WHAT IF...EMPRESS MATILDA HAD DEFEATED KING STEPHEN?

In the 1130s, England descended into civil war as two rival cousins vied for the throne. Spencer Mizen asks historian Matt Lewis whether the struggle - known as the Anarchy - could have unfolded differently

- Spencer Mizen

King Henry I was, in many historians' estimation, an accomplished ruler. He cemented his father, William I's, conquest of the kingdom of England, successfully fought off a series of rebellions across the Channel in Normandy, and burnished England's reputation among the kingdoms of Europe.

Yet, for all his undoubted qualities, Henry made a complete mess of the succession to his throne. And so, when the ageing king died in 1135, England was pitched into civil war.

That conflict is now better known as the Anarchy, a word that conjures images of turbulence and chaos. And so it proved, as the two contenders for Henry's crown - his daughter and nominated heir, Matilda; and Stephen of Blois, a grandson of William the Conqueror - embarked on a bitter battle for power.

In a conflict of seemingly endless twists and turns, it was Stephen who struck first, having himself crowned a matter of weeks after Henry's death. Yet, by 1141, Matilda had turned the tables on her enemy completely. Having defeated Stephen at the battle of Lincoln and thrown him into prison, she entered London in triumph, seemingly on the brink of securing the throne. Yet Londoners wouldn't accept her, and after being freed from his incarceration, Stephen was soon back in the ascendant.

Even then the war rumbled on, as Matilda's supporters - her son Henry to the fore - strained every sinew to unseat Stephen. It was only in 1154, on Stephen's death and Henry's accession as Henry II, that England's long nightmare came to an end.

But what if Matilda hadn't allowed victory to slip through her grasp in 1141? What if she had placed the crown on her head, sat on the throne - and had herself declared England's first queen-regnant?

UNCHANGED SUCCESSION