An alternate Wars of the Roses.

Richard II doesn't get deposed in 1399 and lives until 1410, dying of an illness and childless. This leads to a succession crisis and earlier Wars of the Roses.

Richard II in OTL wanted Edward Duke of York to succeed him as king. Richard dies and the Duke of York presses his claim to become king.

Bollingbrooke obviously presses his claim to become king.

The Mortimers press their claim to become king.

In this scenario who would win, I reckon Bollingbrooke because his succession is clearer and he has 4 very capable sons who were also very popular.

Who do you guys think would win?
 
Why wouldn't Edmund Mortimer not just succeed Richard? He would be just entering his twenties at this point, fully functioning as an adult, and likely have been the heir presumptive for his entire life. The Yorks derived their claim to the throne from the Mortimers and were particularly close with them anyway, so they are unlikely to oppose Mortimer coming to the throne.

Furthermore, Bolingbroke would have spent the last decade and a half in exile, have no current allies in England and has a claim to the throne that is completely bogus according to all previous precedent on this particular issue. Without his coup against Richard II, Bolingbroke remains exiled from England and as such has no powerbase to support his flimsy claim to the throne. The Lancaster coup of OTL occured under incredibly specific circumstances and was fiercely opposed for the entire duration of Bolingbroke's reign.

IMO Richard II dies, Edmund I is crowned, and Bolingbroke rises from his sickbed for a bit to curse his fate.

The interesting part would have to do with what Richard gets up to in the decade between 1399 and 1410. He wasn't exactly the easiest monarch to follow, so his extra decade on the throne is bound to be filled with action.
 
Why wouldn't Edmund Mortimer not just succeed Richard? He would be just entering his twenties at this point, fully functioning as an adult, and likely have been the heir presumptive for his entire life. The Yorks derived their claim to the throne from the Mortimers and were particularly close with them anyway, so they are unlikely to oppose Mortimer coming to the throne.

Furthermore, Bolingbroke would have spent the last decade and a half in exile, have no current allies in England and has a claim to the throne that is completely bogus according to all previous precedent on this particular issue. Without his coup against Richard II, Bolingbroke remains exiled from England and as such has no powerbase to support his flimsy claim to the throne. The Lancaster coup of OTL occured under incredibly specific circumstances and was fiercely opposed for the entire duration of Bolingbroke's reign.

IMO Richard II dies, Edmund I is crowned, and Bolingbroke rises from his sickbed for a bit to curse his fate.

The interesting part would have to do with what Richard gets up to in the decade between 1399 and 1410. He wasn't exactly the easiest monarch to follow, so his extra decade on the throne is bound to be filled with action.
Could nobles move toward Mortimer if Richards latter reign peters out into tyranny? And would Richard confirm Mortimer as heir?
 
It's worth noting also that Bolingbroke's invasion was to regain his father's possessions and titles and that his success is what enabled Richard's initial deposition. Henry was initially Regent due to being fully recognised as Earl of Leicester (part of the Lancaster duchy) which made him High Steward of England and thus deputy in royal absence.
So, a less successful invasion might regain him his patrimony, and subsequent put back into the succession, but might not grant him the stewardship.
That means a lot depends on how Richard II devises his succession with respect to female representation ie equal to or behind male-male lineage so the 2 main lines of succession in 1410 would usually have been Mortimer, Lancaster, York, Gloucester or Lancaster, York, Gloucester, Mortimer. Richard personally favoured Edward of York and his will reflected that despite York being behind Lancaster traditionally. Richard could plausibly declare Lancaster reinserted into the succession behind Gloucester on removing the attainder but this could be legally challenged. Richard could make the York lineage holders of the Stewardship to help his will - thus declaring the succession as York, Gloucester, Lancaster, Mortimer.
 
Why wouldn't Edmund Mortimer not just succeed Richard? He would be just entering his twenties at this point, fully functioning as an adult, and likely have been the heir presumptive for his entire life. The Yorks derived their claim to the throne from the Mortimers and were particularly close with them anyway, so they are unlikely to oppose Mortimer coming to the throne.

