Alternate history: the Anarchy of King Stephen.

[King Henry V]

Queen Maud (English version of Matilda) certainly did not fight against her husband. In fact, when he was captured at Lincoln in 1141, she refused to submit to Stephen's rival, the Empress Matilda (somtimes also referred to as Maud) and organised the fightback with William of Ypres, which led to the Rout of Winchester, which nullified nearly all of the Empress's gains during that year (Gloucester, who was captured, was exchanged for Stephen).

[Ludens]

Thanks for the information. I was confused by the queen's name.

[Kommodus]

Option #2, definitely, for these reasons:

1. The quicker we strike Gloucester, the head of the rebellion, the better.
2. Stephen should not leave his wife to face Gloucester alone. With his current army plus her force, he should have enough to defeat Gloucester's 200 knights.

[King Kurt]

Good to see King Stephen back - my inclination is to go with option 2 - strike at the heart of the problem and move the focus of the whole of the affair to the centre of government as opposed to the edges. The Welsh marches can be sorted out in due course, but we should put the kingdom as a whole right first.

[Flavius Clemens]

Option 2 - we need to see things through to the heart of the matter.
But it is important that we get a message through to the other forces to let them know Stephen wasn't captured and the fight continues, to keep up their morale and battle against local enemy forces.

[Prince Cobra]

There are not many rulers called Stephen. And I definately can not let a king with such a good name to lose his crown. Ok, Lord of Gloucester, one day you will fall and this day is coming. And then the death of Baldwin of Exter will be a nice dream of yours...
Option two. The first one is too risky.

[King Henry V]

The story of our blessed sovereign, Stephen of Blis, King of the English and Duke of the Normans, will return shortly. I am just penning the big scene, afterwhich I shall type it up and post it.
This thread is not dead.