Hotspur Percy wins (WI)?

[perfectgeneral]

Further to the question: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-henry-of-monmouth-killed-at-shrewsbury.472883/

If Owain hears of the impending battle and joins Hotspur's Battle forces at Shrewsbury.

 

[RedKing]

Henry IV's got a massive problem on his hands. He's going to have two rebellions working against him, meaning he is likely deposed. If Henry of Monmouth dies, Thomas is the heir, but he's in Ireland at the moment so he may not get back to England for sometime, which would really dampen the Lancastrian cause if Henry IV were to die. It's likely the Tripartite Indenture comes to pass, and the Lancasters become 15th century Jacobites.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Henry IV's got a massive problem on his hands. He's going to have two rebellions working against him, meaning he is likely deposed. If Henry of Monmouth dies, Thomas is the heir, but he's in Ireland at the moment so he may not get back to England for sometime, which would really dampen the Lancastrian cause if Henry IV were to die. It's likely the Tripartite Indenture comes to pass, and the Lancasters become 15th century Jacobites.

Thanks for getting back so fast on this RedKing.

Is Hotspur interested in lands/claims in France?

 

[material_boy]

What does "Hotspur wins" entail? Is the Lancastrian army broken or does it manage to escape mostly intact? What major figures are casualties? Is either the king or the heir killed?

It's likely the Tripartite Indenture comes to pass

Shrewsbury was years before the Tripartite Indenture. Hotspur likely had the end goal of reducing Henry to a puppet king or installing March to rule the kingdom via the boy-king.

 

[RedKing]

Is Hotspur interested in lands/claims in France?

No I don't think so. He had agreed to take most of Northern England as his own Kingdom, which suggests he wasn't all that interested in France. Edmund Mortimer or his lineage might though.

 

[RedKing]

Shrewsbury was years before the Tripartite Indenture. Hotspur likely had the end goal of reducing Henry to a puppet king or installing March to rule the kingdom via the boy-king.

Oops, I got my dates mixed up! Installing Mortimer does make the most sense, though I have read he may also have installed himself as King by right of conquest.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

Further to the question: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-henry-of-monmouth-killed-at-shrewsbury.472883/

If Owain hears of the impending battle and joins Hotspur's Battle forces at Shrewsbury.

Some critique here, Glyndwr probably won't march his army to Shrewsbury (too far primarily) but there was a second Percy army, under Hotspur's uncle, Sir Thomas Percy, that was marching to help him IOTL. He didn't get there in time IOTL because Henry IV had managed to reach Shrewsbury first and prevent Hotspur getting into the town, forcing him to attack Henry's army. Just have Henry IV delayed, Hotspur occupies the town, waits for Sir Thomas and together they win the battle.

As for the result, its not long at all since Henry IV seized the crown by right of conquest himself so its far from implausible for Henry Hotspur to simply do the same. Whether he would do that or not is up for debate but I think I would lean towards it, despite the close ties of the Percys to the Mortimers, for one big reason. They had also helped Henry IV to take the throne only to be completely screwed over by him and you know what they say, once beaten twice shy. Would they really risk elevating a second king in a row when they could just get screwed by him? I know the Mortimer claimant is twelve in 1403 but I'm still not sure if they'd risk it unless they can be completely sure that they could dominate Edmund which, given example of Richard II which they would of course be very familiar with, is far from guaranteed.

 

[RedKing]

Henry IV seized the crown by right of conquest himself so its far from implausible for Henry Hotspur to simply do the same

Henry IV didn't claim the crown by right of conquest, he claimed it as the nearest male and worthiest heir of Henry III. It was suggested Henry claim it by right of conquest, but he turned it down. Though I have read that Hotspur may have planned to claim the throne by right of conquest, so it is possible he does so.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

Henry IV didn't claim the crown by right of conquest, he claimed it as the nearest male and worthiest heir of Henry III. It was suggested Henry claim it by right of conquest, but he turned it down. Though I have read that Hotspur may have planned to claim the throne by right of conquest, so it is possible he does so.

