Why didn't Norwich disinherit Conisburgh? And if Henry V tried to attaint RoY after Southampton Plot, would Norwich resist according to you?
WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke
- Thread starter Archduke
- Start date
Why didn't Norwich disinherit Conisburgh? And if Henry V tried to attaint RoY after Southampton Plot, would Norwich resist according to you?
Because he wasn't going to declare his father a cuckold and mother an adultress anytime soon.
I believe we've had this discussion, Zygmunt.
Very true.
I feel like though you are giving a little too much credit to Conisburgh, and not enough to Bollingbrooke, but at the same time why would you give credit to Bollingbrooke and the Lancastrians
.On a serious note fair point, but that does to be scraping the barrell a little bit. Henry had no quarrel with Conisburgh and has no reason to anger him or Norwich directly by taking land that Norwich would set aside for Conisburgh, so I'm going to be more cynical and say that Norwich purposefully did not want Conisburgh to have land or much power.
She may have done the crazy stuff after Langley died, but she would still have been seen as an enemy/potential threat before that being married to Thomas Despencer who attempted to overthrow Bollingbrooke.
Also how has this managed to turn into a Conisburgh thread
Then tell him the full scenario. The degree of punishment for Conisburgh's children over there was certainly more than what you're saying here.......
It makes no sense to declares Conisburgh a bastard/or disinherit him as that would be hugely embarassing for Langley to have to publicly admit it. Much better to just grant him no land whatsoever, favour Edward of Norwich in every circumstance and mean Conisburgh has basically now power or influence, his sole power being his surname and coat of arms. Which too be fair, can get a man or women far. Especially considering Conisburgh's surname.
Well considering Norwich didn't resist to his brother being executed in OTL, why would he resist to an attainder on his brother. Its pretty Norwich at best didn't care about his brother, or at worst maybe even hated his brother. Probably more that he disliked him.
LmaoVery true.
I feel like though you are giving a little too much credit to Conisburgh, and not enough to Bollingbrooke, but at the same time why would you give credit to Bollingbrooke and the Lancastrians
On a serious note fair point, but that does to be scraping the barrell a little bit. Henry had no quarrel with Conisburgh and has no reason to anger him or Norwich directly by taking land that Norwich would set aside for Conisburgh, so I'm going to be more cynical and say that Norwich purposefully did not want Conisburgh to have land or much power.
She may have done the crazy stuff after Langley died, but she would still have been seen as an enemy/potential threat before that being married to Thomas Despencer who attempted to overthrow Bollingbrooke.
Also how has this managed to turn into a Conisburgh thread
I was talking about Monmouth.
He was, despite being one of the better kings in the period (and a personal favorite, despite my leanings) still a power hungry, ruthless aristocrat. Not particularly plausible but not outside the realms of possibility either.
No reason to disinherit tho.
@CaptainShadow is my prime suspect.
Still seems rather unlikely though. If it was Henry IV I could agree but I don't see the Henry V being that petty.
Your your own prime suspect
We are talking about the dude who was essentially avoiding his father on said father's deathbed because they couldn't invade France? Henry was undoubtedly one of the better kings in this time period and has a well deserved military reputation, but that does not equate to him being a nice guy.Still seems rather unlikely though. If it was Henry IV I could agree but I don't see the Henry V being that petty.
Your your own prime suspect
I'm the only Yorkist here who doesn't play both sides 😉
I'm curious about the careers of Holland Brother's in a longer surviving Richard II TL - always helps to be half brothers of the King
I told him this bit of scenario, because I'm aware that this punishment was not possible. I was only testing his opinion about attainder part.
I wasn't talking about Langley's will, but tho what will happen if Isabel was caught in action with Holland? Could England see it's own Nesle affair?
Fair enough, so if HV decided to bar Conisburgh's son from inheriting, Norwich wouldn't rebel?
We have like a decade or so's info to glean from. Probably gonna be in royal favor, on the council, and are liable to get some Lancastrian lands.
And lmao this has turned into a 13th/14th century England discussion thread more than anything else! 🤣
Last edited:
No he has doesn't have enough reason too and its too risky. Plus Henry V would no do that.
Are we quite sure that Edmund of langley’s children were illegitimate? One assumes that a noblewoman like Isabel of Castile would know better than to try and pull something like that.
The Queen of Castile, Joan of Portugal, had multiple affairs even after the nobles began to claim her daughter was illegitimate and then she recognized offspring of these affairs. Sometimes nobles and royalty don’t do what’s rational.
I didn't see this earlier but I suspect that the Hollands would continue to play leading roles in Richard II's government and be married to high English nobility as they made done during Richard II's reign.
I'm trying to remember everything I read in the thread.
I'm glad that more people are spreading the information about Anne of Bohemia's possible miscarriage. I find it very irritating when someone in history doesn't have a recorded pregnancy, or bastards in their marriage that they must've preferred the same sex, or there was no sexual intercourse, etc.
Someone mentioned earlier that the relationship between Monmouth and Bolingbroke deteriorated in 1410 other whose side to take in the French Civil War. I was reading a book by Ian Mortimer (it might've been the one about Henry IV), who can be irritatingly pro-Lancastrian in his writing, but he does acknowledge human faults, and his writing is entertaining. He stated that there seems to have always been a strain in the relationship of Monmouth and Bolingbroke. For example, in 1398 Monmouth was not listed as a receiver of any Christmas gifts from his father. The presumed favorite, Thomas, was high on the list. There are many other factors than can come into play that suggest it wasn't an ideal relationship.
I think it was after Richard III's bones were discovered that a "break" in the Yorkist line was discovered. Someone was illegitimate somewhere. Of course, it doesn't have to be Richard of Conisburgh, but because the affair was so noticeable, Langley excluded him from his will, and Richard II was paying a sort of pension to support Conisburgh (as requested in his mother's will)-it makes you wonder.
I'm glad that more people are spreading the information about Anne of Bohemia's possible miscarriage. I find it very irritating when someone in history doesn't have a recorded pregnancy, or bastards in their marriage that they must've preferred the same sex, or there was no sexual intercourse, etc.
Someone mentioned earlier that the relationship between Monmouth and Bolingbroke deteriorated in 1410 other whose side to take in the French Civil War. I was reading a book by Ian Mortimer (it might've been the one about Henry IV), who can be irritatingly pro-Lancastrian in his writing, but he does acknowledge human faults, and his writing is entertaining. He stated that there seems to have always been a strain in the relationship of Monmouth and Bolingbroke. For example, in 1398 Monmouth was not listed as a receiver of any Christmas gifts from his father. The presumed favorite, Thomas, was high on the list. There are many other factors than can come into play that suggest it wasn't an ideal relationship.
I think it was after Richard III's bones were discovered that a "break" in the Yorkist line was discovered. Someone was illegitimate somewhere. Of course, it doesn't have to be Richard of Conisburgh, but because the affair was so noticeable, Langley excluded him from his will, and Richard II was paying a sort of pension to support Conisburgh (as requested in his mother's will)-it makes you wonder.
I forgot about that! Conisburgh would make sense...and with the way that Langley neglected him, perhaps he knew all along.
Last edited: