An Unsuspected Pregnancy- A Plantagenet TL

[spamage]

An Unsuspected Pregnancy: A Plantagenet Timeline
​

1393-1400
​

​

On January 16th, 1393 Queen Anne gave birth to a baby boy. The royal family was shocked and so, apparently was the queen who admitted she hadn't even known she was pregnant. This of course began compilations as it became clear that the child was premature and would likely have little chance of survival. Queen Anne was ever present by the baby's side for around the 1st week before pregnancy complications reappeared. She was bleeding and following collapsing on her way to see the young prince who had recently been named Edward (after both his Grandfather and Great-Grandfather) Richard II ordered her to bed rest. He appeared concerned to have a sick newborn in one room and a dying wife in the other.

The complications continued and the Queen drifted in and out of consciousness almost constantly and the King was surprising regularly at her bedside. Prince Edward too was having severe problems and himself faced the flu which was being misdiagnosed. Rumors spread that the King was going insane and quietly Roger Mortimer made preparations to overthrow the king if he became insane from the potential loss of his son as well as his wife in order to replace him with himself.

As whispers of an heir reached the public speculation arose that Richard II was actually sterile and that the dying Queen had had an affair. When news reached the royal court however, the king ordered the silencing of all those caught stating "such seditious lies toward my Queen".

Anne as well as Edward both improved and by early February the kingdom was once again a joyful place. Prince Edward had recovered substantially and the child was christened on February 6th. The news had mixed results almost everywhere on the continent as no one knew Anne was pregnant. France however, looked very fondly upon the birth and by March (in the midst of a 30 year truce) entered into marriage negotiations for the barely born heir to the throne. Charles VI was eager to rebuild and prepare for future warfare in necessary and Richard opened negotiating fairly soon.

Negotiations soon took a very different turn following the birth of a 3rd girl to Charles VII who was previously making plans for his 2nd daughter Joan to become Queen. Upon the birth of Marie he quickly betrothed to the English Prince whose father gratefully accepted. The Kingdom of England, although not prosperous from within was shaping up to be so in foreign affairs.

As the next year passed the Kingdom would grow slightly more strained. Richard left for a war in Ireland and loyalty began to crumble against both him as well as his family. The Lord's Appellant were gradually regaining their power which had been lost when Richard began to rule as a full monarch and Anne began to fear for her sons life. Without the advice or permission of her husband she move both her as well as her son to Porchester Castle as they would then be able to flee the country.

Richard disapproved of the movement of his wife and son but upon his return didn't visit them or call them back to London. Edward lived in the castle quite sheltered until he was four when the King finally put his foot down and ordered a tour of the country. The trip proved to be a terrible idea and the unpopular prince was nearly killed several times in upper England by overtaxed peasants.

Anne passed away in 1397 much to the sadness of the nation. She was viewed as the gateway to the king's sympathy due to her request not to execute protestors in the past and was mourned heavily. Edward himself was greatly affected and was moved from his longtime home (Porchester) since he could remember back into the spotlight of London. To further increase his strain his father began shunning his as he reminded him too much of Anne. The political climate however made that move appear very dangerous.

Richard had ruined his standing with the public once and for all by executing and imprisoning 4 of the Lord's Appellant and exiling the 5th (Henry Bolingbroke who pledged to re invade the Kingdom). John of Gaunt, Henry's father, used what political power he had left to begin collapsing the King's reign as rumors were being spread by his exiled son that Richard was planning endangering him just as he had done to Gaunt's brother Thomas of Woodstock. His efforts were cut short however in 1399 when he suddenly passed away, much to the sadness of the public.

It was just after Gaunt's death that Prince Edwards caretakers (all from Queen Anne) opened a request of asylum to the young boy's uncle Sigismund who was the King of Hungary and Bohemia who had been watching from afar. Rumors were spreading that while Richard was off on his fight against the Irish Bolingbroke would strike and seize the throne while likely executing or imprisoning the prince. The day Henry did indeed land was also the day the young prince was snatched from London (voluntarily) and taken to his uncle's court.