Ok yes, he technically didn't but he has set a precedent for overthrowing the king cause you don't like him.

 

[material_boy]

there was a second Percy army, under Hotspur's uncle, Sir Thomas Percy, that was marching to help him IOTL. He didn't get there in time IOTL because Henry IV had managed to reach Shrewsbury first and prevent Hotspur getting into the town, forcing him to attack Henry's army. Just have Henry IV delayed, Hotspur occupies the town, waits for Sir Thomas and together they win the battle.

I'm not sure to whom you're referring, but it is not Hotspur's uncle. Thomas Percy, 1st earl of Worcester, was Hotspur's chief negotiator before the battle (and may have misrepresented the Lancastrian offer to his nephew), fought at Shrewsbury, was captured, and publicly executed as a traitor after the Lancastrian victory. I'm not aware of the 3rd baron Percy having any other surviving sons (including bastards).

Hotspur had a great uncle of the same name, but he was a bishop (and is long dead at this point) and his brother, Sir Thomas, appears to have died in 1387.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

I'm not sure to whom you're referring, but it is not Hotspur's uncle. Thomas Percy, 1st earl of Worcester, was Hotspur's chief negotiator before the battle (and may have misrepresented the Lancastrian offer to his nephew), fought at Shrewsbury, was captured, and publicly executed as a traitor after the Lancastrian victory. I'm not aware of the 3rd baron Percy having any other surviving sons (including bastards).

Hotspur had a great uncle of the same name, but he was a bishop (and is long dead at this point) and his brother, Sir Thomas, appears to have died in 1387.

You're quite correct, it would appeared I've misremembered the details.

I'm fairly sure there was a second Percy army on the way to help Hotspur and unable to arrive before he was defeated but it seems I've forgotten who was leading it.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Hotspur has a weak claim, but he has one. Cousin to John of Gaunt and descended from Henry III?

Tripartite Indenture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shows that the Percy family were willing to work with Mortimer even after Hotspur's death, but not as king-makers. They wanted at least northern England. The map contradicts the text over Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Leicestershire.

 

[material_boy]

You're quite correct, it would appeared I've misremembered the details.

Happens to us all!

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

Hotspur has a weak claim, but he has one. Cousin to John of Gaunt and descended from Henry III?

Tripartite Indenture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shows that the Percy family were willing to work with Mortimer even after Hotspur's death, but not as king-makers. They wanted at least northern England. The map contradicts the text over Norfolk, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Leicestershire.

That's because the wikipedia map is terrible.

This is a better map of the Identure:

(My own work)

 

[iMercadier]

Ok yes, he technically didn't but he has set a precedent for overthrowing the king cause you don't like him.

He did not set this precedent. Roger Mortimer did earlier in the 14th century, when he overthrow Edward II with Isabella of France, and established himself as the de facto ruler of the country.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

He did not set this precedent. Roger Mortimer did earlier in the 14th century, when he overthrow Edward II with Isabella of France, and established himself as the de facto ruler of the country.

I disagree. There is a quite a difference, only technical and psychological perhaps, between making oneself de facto ruler of England, which was hardly uncommon, and declaring yourself King.

 

[iMercadier]

I disagree. There is a quite a difference, only technical and psychological perhaps, between making oneself de facto ruler of England, which was hardly uncommon, and declaring yourself King.

He deposed Edward II and placed his son Edward III on the throne; only his lack of royal blood prevented him from seizing the Crown. There is little difference.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

He deposed Edward II and placed his son Edward III on the throne; only his lack of royal blood prevented him from seizing the Crown. There is little difference.

Well, if we're making the argument that making oneself de facto ruler is the same as declaring oneself king then Simon de Montfort set the precedent.

That said, there is a key difference in perception. Making yourself de facto ruler is very different to making yourself actually king. Taking the step to becoming the throne (ie. the monarch) instead of just being the power behind it is an important psychological barrier and profoundly effects the position of king. Its like crossing the Rubicon, something nearly done before before but actually doing it is the vital step. ]