WI: Richard II and Anne of Bohemia have children?

[Emperor Constantine]

I've always had a soft spot for Richard II. In many ways his reign was one of the earliest attempts at creating an absolute state, a standing army in England and could have seen an early birth of the Renaissance in North Europe. I've also thought that at least part of the reason that Henry IV was able overthrow Richard II so easily was the laters lack of a direct heir (Henry being the more or less heir presumptive helped in his usurpation).

So what if Richard II and Anne of Bohemia had had children or at least a son? Lets say he's born in 1384, meaning he'd be 15/16 when Henry attempts to gain the throne (assuming things go as they did OTL). Maybe this butterflies Anne's death, which basically seemed to trigger Richard II's personality disorder/mental issues, which led to his deposition. Or could we see an early Jacobite analogue, with Richard's son in France as opposition to the Lancastrians?

If Richard continued to rule what might his reign have looked like? Earlier control over Ireland? A war with Scotland? A potential intervention in France during the civil war (assuming that either Richard or his son marries a Valois Princess)? A further retreat into isolationism? Please discus!

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Bump......

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Well, having a son didn't help Henry VI to keep his kingdom and his life...

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Well, having a son didn't help Henry VI to keep his kingdom and his life...

True but that's two different people. Henry VI was basically incapable of governing on his own. Whether or not he was mentally unbalanced, retarded, had a personality disorder or whatever doesn't matter. Richard II, on the other hand, was perfectly able to govern and rule. Plus Henry was constantly dominated by favorites/ his wife. Again not something Richard II was.

 

[jb3]

I've always had a soft spot for Richard II. In many ways his reign was one of the earliest attempts at creating an absolute state, a standing army in England and could have seen an early birth of the Renaissance in North Europe. I've also thought that at least part of the reason that Henry IV was able overthrow Richard II so easily was the laters lack of a direct heir (Henry being the more or less heir presumptive helped in his usurpation).

So what if Richard II and Anne of Bohemia had had children or at least a son? Lets say he's born in 1384, meaning he'd be 15/16 when Henry attempts to gain the throne (assuming things go as they did OTL). Maybe this butterflies Anne's death, which basically seemed to trigger Richard II's personality disorder/mental issues, which led to his deposition. Or could we see an early Jacobite analogue, with Richard's son in France as opposition to the Lancastrians?

If Richard continued to rule what might his reign have looked like? Earlier control over Ireland? A war with Scotland? A potential intervention in France during the civil war (assuming that either Richard or his son marries a Valois Princess)? A further retreat into isolationism? Please discus!

Things would have gone differently. The most obvious scenario is one that repeated the Edward II/Edward III situation where Richard again is forced to abdicate and then dispatched/killed and Bolingbroke/Lancaster becomes regent for the teenage boy king (say Edward IV). Of course once this boy king gets into his majority he can then have the people who toppled his father banished/executed (as Edward III did). But Lancaster can't take the throne while the direct heir lived - this is not a York/Lancaster situation where the female line of Edward III's second son and the male line of his third line battled for their "rights" - any son of Richard II would clearly be the heir and be raised that way and recognized as such by other European countries AND the English lords and commons.

A reigning son of Richard might have also butterflied away the wars of Henry V in France (which would mean Henry VI would probably never be born).

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Things would have gone differently. The most obvious scenario is one that repeated the Edward II/Edward III situation where Richard again is forced to abdicate and then dispatched/killed and Bolingbroke/Lancaster becomes regent for the teenage boy king (say Edward IV). Of course once this boy king gets into his majority he can then have the people who toppled his father banished/executed (as Edward III did). But Lancaster can't take the throne while the direct heir lived - this is not a York/Lancaster situation where the female line of Edward III's second son and the male line of his third line battled for their "rights" - any son of Richard II would clearly be the heir and be raised that way and recognized as such by other European countries AND the English lords and commons.

A reigning son of Richard might have also butterflied away the wars of Henry V in France (which would mean Henry VI would probably never be born).

That's similar to what I was thinking as well. Although, would Bolingbroke still invade with an heir to the direct line? I mean Edward III was his grandfather, so he would be well aware of what would happen once the heir comes of age. Although I suppose Bolingbroke could invade to reclaim the Lancastrian legacy, as he originally intended.

Also, if having children could butterfly Anne's death, would Richard II's reign still decline into "tyranny"? I've always read that it was her death that triggered his instability.

 

[VVD0D95]

That's similar to what I was thinking as well. Although, would Bolingbroke still invade with an heir to the direct line? I mean Edward III was his grandfather, so he would be well aware of what would happen once the heir comes of age. Although I suppose Bolingbroke could invade to reclaim the Lancastrian legacy, as he originally intended.

Also, if having children could butterfly Anne's death, would Richard II's reign still decline into "tyranny"? I've always read that it was her death that triggered his instability.