When Richard returned he was furious that his son has been taken. Although indifferent to him most of his life (the boy reminded him much of the deceased Queen) he still knew that was his last card to play in order to keep English Power. Attempts to raise an army proved to be futile as almost no one held loyalty to the rough taxing King who duly abdicated in favor of Henry in July 1399. The King's life wouldn't last much longer however, with rebellions appearing in favor of both Richard and Edward almost constantly (little of the promised change had come) Henry IV had the ex-king murdered by starvation and news spread around Europe.

Meanwhile in Hungary King Sigismund (who was at the time childless) treated Edward like a son. The boy was duly educated in various subjects and was taught military strategy for the hopeful overthrow of the false monarchy in England. King Henry however was furious the boy was not returning even after several requests to Sigismund who realized it was a death sentence for his nephew. Meanwhile Charles VII continued negotiating marriage for the young boy with his daughter seeing the true falsehoods of the weak monarch currently in power and Sigismund renewed the contract with marriage set for 1409.

 

[Elfwine]

Interesting POD, but some questions:

Why is Charles seeking to have his daughter become queen after he dies?

Overtaxed peasants?

Why is Henry plotting at this point?

Why is Gaunt suddenly deciding to be disloyal to Richard?

Is "crusade" really the word you want here?

And if things are happening justifying more attention to England than OTL . . .why is Richard going off just like OTL to Ireland?

Also, if Richard has a son, Henry's piss-poor claim to the throne is very unlikely to be taken even as seriously as OTL.

 

[spamage]

Interesting POD, but some questions:

Why is Charles seeking to have his daughter become queen after he dies?

Overtaxed peasants?

Why is Henry plotting at this point?

Why is Gaunt suddenly deciding to be disloyal to Richard?

Is "crusade" really the word you want here?

And if things are happening justifying more attention to England than OTL . . .why is Richard going off just like OTL to Ireland?

Also, if Richard has a son, Henry's piss-poor claim to the throne is very unlikely to be taken even as seriously as OTL.

1. Well the main reason Richard married Isabella (Charles' 1st daughter was to keep the peace going between England and France). Its not a specific goal for his daughter to become queen its just his plan.

2. Richard II was considered really harsh with the taxing of much of the lower class and that's why he became relatively unpopular. (Poll tax)

3. Henry wasn't liked by Richard and had a target on his head ever since he became 1 of the Lord's Apellent. Therefore with his exile extended to life he would've likely have done something along the the lines as he did in OTL. (Remember he ignored Edmund's biological claim to the throne calling him too young to reverse Richard's policies the same would likely apply to Edward)

4. Well, frankly, Gaunt's son was banished for life and Richard the very unpopular leader who had done it. I remember reading somewhere that Gaunt did actually have some plans to ascend to the throne during (or maybe before) Richards reign.

5. Changed "crusade"

6. Well Richard was a poor ruler and left in OTL while England was in disorder to fight the Irish, although he didn't expect Henry to invade ITL or OTL.

7. Yes and no, as I stated earlier one of Henry's primary claims was that he was old enough to change Richard II's rule and couldn't see it happening in under Edmund (or in this scenario Edward's) rule. That is actually part of his intention in pushing for Edward's return to (although not realized by Sigismund) give the throne up like Stephen did.

 

[Elfwine]

1. Well the main reason Richard married Isabella (Charles' 1st daughter was to keep the peace going between England and France). Its not a specific goal for his daughter to become queen its just his plan.

Queen of England, or Queen of France?

2. Richard II was considered really harsh with the taxing of much of the lower class and that's why he became relatively unpopular. (Poll tax)

Fair enough.

3. Henry wasn't liked by Richard and had a target on his head ever since he became 1 of the Lord's Apellent. Therefore with his exile extended to life he would've likely have done something along the the lines as he did in OTL. (Remember he ignored Edmund's biological claim to the throne calling him too young to reverse Richard's policies the same would likely apply to Edward)

The problem is that while he might do that, the rest might have a problem with that. This isn't something where it's a question of which heir has a better claim, this is an unambiguous "Henry's claim is weaker than the other contender'.

4. Well, frankly, Gaunt's son was banished for life and Richard the very unpopular leader who had done it. I remember reading somewhere that Gaunt did actually have some plans to ascend to the throne during (or maybe before) Richards reign.

From my reading, the only throne Gaunt wanted was Castile's. And given that OTL he seems to have been staunchly loyal to Richard even considering Henry's banishment, I think this needs a reason why Gaunt changes his mind so drastically that didn't happen OTL - or why he would rethink what he did OTL when the same stuff applies. Maybe he thinks Richard plans to move against him too, that would do it.

6. Well Richard was a poor ruler and left in OTL while England was in disorder to fight the Irish, although he didn't expect Henry to invade ITL or OTL.

But in these circumstances, it's much more obvious that he's in trouble. Richard had issues, but he wasn't an idiot.

7. Yes and no, as I stated earlier one of Henry's primary claims was that he was old enough to change Richard II's rule and couldn't see it happening in under Edmund (or in this scenario Edward's) rule. That is actually part of his intention in pushing for Edward's return to (although not realized by Sigismund) give the throne up like Stephen did.

Henry can claim that until he's hoarse. Doesn't mean that anyone will just accept him pushing aside the rightful heir and the rightful king.

And Stephen never really gave up the throne, he just accepted Matilda's son inheriting instead of his.

 

[spamage]

- Queen of England (just to clear things up)

- True you do have a good point but it is arguable that a few years later Henry Tudor had a very weak claim OTL. But I can guarantee (I'd planned this before our discussion actually ) that there is going to be more rebellions as well as much more effective ones at that.

- I'll add Richard moving against him in.

- Trust me there will be a very, very rough transition to Henry IV (fraught with more rebellions that OTL. (I meant the Stephen inheriting thing but I mistyped)

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

OH YEAH! OH YEAH!

This, i so cannot wait for more of this.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Very cool idea! An exiled Prince who's father is murdered and replaced my a usurper, kind of reminds me of Game of Thrones. I can't wait to see where U go with this.

 

[Elfwine]

- Queen of England (just to clear things up)

Ah, good. Her being Queen of France would be an entirely different matter.

- True you do have a good point but it is arguable that a few years later Henry Tudor had a very weak claim OTL. But I can guarantee (I'd planned this before our discussion actually ) that there is going to be more rebellions as well as much more effective ones at that.

True on Tudor. But at least there wasn't anyone obvious to rally around.

So . . . as long as Henry the Usurper is in for a rough ride, that's good enough. No one said making himself king was going to last.

- I'll add Richard moving against him in.

Doesn't have to actually do so, just for Gaunt to fear he will. Richard -was- something of an arbitrary and capricious ruler, or at least gave a convincing enough impression of one for the chroniclers.

- Trust me there will be a very, very rough transition to Henry IV (fraught with more rebellions that OTL. (I meant the Stephen inheriting thing but I mistyped)

Sounds good. Looking forward to how this Edward grows up.

 

[Faeelin]

Very cool idea! An exiled Prince who's father is murdered and replaced my a usurper, kind of reminds me of Game of Thrones. I can't wait to see where U go with this.

This is somewhat ironic, since GoT was inspired by the War of the Roses.

 

[spamage]

1400-1407

The Challenged Henry IV

​

Henry's reign would not be consolidated as easily as he had guessed it would. His murder of King Richard worsened the situation and when a Welshman by the name of Owain Glyn Dwr formed an army in an attempt to assert himself as Prince of Wales Henry was slow to respond fearing the movement of troops away from the areas around London. He knew he was unpopular and therefore needed protection.

He soon realized the importance and sent his son (and heir apparent) Prince Henry to fight against the Welsh. The Prince was a great military leader and was loved somewhat by the masses, unlike his father. Using troops from the North where Henry garnered the support of the powerful Percy family he rode headfirst into Wales.

By the time the English force arrived it appeared to almost be too late. Lyr's force had nearly doubled with regular farmers and peasants rising up in favor of a Welsh Parliament instead of London's "Bastard" one.

Seeing the weakness of the Monarchy only further motivated steadfast supporters of the exiled Prince Edward. Using the anarchy to the west members of the House of Holland-Kent including 2 of Richard's former favorites began to organize and fight the King's men encamped in various areas around London. However, the rebellion was brutally crushed when Henry set a trap encircling the foes and personally commanding the killing of Thomas Holland as well as John Holland who were Richard II's nephew and half-brother respectively.

Meanwhile the Papacy in Rome came out in Edward's favor. As Rome was controlled by Sigismund's men it was largely viewed that the Pope had no other choice. The Avignon Pope- Benedict XIII- came out neutral and said that the rebellions were both true and wicked depending on the circumstances. However, news of either statement likely never reached the country as it was fighting itself with the various internal wars.

In France a Charles VI knew that Henry was a very dangerous threat to his Kingdom. The peace that was negotiated with Richard was coming off as invalid and Henry, although preoccupied at home, made plans to seize Paris. Therefore he began building his army and turned his eyes towards Aquitaine and Calais.

Just coming off of his fight with the House of Holland Henry then had a new threat. The Percy Family, although not expressing loyalty to Prince Edward, revolted anyways due to the Kings lack of results in the Welsh conflict. The problem with the Percy Rebellion was that it had to face an already standing army with little forces of their own and it was soon subdued with members duly executed.

When news reached the Court of Sigismund on the atrocities in England many prominent German Princes saw an opportunity in forming an alliance with an Edwardian England. Using news of the Welsh and Holland rebellions they pledged support and men to the Prince upon him reaching his majority in order to retake England.

In 1402 Gyn decided that instead of Prince of Wales he would become King of Wales. Although the name change seemed minor it began to create a greater sense of unity amongst the Welsh people who now were fighting of the Royal Army. Full independence instead of partial assimilation had developed into their goal.

 

[Falastur]

The problem is that while he might do that, the rest might have a problem with that. This isn't something where it's a question of which heir has a better claim, this is an unambiguous "Henry's claim is weaker than the other contender'.

Eh, in this period, though, being a minor was a disadvantage to kingship, and while most would nod their heads to straight succession, an adult heir was viewed as having a stronger claim purely through right of capability. Case in point, when OTL Richard did not have any children, John of Gaunt spent the end half of Richard's reign trying to negotiate an agreement for Henry to be made his heir, in spite of the presence of Roger Mortimer, who was the official heir presumptive according to by-the-book succession laws, but he was himself underage. Richard, for his part, did not prefer Roger as an heir because of his bloodline. He preferred him because his father was old and a diplomatic push-over and Roger was young and impressionable - in short, he wanted an heir who he could transplant his own personality onto. John and Henry instead represented a head-strong and independent-minded threat to this ideal. Richard did not turn on Henry because he became a Lord Appellant, Henry became a Lord Appellant because Richard had turned on him, and the reason this was is because Richard was unable to see Henry as anything other than a threat to his own rule. In short, Richard's paranoia turned Henry into exactly the threat he panicked about before it was reality.

From my reading, the only throne Gaunt wanted was Castile's. And given that OTL he seems to have been staunchly loyal to Richard even considering Henry's banishment, I think this needs a reason why Gaunt changes his mind so drastically that didn't happen OTL - or why he would rethink what he did OTL when the same stuff applies. Maybe he thinks Richard plans to move against him too, that would do it.

Not so much. Any political spectator at the time - John of Gaunt, Richard, John of Castile and John of Portugal (who sent him troops, essentially just to annoy his Castilian rival) included - would have know that John (of Gaunt) had no real chance. It was possible that a total shock could have occurred, but the Castilians had been fighting a constant on-off war with both the Moors and with Portugal for years and thus had the army and preparedness to see off John. The reason he went there was twofold - he knew that he was not getting through to Richard and needed a break from English politics for a while, and he saw an opportunity to exploit. He attacked Castile for the pay-off, and he got it. He got something like £15,000 from the Castilian treasury as a bribe to surrender his claim after a few months of inconsequential skirmishes, which he accepted instantly and without negotiation. It was a boost for his flagging financial resources, and that's what he wanted out of the deal.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have taken the throne if he had won it. Of course he would. But his heart was in England, at least insomuch as he hadn't actually given up on having his son installed as Richard's heir and he thought his family's future was on the English throne.

 

[spamage]

Questions, Comments, Concerns, or Suggestions?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Very Cool. A question though, Why did the Percy family revolt? I mean it makes no sense to revolt because that would be troops diverted from fighting the Welsh to fight them and U said the they revolted because the uprising hadn't been put down. Also has the Duke of York picked a side? In OTL he supported Henry IV but is he now or no?

 

[Scipio Africanus]

I am so happy to see anther medieval timeline on the board! However, I have a few comments.
Give the 1393 POD:
-Bolingbroke and Mowbray had not been exiled (this happened in 1398)
-Gloucester had not been killed (this happened in 1397).

I have a lot of trouble believing that with a POD 4-5 years before these events, they would happen exactly as OTL as you describe. Next, I have even more trouble believing that Bolingbroke would still usurp the crown with a legitimate heir to the king alive. This is really next to impossible. He only invaded with the intent of regaining the massive Lancastrian inheritance. Why not have Bolingbroke set up a regency like Mortimer and Isabel's in 1327? No one will accept him as king with the deposed king's son alive. He only was able to take the crown in OTL due to mirky succession laws and, Roger Mortimers's death in 1398 and a ridiculous claim that Edmund Crounchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster, was the disinherited elder son of Henry III. Also, Roger Mortimer was Richard's hier OTL, not his son Edmund. His accidental death in 1398 led to his young son Edmund not being able to pursue his legitimate claim.
Basically, the way I see alternate history is that the only thing you can be sure of is that things are different than OTL. Yet, here, things are almost identical to OTL event a decade after a major change from history.
That said, this is a really cool idea for a timeline and I hope to see it continue. I love the Plantagenet-Luxembourg alliance that is forming.
Scipio

 

[spamage]

I am so happy to see anther medieval timeline on the board! However, I have a few comments.
Give the 1393 POD:
-Bolingbroke and Mowbray had not been exiled (this happened in 1398)
-Gloucester had not been killed (this happened in 1397).

I have a lot of trouble believing that with a POD 4-5 years before these events, they would happen exactly as OTL as you describe. Next, I have even more trouble believing that Bolingbroke would still usurp the crown with a legitimate heir to the king alive. This is really next to impossible. He only invaded with the intent of regaining the massive Lancastrian inheritance. Why not have Bolingbroke set up a regency like Mortimer and Isabel's in 1327? Also, Roger Mortimer was Richard's hier OTL, not his son Edmund. His accidental death in 1398 led to his young son Edmund not being able to pursue his legitimate claim.
Basically, the way I see alternate history is that the only thing you can be sure of is that things are different than OTL. Yet, here, things are almost identical to OTL event a decade after a major change from history.
That said, this is a really cool idea for a timeline and I hope to see it continue. I love the Plantagenet-Luxembourg alliance that is forming.
Scipio

Well I think alot of events would've gone the same way if Richard had had a son , Bolingbroke would've been exiled due to being one of the Lord Appellants.
Glouchester's death is the same as OTL, and fits with the TL

I do realize it is very similar to OTL at this pint but there has been several more minor rebellions but I can promise it will be quite different from actual history very soon (Hint look for Irish and Scottish news).

 

[Elfwine]

Eh, in this period, though, being a minor was a disadvantage to kingship, and while most would nod their heads to straight succession, an adult heir was viewed as having a stronger claim purely through right of capability.

Show me a case of someone saying "The king has a son, but nevermind that son." in this period. Not nephews or cousins, but sons.

Not so much. Any political spectator at the time - John of Gaunt, Richard, John of Castile and John of Portugal (who sent him troops, essentially just to annoy his Castilian rival) included - would have know that John (of Gaunt) had no real chance. It was possible that a total shock could have occurred, but the Castilians had been fighting a constant on-off war with both the Moors and with Portugal for years and thus had the army and preparedness to see off John. The reason he went there was twofold - he knew that he was not getting through to Richard and needed a break from English politics for a while, and he saw an opportunity to exploit. He attacked Castile for the pay-off, and he got it. He got something like £15,000 from the Castilian treasury as a bribe to surrender his claim after a few months of inconsequential skirmishes, which he accepted instantly and without negotiation. It was a boost for his flagging financial resources, and that's what he wanted out of the deal.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have taken the throne if he had won it. Of course he would. But his heart was in England, at least insomuch as he hadn't actually given up on having his son installed as Richard's heir and he thought his family's future was on the English throne.

