AHC: Latest POD for a surviving Richard II
- Thread starter CP11
- Start date
What is it with marrying first cousins being proposed as alt-marriages?
And Richard is married as of 1396, so he'd need an annulment or something.
I suspect not revoking his letters patent on Henry's possessions would do for a while - since that and changing Henry's exile from ten years to life seem to have been what provoked him OTL.
And Richard is married as of 1396, so he'd need an annulment or something.
I suspect not revoking his letters patent on Henry's possessions would do for a while - since that and changing Henry's exile from ten years to life seem to have been what provoked him OTL.
Is their anyway Richard can survive once Henry decides to return? I remember reading that Richard was delayed/delayed himself in returning from Ireland, giving Henry time to gain support and for a rumour to spread that the King was already dead. Does Richard have the support or potential support to snuff out the rebellion?
I quite like the idea of dynastic marriage as the best resolution to all (or most) political problems in times past
Ideally Richard would be reconciled to Henry, keep him as Duke of Lancaster and Aquitaine, and arrange for him to marry his niece Eleanor Holland. Eleanor was the widow of Earl of March and mother of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March and Richard's recognized heir; marriage to her would give Bolingbroke wardship of the boy and his siblings. In this way Bolingbroke is positioned to remain in power after Richard dies, as some sort of power behind the throne for his step-son (and who knows, son-in-law also
).I quite like the idea of dynastic marriage as the best resolution to all (or most) political problems in times past
Ideally Richard would be reconciled to Henry, keep him as Duke of Lancaster and Aquitaine, and arrange for him to marry his niece Eleanor Holland. Eleanor was the widow of Earl of March and mother of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March and Richard's recognized heir; marriage to her would give Bolingbroke wardship of the boy and his siblings. In this way Bolingbroke is positioned to remain in power after Richard dies, as some sort of power behind the throne for his step-son (and who knows, son-in-law also
Yeah, but with first cousins?
This isn't Ptolematic Egypt. The marriage to Eleanor might work, though I don't know if Richard would want Henry having his (presumed) heir as his ward.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/hist/2006/00000091/00000303/art00002
Sadly, haven't read the article, but even the abstract it raises questions worth asking for us alt-historians.
http://www.ianmortimer.com/histbiogs/fears/writingfears.htm
And this is interesting.
"As I looked further ahead I could see questions over the succession looming in 1394 and 1397 as well as 1399. Experience now told me that if I wrote my book without first placing the most contentious parts in an academic journal, I would not be taken seriously by my academic peers. So, work on the book stopped for another month while I wrote an article entitled ‘Richard II and the Succession to the Crown’. It was accepted by the journal, History in November 2005 and appeared in the summer of 2006. Unfortunately, only much later did I realise it was incomplete. Richard II must have entailed the throne on the duke of York at the time of writing his will in April 1399. Appendix Two in the book, which summarises this article, carries an addendum on this point. But at least I could be confident that the essence of my work would withstand academic scrutiny. Anyone seriously interested in Yorkist vs Lancastrian legitimacy dispute will thus be interested to read the article and its postscript in Appendix Two."
The Duke of York as of 1399 is Edmund of Langley - Richard's uncle.
Last edited:
Ok thanks
it seems odd that Richard would leave himself so vunerable that a returning exile and the Earl of Northumberland could overthrow him so easily. Guess thats part of what makes him him!Ok thanks
Well, Richard has a fair number of enemies.
I don't think he thought of himself as being vulnerable in 1399, that's why he went to Ireland instead of shoring up his position.
Yeah, but with first cousins?
The marriage to Eleanor might work, though I don't know if Richard would want Henry having his (presumed) heir as his ward.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/hist/2006/00000091/00000303/art00002
Sadly, haven't read the article, but even the abstract it raises questions worth asking for us alt-historians.
http://www.ianmortimer.com/histbiogs/fears/writingfears.htm
And this is interesting.
"As I looked further ahead I could see questions over the succession looming in 1394 and 1397 as well as 1399. Experience now told me that if I wrote my book without first placing the most contentious parts in an academic journal, I would not be taken seriously by my academic peers. So, work on the book stopped for another month while I wrote an article entitled ‘Richard II and the Succession to the Crown’. It was accepted by the journal, History in November 2005 and appeared in the summer of 2006. Unfortunately, only much later did I realise it was incomplete. Richard II must have entailed the throne on the duke of York at the time of writing his will in April 1399. Appendix Two in the book, which summarises this article, carries an addendum on this point. But at least I could be confident that the essence of my work would withstand academic scrutiny. Anyone seriously interested in Yorkist vs Lancastrian legitimacy dispute will thus be interested to read the article and its postscript in Appendix Two."
The Duke of York as of 1399 is Edmund of Langley - Richard's uncle.
Weren't Richard's parents first cousins once removed? One of his nieces also married the brother, and then son, of Henry IV.
And the Mortimer/Yorkist also married almost exclusively among their cousinage. Interesting that - I wonder why on earth, and on what grounds, he'd opt for York? You have his great-nephew March (best primogeniture claim) and Bolingbroke (senior male-line heir), plus the rest of the house of Lancaster before the Yorkists come into play..
Weren't Richard's parents first cousins once removed? One of his nieces also married the brother, and then son, of Henry IV.
Interesting that - I wonder why on earth, and on what grounds, he'd opt for York? You have his great-nephew March (best primogeniture claim) and Bolingbroke (senior male-line heir), plus the rest of the house of Lancaster before the Yorkists come into play..
Edward of Woodstock (the Black Prince, Richard's father): Son of Edward III, grandson of Edward II, great-grandson of Edward I.
Joan of Kent: daughter of Edmund of Woodstock, granddaughter of Edward I.
In other words: Yes.
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands
/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm#_Toc321390524
Don't see any mention of Richard's nieces, but if I'm being blind, please correct my oversight.
And what cousins did the Yorkists & Mortimers marry?
On the succession: I have no idea - I suspect Richard's attitude that "the laws of England were within his own mouth and breast" (as Weir describes it) meant he felt he could name anyone he damn well felt like (and the primogeniture-as-the-rule is a development only Edward I on, really) as his heir, but that doesn't explain why he'd pick York - especially if he's shown prior favor to his nephews (Mortimer line), which is what he supposedly did.
Even if he didn't, why. Edmund is (again quoting Weir) "an ineffectual ditherer of little ability" and fifty-eight - although his son and heir is close to Richard. Maybe too close, say the rumors.
In any case, if Richard is arranging a marriage for Henry, I suspect he wouldn't do it until his exile is over (assuming he still exiles him TTL) - Richard may have been a crazy tyrant but he wasn't schizophrenic in this sense.
Last edited:
Interesting that - I wonder why on earth, and on what grounds, he'd opt for York? You have his great-nephew March (best primogeniture claim) and Bolingbroke (senior male-line heir), plus the rest of the house of Lancaster before the Yorkists come into play..
I've read that book by Mortimer and he does suggest that Richard really wanted York's son, the Duke of Aumale to succeed him but even if he can skip Mortimer and Bolingbroke he didn't think he could skip York. Although if true you would have thought York may not have went over to Henry so easily
Joan of Kent was married before marrying Richard's father. Richard's half-siblings bore the Holland surname and they and their children intermarried with the Lancastrians, Yorkists, Nevilles and others.
The Mortimer Earl of March married Eleanor Holland, probably a second cousin or thereabouts; Anne Mortimer married Richard of Conisburgh, another cousin; their children Richard and Isabella married Cecily Neville and Bourchier of Essex, both also cousins; at least three of Richard's children married cousins (Anne Neville, Isabella Neville, and de la Pole). Even down to the time of the Tudors their descendants continued to intermarry quite heavily, with an admixture of Woodville, Grey and Stafford blood.
Heh! Interesting.
Probably the first time a homoerotic relationship determined succession! Not something you see everday. Maybe in Richard we have a precursor of the Tudors, with the general belief that they can dispose of the Crown as they so will.EDIT: The marriage would either be part of a general rehabilitation of Bolingbroke, or arranged before a definitive split ever took place.
Fair enough. Although I think we're looking at more distant cousins than your proposal.
Well, its only rumored it was homoerotic, I'm not aware of any proof. Still.Heh! Interesting.
In fairness to Richard, the throne hasn't gone by primogeniture for most of England's history since the conquest (William II, Henry I, Stephen - a usurper but a successful one for a given definition of success - and John vs. Henry II, Richard I, Edward I, Edward II and Edward III is the result of a coup), and has specifically gone to the man chosen by the preceding king twice (William II, John).
Yeah. A note for what its worth: Henry is "available" after 1394, and the mess hasn't begun until sometime in 1397
Possible compromise - seize Henry's possessions as OTL, but immediately create Henry's son (OTL Henry V) as the new Duke of Lancaster. The latter is only twelve in 1399, so will be a royal ward, which means that Richard will have control of the estates until the boy is of age. This may make Bolingbroke think twice, as the estates are still in his family, and it may make the seizure more acceptable to the nobility in general. A further possible "carrot" would be a hint that, should Richard not have a son, the younger Henry will be recognised as heir-presumptive.
That would be interesting.
Not familiar enough with Henry (OTL Henry IV) to judge how he'd respond.
I would say that the easiest POD is not disinheriting Henry of Bolingbroke (Henry IV). He was quite content to remain in exile another 9 years knowing that he was the richest man in England after his father's death. Also, not having Richard II be in Ireland when Henry landed would be a good POD. Not having the Earl of March die in 1398 to be succeeded by a child is another possible POD.
Scipio
Scipio
Beats the heck out of the iberian patteern of marrying uncles to nieces! The odd cousin marriage doesnt do much damage, when thats aas far out as go regularly go, you end up wwith epileptic hapsburgs.
Chopping off your nose is less likely to kill you than chopping off your legs, but I wouldn't recommend either.
Another possible way, though vulnerable to butterflies. WI Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, and designated heir-presumptive by Richard, had died before becoming a father.
His claims then pass to his brother Edmund, who OTL didn't marry till 1402 and had no children that survived infancy. Butterflies might change this, but then again they might not.
Assuming that Edmund is named heir as Roger was, he is likely to get detailed for the Irish expedition, and may well be ambushed and killed there likewise. If so, this passes his claims on to his sister Elizabeth - who is married to one Harry Hotspur.
With the Mortimer brothers gone, the Percys are now heirs to Richard II. In these circs, they have nothing to gain by supporting Bolingbroke's invasion. He may not even risk a landing, and if he does could well be seized and beheaded. The next king is either Richard's son (should he ever have one) or Hotspur's.
His claims then pass to his brother Edmund, who OTL didn't marry till 1402 and had no children that survived infancy. Butterflies might change this, but then again they might not.
Assuming that Edmund is named heir as Roger was, he is likely to get detailed for the Irish expedition, and may well be ambushed and killed there likewise. If so, this passes his claims on to his sister Elizabeth - who is married to one Harry Hotspur.
With the Mortimer brothers gone, the Percys are now heirs to Richard II. In these circs, they have nothing to gain by supporting Bolingbroke's invasion. He may not even risk a landing, and if he does could well be seized and beheaded. The next king is either Richard's son (should he ever have one) or Hotspur's.