Furthermore, Bolingbroke would have spent the last decade and a half in exile, have no current allies in England and has a claim to the throne that is completely bogus according to all previous precedent on this particular issue. Without his coup against Richard II, Bolingbroke remains exiled from England and as such has no powerbase to support his flimsy claim to the throne. The Lancaster coup of OTL occured under incredibly specific circumstances and was fiercely opposed for the entire duration of Bolingbroke's reign.

IMO Richard II dies, Edmund I is crowned, and Bolingbroke rises from his sickbed for a bit to curse his fate.

The interesting part would have to do with what Richard gets up to in the decade between 1399 and 1410. He wasn't exactly the easiest monarch to follow, so his extra decade on the throne is bound to be filled with action.

Richard wanted York to succeed him, also Bollingbrooke is not exiled in this scenario, I should have mentioned that.
 
Richard wanted York to succeed him, also Bollingbrooke is not exiled in this scenario, I should have mentioned that.
If Henry isn't exiled his succession rights will be above York's and he'll backed by most legal experts of the time. Especially as he'll be High Steward of England too.
 
If Henry isn't exiled his succession rights will be above York's and he'll backed by most legal experts of the time. Especially as he'll be High Steward of England too.

But Bollingbrooke wasn't the most popular duke and I reckon a large portion of the nobility would side with York against Lancaster, therefore a civil war breaking out.
 
But Bollingbrooke wasn't the most popular duke and I reckon a large portion of the nobility would side with York against Lancaster, therefore a civil war breaking out.
You're assuming he'll still be unpopular. If he wasn't exiled he and his father Gaunt would have worked to repair/maintain his reputation. And bear in mind Bolingbroke wasn't legally his father's automatic heir due to the terms of his exile.
 
Bolingbroke's claim on the throne was not exactly founded on him being the male heir in the male line or Lionel's daughter (and her heirs) being excluded from the succession as her father died before his own father...
 
More so than other reasons though.
no, neither of that was the biggest reason on which he founded his claim to the crown...
He founded his claim on the crown (with Richard II still alive) by saying who he was the rightful heir as descendant and heir of Edmund Crouchback from his mother's side using the myth who the eldest son of Henry III was Edmund and not Edward I (obviously that story was false but many believed to it already before Bolingbroke used it for naming himself King so Edward IV take a great care in having it formally declared false when he had take the crown). Allegedly Edmund was physically unfit so Henry presented the younger but sane Edward as heir keeping Edmund as spare
 
no, neither of that was the biggest reason on which he founded his claim to the crown...
He founded his claim on the crown (with Richard II still alive) by saying who he was the rightful heir as descendant and heir of Edmund Crouchback from his mother's side using the myth who the eldest son of Henry III was Edmund and not Edward I (obviously that story was false but many believed to it already before Bolingbroke used it for naming himself King so Edward IV take a great care in having it formally declared false when he had take the crown). Allegedly Edmund was physically unfit so Henry presented the younger but sane Edward as heir keeping Edmund as spare
Do you have a contemporary source for that claim? By my understanding Henry first promoted himself as Duke of Lancaster, then as Richard's heir by virtue of senior male descent (based on Edward III's will) upon Richard's deposition.
I'm well aware of the later Lancaster myth which seems a way to bypass the York claim via Mortimer.
 
More details would be useful

I mean, if Richard simply allows Henry to inherit the duchy of Lancaster then he will be allowed back, get the title and lands, and Richard can continue to reign

Contrariwise, if Henry is barred as OTL but does not come back, can he survive another decade of exile? He might well end up fighting for whoever is putting him up, and dying in one of their campaigns on some foreign field
 
More details would be useful

I mean, if Richard simply allows Henry to inherit the duchy of Lancaster then he will be allowed back, get the title and lands, and Richard can continue to reign

Contrariwise, if Henry is barred as OTL but does not come back, can he survive another decade of exile? He might well end up fighting for whoever is putting him up, and dying in one of their campaigns on some foreign field

What i was talking about was if a Wars of the Roses actually broke out between Mortimer, York and Lancaster after Richard II dies. Not somebody inheriting the throne peacefully.

I was wondering who everybody thinks will win the war?

Also if the Mortimers do inherit the throne didn't the male line of the Mortimers die out meaning Richard Duke of York would end up inheriting the throne.
 
Top