdon claimed that his pampered upbringing would make him "food for the fire".
Additionally, William's survival not only means no Anarchy, it also means no Angevin inheritance with King Henry II, except for Maine which was Matilda of Anjou's dowry, making England weaker within France, but also making the kings of England..more English, in language (Henry I was the first king of England to speak the language, whereas the Angevins reverted to French) and in culture during the next 60 years. Would a non-Angevin England have a better hold on Normandy?
The sinking of the vessel threw the succession, seemingly secure, in to doubt. Henry, widowed for two years, hastily arranged a marriage to Adeliza of Louvain in a vain attempt to produce a male heir before his death. With no issue being produced by this marriage, Henry named his daughter, Matilda, as his heir, and got his nobles to swear allegiance to her. Even though they had done this, the barons instead supported the claims of Stephen of Blois, a nephew of Henry and grandson of William I. The resulting civil war, named 'the anarchy' by Victorian historians, and described as a time when "Christ and his saints were asleep" by contemporary chroniclers, eventually saw the throne pass to Matilda's son, Henry II.
So what if the ship had arrived safely? Perhaps Stephen FitzStephen decides against setting off at night while drunk - given that he was an experienced sailor he should have recognised that attempting to cross the Channel at night while drunk was foolhardy, or perhaps he sets sail anyway and despite the odds arrives safely. The obvious consequence is that William Adelin survives and inherits his fathers thrones when he dies (assuming he doesn't have a hunting accident - which was a suspiciously common occurrence for descendants of William I). Whether William Adelin would have made a good William III is up for debate. As it had been known that he would become king since his birth, he had received a deal of teaching to make him a better king, and he had recently begun exercising his father's role as Duke of Normandy. Henry had also secured him a marriage to Matilda of Anjou, daughter of Fulk V, Count of Anjou, turning Anjou from an opponent of Henry to an ally. That said, contemporary chroniclers did not seem to have a high opinion of William - Henry of Huntingdon claimed that his pampered upbringing would make him "food for the fire".
Additionally, William's survival not only means no Anarchy, it also means no Angevin inheritance with King Henry II, except for Maine which was Matilda of Anjou's dowry, making England weaker within France, but also making the kings of England..more English, in language (Henry I was the first king of England to speak the language, whereas the Angevins reverted to French) and in culture during the next 60 years. Would a non-Angevin England have a better hold on Normandy?
Last edited:
