Yes, but you could start making arguments in favour of boosting the income of certain provinces in England along similar lines, and then you've gone full circle.
This may be controversial, but IMO, and in all honesty, the military conquest of Wales and Ireland by England was a foregone conclusion the moment any English monarch decided to undergo any such campaign. Not so, for many able English monarchs- both Anglo-Saxon and Norman- were to find out. The greater part of the 11th century the Welsh king Gruffydd ap Llywellyn actually had beaten back the Anglo-Saxons in open field warfare, and had taken parts of the West Midlands for a generation or two. The Angivine monarchy was unable to secure anything beyond Wallia Marchia, and even there the uplands were free of Norman influence. Wallia Pura would be devoid of any Norman influence until the Edwardian conquest- which all but backrupted the monarchy for a generation. He was unable to capitalize on his positions in Scotland because of the threat of Welsh revolts. Its no surprise that the English monarchy had to expend such huge amounts in their subjection of the Welsh. In open battle, or even several slightly-less-than-open battles, England would win - through manpower, materials, wealth, you name it. Even Scotland had a decidedly dubious run in holding onto its independence. This is a simplistic viewpoint of a complex issue. While it is very true that England was gaining more manpower and technology, it is also true the same trends were occuring in Scotland and Wales too. In Wales in particular, the population was on the rise in the 11th through 13th century, and that population increase was largest amongst the freeman element of the Welsh population, according to historian John Davies and others. There was nothing unduly unique that occured in England that did not also occur in Wales or Scotland too. IF the English were able to field more men, they had to contend greater generalship by Welsh leaders who were able to equalize surperior numbers with gorella warfare and better use of scarce resources. Politically, too, the Angivine monarchy was unanble to gather enough suport for their invasions of Wallia Pura, for the first three Henrys and king John attempted to subject the princes of Gwynedd and everytime was met with failure. The Welsh prince Llywellyn ap Gruffydd was even able to co-author porvisions in the Magna Carta.
The more important issue was the difficulty in holding the lands and the actual desire to undergo the campaign. I could understand a 'Wales held out until xx date historically' if we were referring to constant war, but this wasn't the case. There was a constant state of warfair between the Norman Marcher lords and the native Welsh. There are countless campaigns that were even funded by the Angivine monarchy that ended in failure. England spent a great deal of time fighting France and themselves in the time period. As did the Welsh and Scots, fighting and allying with others to secure a measure of automony from a centralized monarchy. The key issue would be how long / how successfully Wales defended themselves once the war had begun. History tends to say 'not all that long, and not always all that well'. War was 'declared' in 1071, when Bleddyn ap Cynfyn allied with Northumbria and Mercia against the Norman invasion. Open warfare between the native Welsh and norman Marcher Lords was a constant, and even the Norman monarchy had its teeth borken on its numerous Welsh campaigns. Dispite all the manpower and material at its desposal, its rather a testement to the resilience of the Welsh that they were able to hold off until 1287, and still the threat of the Welsh was real enough, as those great castles testify. It would take another 200 years or so to eleminate Welsh laws in the Statute of Ruddlan. Yet still in 1399 did a decendent of Welsh princes rise with Owian Glen Dwr, heir to the Dinefwr, Aberffraw, and Mathrafal houses. Owain almost secured a Welsh independence. Almost. Yet, do you not think that all these leaders did not know the numerical odds with which they fought, and yet felt the fight could be won?
In this aspect, CK isn't far from the historical situation. What isn't right is that England sees Wales and Ireland as nice, easy, convenient targets in 1066. Whilst they undoubtedly were, the AI is confident that it won't face a civil war or a terrible burden of debt, for example. I'm not sure English kings necessarily saw it the same way.