Well, this is quite interesting. I do think that Bolingbroke might invade to simply claim his Duchy as he claimed in otl, or a peaceful solution could be found?

And of course, would such a thing even happen in regards to his exile with Richard perhaps not being so mad?

 

[Just a Rube]

Well, this is quite interesting. I do think that Bolingbroke might invade to simply claim his Duchy as he claimed in otl, or a peaceful solution could be found?

And of course, would such a thing even happen in regards to his exile with Richard perhaps not being so mad?

If Richard II doesn't go mad, I expect the exile (and related actions against the former Lords Appellant) would likely be avoided. Their threat had mostly been neutralized by that point; it was the later actions against them that led to Richard's overthrow.

 

[VVD0D95]

If Richard II doesn't go mad, I expect the exile (and related actions against the former Lords Appellant) would likely be avoided. Their threat had mostly been neutralized by that point; it was the later actions against them that led to Richard's overthrow.

Hmm interesting, which could well mean he remains on the throne, and continues ruling.

The question is, how much did his wife's death affect his own mental health

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

He was not mad, but had some kind of personality disorder.

Anyway, he was going the wrong way since his troubles with Wonderful Parliament, when Anne was still alive.

The problem was that Richarf was a firm believer in the royal prerogative, as Charles I. And see how that ended.

 

[Stateless]

Richard's tyranny, culminating in Bolingbroke's exile, was most likely caused by him feeling sufficiently secure as to do so. I wouldn't see him having a son reducing this feeling of security, so I would imagine much of the tyranny plays out as OTL.

When Henry Bolingbroke attempts to take the throne, however, the issue for him is that he is not only behind the Mortimers, but also Richards son(s). I suppose the best thing would be to force Richard's abdication, declare himself regent and then engineer a death for the child.

 

[VVD0D95]

Richard's tyranny, culminating in Bolingbroke's exile, was most likely caused by him feeling sufficiently secure as to do so. I wouldn't see him having a son reducing this feeling of security, so I would imagine much of the tyranny plays out as OTL.

When Henry Bolingbroke attempts to take the throne, however, the issue for him is that he is not only behind the Mortimers, but also Richards son(s). I suppose the best thing would be to force Richard's abdication, declare himself regent and then engineer a death for the child.

Would he still try to claim the throne though?

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Richard's tyranny, culminating in Bolingbroke's exile, was most likely caused by him feeling sufficiently secure as to do so. I wouldn't see him having a son reducing this feeling of security, so I would imagine much of the tyranny plays out as OTL.

Indeed. Perhaps even worse, because having a heir may have the secondary effect of increasing his feeling of security and power.

When Henry Bolingbroke attempts to take the throne, however, the issue for him is that he is not only behind the Mortimers, but also Richards son(s). I suppose the best thing would be to force Richard's abdication, declare himself regent and then engineer a death for the child.

Is Bolingbroke to play be Gloucester with just a Prince in the Tower?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Is Bolingbroke to play be Gloucester with just a Prince in the Tower?

Highly unlikely. Richard III and the Princes in the Tower was a very unique situation that only came to pass after the upheavals of the War of the Roses and the hatred of Elizabeth Woodville and her family. Here, assuming a 1384/1385 birth date (seems the most likely) Richard's son would be 15/16 years old and wouldn't need a Regent in any way. Plus his mother Anne was actually fairly popular when she died in 1392, despite having no children. Even if Anne's still dead the fear of grasping favorites a la the Savoyards of Eleanor of Provence just isn't there.

Bolingbroke's smartest move would be to ignore Thomas Arundel (the exiled Archbishop of Canterbury who seemed to be the driving force in convincing Bolingbroke to usurp the throne rather than fight for his Lancastrian inheritance) and try play Richard's game, which seemed to be to humble his cousin once and for all.

One source says Henry's exile was extended to life and was permanently disinherited but another says Richard deprived Bolingbroke of his automatic inheritance and wanted his cousin to ask (read beg) the King for his lands. The later seems to be designed to humble the Lanacasters while the former was designed to destroy them, so which one is true affects what action Bolingbroke should have taken.

 

[Kynan]

Here's an idea:

Richard II of England (b.1367) m. Anne of Bohemia (b.1366: d.1394) (a)

1a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1383) m. Elisabeth of Bavaria (b.1383: d.1400) (a), Isabella of Valois (b.1389) (b)

1a) Richard of Wales (b.1397)

2a) Edward of Wales (b.1398)

3a) Philippa of Wales (b.1399)

4b) John of Wales (b.1403)

5b) Thomas of Wales (b.1404: d.1404)

6b) Blanche of Wales (b.1408)

7b) George of Wales (b.1410: d.1411)

8b) Joan of Wales (b.1413)

9b) Isabella of Wales (b.1417: d.1417)
​

2a) Isabella of England (b.1385) m. Ferdinand I of Aragon (b.1380: d.1421) (a)

