What would England look like if Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke (perhaps Bolingbroke dies while crusading in Lithuania)? Would Richard conquer more of Ireland? Would he attack Scotland to make up for his previous failure there? Would he continue to peace with France? At home, would he be able to keep power or would some other nobleman usurp him? Would any other nobleman be so brave as to claim the crown himself or would they just give it to Richard II's heir in return for concessions? Any thoughts?
WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke
- Thread starter Archduke
- Start date
Big question is whether he has any kids with Isabella?
An heir of his body might stabilise his regime somewhat, but given Richard will be pushing 40 by the time Isabella is old enough to have a kid there might be the unwelcome spectre of another regency (and conflict over who'd be regent).
An heir of his body might stabilise his regime somewhat, but given Richard will be pushing 40 by the time Isabella is old enough to have a kid there might be the unwelcome spectre of another regency (and conflict over who'd be regent).
If Bolingbroke is dead, Edward of Norwich would be the best candidate, and he would likely have been appointed as such. Don't see a heated battle over the regency, personally.
Probably we'd see more focus there. Depends on whether or not it succeeds.
Doubtful, especially if he gets James I's custody like Henry IV did IOTL.
Yes
All noblemen in a position to grab the throne are either too young or unambitious soo.
No concessions required.
Wouldn't be any pushback from Mortimer as theoretical next-in-line, or Henry of Lancaster?
Mortimer would be in his teens by the time Richard kicks the bucket (this is assuming Richard dies in ~1409), so nada support for him.
. Henry of Monmouth, well, depends on how his father kicks the bucket. If H4 simply dies in Lithuania as suggested by OP, he might get some support although his relative youth will play to his disadvantage. His feats like surviving Shrewsbury et al are also likely butterflied so I doubt his martial prowess would come into play either.
As for Norwich, he's an adult in his 30s, has seen military action, was the favorite of Richard II and would probably have been appointed as Regent (Assuming Richard has the foresight to do so, ofc) soo.
Yeah, I think a lot depends on precisely when Richard dies. Earlier it is the easier for Norwich, given the relative youth of everyone else, but if the regency is in play towards the end of the 1410s Mortimer and Monmouth perhaps become more plausible candidates.
Best suited tho would be a surviving Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. Has almost all the advantages that Norwich has (except possibly the appointed regent part), in addition to hating been heir to Richard till the birth of TTL Edward IV*
Last edited:
Either him or Norwich would be the best choices as regent and is pretty likely who Richard will have heirs as soon Isabella reached the right age
Not too sure, Richard had no children at all, not a single bastard even. Mayhaps the problem laid with him, in which case, best case scenario is that everyone backs off for Mortimer. Norwich the Kingmaker anyone?
Or Norwich the King, Richard did not want Mortimer to succeed him.
He loved Anne of Bohemia, he didn't have time to sire any bastard.
In that case either Mortimer or Norwich as King based on what Richard believed the best course. Bolingbroke would likely end with an attainder in any scenario so he and his sons are most likely out of question
Kingmaker is better by far. Cooler.
And he was pretty damn unambitious soo
E3 loved Philippa, had bastards. E4 "loved" Woodville, had bastards. Loving your wife is not always equal to having no bastards.
Depends on how Bolingbroke kicks the bucket and when
Last edited:
Well, unless Bolingbroke die before his father he is out and so is his line. And the choice between Norwich and Mortimer belong only to Richard so...
Richard was also extremely pious and God forbis fornication. And even if Mortimer survived, Richard would try to arrest him, so in worst case he might be tried for treason and attainted.
Never heard that one before. Can you provide a source?
And, eh, still not convinced of that one.
About Richard's piety? Oh, I looked at my original source (Polish wiki bio) now and I've misinterpreted it, sorry. But Walsingham accused king of having homosexual relationship, so maybe Richard was bisexual preffering males and he was only attracted to Anne of Bohemia?
Yes.
Perhaps, no actual way of knowing. Might have been demisexual for all we know.
So most probably Richard didn't bed any other woman than Anne of Bohemia, so no way of siring bastards.
I think he could end up having kids with Isabella. It's important to remember that Richard II's first wife, Anne of Bohemia, came of a line that demonstrated low fertility and soon after died out.
People in Richard II's family who did not have health issues (which Richard II had no known ones) lived to their 60s, so there might not have to be a regency.
Without Agincourt, Norwich doesn't necessarily die abroad and he certainly was a respected figure during Richard II's life. He also seems healthy, so he will probably outlast Richard II even if Richard Ii lives a long life. In the case that a regency is needed, I agree that Norwich seems like the most likely person for Richard II to name as regent in his testament.
Richard II was successful in 1394 and did return in 1399 (but then Bolingbroke returned), so he might see some success.
Why exactly do you think he would avoid Scotland? Do you think he was chastised by his previous failure there?
Makes sense that peace with hold with him married to Isabella.
For the noblemen that are too young do you think that Richard II would be able to deal with them (exile or murder) before they became problems or could he take them in as wards and turn into loyalists?
Regarding Mortimer, his claim was recognized as having value, but as far as I can tell Richard II never actually proclaimed him heir.
I guess if Bolingbroke is dead and Richard II has Henry of Monmouth as his ward then he might grow fond enough of him to proclaim him heir, but Mortimer would certainly pushback.
Why do you assume Richard II would die in 1409? I'm curious about why that specific date, was there a plague outbreak in London then or some health complication of Richard II?
Henry Monmouth might get an opportunity to fight some Irish but those battles did not receive nearly as much acclaim as battles in England, Scotland, and France.
For regent, I think Norwich will always have the upper hand given his weighty titles and age.
Mortimer was the presumed heir but never acclaimed, which could be a problem.
Richard II was definitely pious, that piety fueled a sense of divine right. Dan Jones talks about it in his book on the Plantagenets. Also Walsingham was vehemently anti-Richard II so I would not trust his characterizations of Richard II especially if he is calling Richard II a homosexual in a time when it was still considering very sinful.
Where is your source for Richard II not wanting Mortimer to succeed him. It makes sense to me since he never proclaimed him heir but I want to see the source and see if I can glean any further information like why he didn't want Mortimer.
If you read Dan Jones's book, it was mentioned here and also http://mortimerhistorysociety.org.uk/index.php/the-earls-of-march.