AHC: Richard II is king of England for another 20 to 30 years

So how can he stay king until the 1420s. The POD is 1377 or after.

Who would succeed him if he didn't have any children, or if he didn't have any sons?
 
So how can he stay king until the 1420s. The POD is 1377 or after.

Who would succeed him if he didn't have any children, or if he didn't have any sons?

I doubt Henry would have gone for the throne of England if Richard wouldn't have confiscated his inheritance, so there's that. If he dies without issue, the throne would probably go to Edmund Mortimer (who OTL died around the 1420s), grand-grandson of Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III's second son to siurvive infancy. If Richard dies later than that, then OTL Henry IV succeeds if he's still alive by then.
 
Last edited:
By strict primogeniture the kingship should go to Edmund Mortimer (if alive) as he is descended from Lionel of Antwerp (second son of Edward III). However Edward III had decided that it should be agnatic succession and unless Richard II changes that then it is whichever of Henry Bolingbroke and his sons survive (male to male descendants of John of Gaunt Edward III's third son). Then there are Langley's descendants (the Yorks). It could well be a messier civil war than the wars of the Roses!
 
By strict primogeniture the kingship should go to Edmund Mortimer (if alive) as he is descended from Lionel of Antwerp (second son of Edward III). However Edward III had decided that it should be agnatic succession and unless Richard II changes that then it is whichever of Henry Bolingbroke and his sons survive (male to male descendants of John of Gaunt Edward III's third son). Then there are Langley's descendants (the Yorks). It could well be a messier civil war than the wars of the Roses!
The adherence to male line succession has always puzzled me. For Edward III to claim the French throne through the female line, then decide his English throne should not be inherited this way, seems rather odd... :confused:
 
The adherence to male line succession has always puzzled me. For Edward III to claim the French throne through the female line, then decide his English throne should not be inherited this way, seems rather odd... :confused:

In his book Medieval Intrigue, Ian Mortimer noticed that if the (no longer surviving) inheritance laws of Henry II were the same as the contemporary ones in Scotland then Henry IV would be the rightful heir of both Richard II of England and Charles IV if France, which would explain why Henry stressed that he claimed the throne as the heir of Henry II.

If I remember correctly those laws said that if a daughter already had a son when her father died then he would be in line to inherit his grandfather's titles, but any sons born after grandad died were excluded from inheritance.
 
By strict primogeniture the kingship should go to Edmund Mortimer (if alive) as he is descended from Lionel of Antwerp (second son of Edward III). However Edward III had decided that it should be agnatic succession and unless Richard II changes that then it is whichever of Henry Bolingbroke and his sons survive (male to male descendants of John of Gaunt Edward III's third son). Then there are Langley's descendants (the Yorks). It could well be a messier civil war than the wars of the Roses!

The adherence to male line succession has always puzzled me. For Edward III to claim the French throne through the female line, then decide his English throne should not be inherited this way, seems rather odd... :confused:

In his book Medieval Intrigue, Ian Mortimer noticed that if the (no longer surviving) inheritance laws of Henry II were the same as the contemporary ones in Scotland then Henry IV would be the rightful heir of both Richard II of England and Charles IV if France, which would explain why Henry stressed that he claimed the throne as the heir of Henry II.

If I remember correctly those laws said that if a daughter already had a son when her father died then he would be in line to inherit his grandfather's titles, but any sons born after grandad died were excluded from inheritance.


Yeah, it's all down to women at that time having no rights themselves to inherit the crown and the legal argument about whether her sons take her place as if they were her father's sons.
The Grandfather clause was one default solution, agnatic inheritance another, and the current male preferred cognatic primogeniture another.
Kings also had a right to decide the succession themselves hence Edward III's decision and the fuss about Henry VIII's wills.
 
Isabella of Valois, the second wife of Richard II gave birth to a daughter in September 1409 but we don't know if he was fertile. Anne of Bohemia, his first wife, didn't have any children.

I expect the Hundred Years War against France would not be resumed during Richard's reign because he agreed to a 28 year truce in 1496.

The Welsh were supporters of King Richard so I assume there would not be the Welsh uprising led by Owen Glyndwr.

Richard was a patron of the arts and would no doubt have continued that patronage.

Richard keeping his crown until his death in the 1420s would make a fascinating subject for a timeline. I guess his reputation now would be higher than it is, particularly if he does not go to war with France.
 
Top