1a) Alfonso of Aragon (b.1400)

2a) John of Aragon (b.1402)

3a) Eleanor of Aragon (b.1405)

4a) Peter of Aragon (b.1409)

5a) Sancho of Aragon (b.1412: d.1414)

6a) Henry of Aragon (b.1414)

7a) Maria of Aragon (b.1417)

8a) Beatrice of Aragon (b.1420)
​

3a) John of England, Duke of Clarence (b.1389) m. Matilda of Savoy (b.1390) (a)

1a) Joan of Clarence (b.1412)

2a) Catherine of Clarence (b.1414)

3a) Matilda of Clarence (b.1415)

4a) Henry of Clarence (b.1418)
​

4a) Thomas of England (b.1392: d.1393)

​

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Here's an idea:

Richard II of England (b.1367) m. Anne of Bohemia (b.1366: d.1394) (a)

1a) Edward, Prince of Wales (b.1383) m. Elisabeth of Bavaria (b.1383: d.1400) (a), Isabella of Valois (b.1389) (b)

1a) Richard of Wales (b.1397)

2a) Edward of Wales (b.1398)

3a) Philippa of Wales (b.1399)

4b) John of Wales (b.1403)

5b) Thomas of Wales (b.1404: d.1404)

6b) Blanche of Wales (b.1408)

7b) George of Wales (b.1410: d.1411)

8b) Joan of Wales (b.1413)

9b) Isabella of Wales (b.1417: d.1417)
​

2a) Isabella of England (b.1385) m. Ferdinand I of Aragon (b.1380: d.1421) (a)

1a) Alfonso of Aragon (b.1400)

2a) John of Aragon (b.1402)

3a) Eleanor of Aragon (b.1405)

4a) Peter of Aragon (b.1409)

5a) Sancho of Aragon (b.1412: d.1414)

6a) Henry of Aragon (b.1414)

7a) Maria of Aragon (b.1417)

8a) Beatrice of Aragon (b.1420)
​

3a) John of England, Duke of Clarence (b.1389) m. Matilda of Savoy (b.1390) (a)

1a) Joan of Clarence (b.1412)

2a) Catherine of Clarence (b.1414)

3a) Matilda of Clarence (b.1415)

4a) Henry of Clarence (b.1418)
​

4a) Thomas of England (b.1392: d.1393)

​

Couple things: 1. Considering the fertility history of Anne's relatives, I'd say the earliest pregnancy would be 1384/1385, which would push any subsequent children back a few years. 2. a Bavarian match just isn't gonna happen. England's foreign policy was entirely directed towards France, either for truces or in creating allies against the Valois. So Edward would be betrothed/married to Isabella de Valois, probably at around the same time his father was OTL.

The same could be said of an Aragon match. Aragon would potentially involve England in the med, not something that they would want. I'd say she'd either have a French double betrothal/marriage to the Duc d'Orléans (as Charles VI's sons would be a bit to young) or a potential marriage with Eric of Denmark, the OTL husband of Philippa of Lancaster.

3. to John (not sure of the name but could work, John of Gaunt was Richard's favorite uncle) I think the most likely bride would be Marie of Brittany, oldest daughter of Jean IV of Brittany. Brittany was a traditional friend of England in this era, so a match with the Duke's oldest daughter would make sense strategically. Or perhaps an heiress at home.

Although Richard was more interested in Ireland than in France he was no idiot: better to have an alliance and not need it than need it and not have it, if the French were to move against Aquitaine. Although considering Charles VI's insanity, its unlikely that the French could do much.

 

[kasumigenx]

Richard II could end up with only daughters since Aldona of Lithuania, the Great Grand Mother of Anne of Bohemia had only daughters which was one of the factors why Poland passed to Hungarian rule, but her mother did have Sigismund in OTL so a son is possible.

 

[Avrorrange]

Richard II could end up with only daughters since Aldona of Lithuania, the Great Grand Mother of Anne of Bohemia had only daughters which was one of the factors why Poland passed to Hungarian rule, but her mother did have Sigismund in OTL so a son is possible.

What you are suggesting here is totally unscientific.If a woman and her husband are both fertile,then the chance of having a male child is absolutely 1/2.And whether they have a son or not is due to whether the sperm from the man has a Y chromosome or a X chromosome,totally unrelated to the woman.

 

[kasumigenx]

This is totally unscientific.If a woman and her are both fertile,then the chance of having a male child is absolutely 1/2.And whether they have a son or not is due to whether the sperm from the man has a Y chromosome or a X chromosome,totally unrelated to the woman.

Yes, but Casimir III, Anne of Bohemia's Grandpa had illegitimate sons but no legitimate sons, so that is a possibility.

 

[Avrorrange]

Yes, but Casimir III, Anne of Bohemia's Grandpa had illegitimate sons but no legitimate sons, so that is a possibility.

It's a matter of luck,not genetics.