Do you have a source for John aiming for the English throne? Not negotiating with Richard over the succession but in the sense of plotting against Richard.

 

[Falastur]

Show me a case of someone saying "The king has a son, but nevermind that son." in this period. Not nephews or cousins, but sons.

In truth I probably responded to the wrong thing with my previous comment. Obviously if Richard had a son, he would favour that son for the throne, and probably a lot of the nobility if not all would go along with it, even if he (the King) died early. But my point was just that it was a period when, in times of more questionable succession, strength of character and position could top being the closest blood relative according to the line of succession.

Do you have a source for John aiming for the English throne? Not negotiating with Richard over the succession but in the sense of plotting against Richard.

I get the feeling I should never have responded. I'll be honest and say I was skimming through threads and so didn't fully take in the OP and all the following comments. That, and I started by referring to your comments about John of Gaunt wanting the Castilian throne and then ended up wandering across topics back to OTL England. Thus, I (again) responded more to the OTL situation in a "I want to set the record straight here" way than I did actually respond to your comments. I think I somehow persuaded myself that you were referring to OTL too. Clearly I am a right numpty.

For a start - John didn't want the throne for himself, he wanted it for Henry. Secondly, he wanted it for Henry because Richard had no son. TTL, Richard does, hence my comment about my answering the wrong question and now look like a total idiot. Thirdly, no, I meant to expand on this more, but John never once plotted against Richard. In fact I believe he opposed his son's joining the Lords Appellant, even if he never made that public. John was trying to do everything by the book, and he was naive enough to believe that by his own sincerity he could win Richard over. He stayed doggedly loyal to Richard throughout - not because he liked Richard, but because Richard gave him just enough incentive to believe that he might declare Henry as the heir without ever doing anything to live up to his supposed promises.

My source, for the record, is Ian Mortimer's "The Fears of Henry IV". Anyway, now that I've proven myself a total imbecile I believe it's time I withdrew from this thread.

 

[Velasco]

I guess a possible precedent could be dredged up in King Stephen, an unpopular king who disinherited his own children in favour of a more popular and highly powerful kinsman. Also John inheriting instead of Arthur of Brittany. Primogeniture was not a hard and fast rule - adoptions, acts of Parliament, Papal bulls, Imperial investitiure, right of conquest, proximity of blood and more often a combination of the latter - could come together to trump the legitimate dynastic heir. See the Valois, the adoption of Henry V, the Papal bull for Henry Tudor, etc.

That said, having the Emperor for uncle is one hell of a trump card. I guess the question of the English succession now becomes a matter of Imperial and Papal politicking instetad of an internal matter. Prince Edward marrying a French princess and taking England's.continental possessions once of age (peraps sharing them with the French) might be the next logical move. Remaining Hollands and partisans of Richard should consider fleeing abroad to the Emperor's court for safety and promises of future geatness.

Obviously I'm rooting for Edward to become Emperor and take Normandy and Anjou while claiming both English and French thrones.

I wonder if with the Emperor's animosity Henry IV would be able to marry his children off as.well as OTL.

 

[spamage]

Obviously I'm rooting for Edward to become Emperor and take Normandy and Anjou while claiming both English and French thrones.

I wonder if with the Emperor's animosity Henry IV would be able to marry his children off as.well as OTL.

Hmmm I like the sound of Emperor Edward but I had him doing the obvious but I may change it.... hmmm.......

Well he wouldn't really be able to marry them to any Rome Papacy supporting Kingdoms as the pope condemned his rule as a sham.

 

[Elfwine]

In truth I probably responded to the wrong thing with my previous comment. Obviously if Richard had a son, he would favour that son for the throne, and probably a lot of the nobility if not all would go along with it, even if he (the King) died early. But my point was just that it was a period when, in times of more questionable succession, strength of character and position could top being the closest blood relative according to the line of succession.

Definitely true. It doesn't help that it doesn't seem like the laws of succession were precisely spelled out past the obvious. Arthur and John is two centuries earlier, but it's a good example of the issue.

I get the feeling I should never have responded. I'll be honest and say I was skimming through threads and so didn't fully take in the OP and all the following comments. That, and I started by referring to your comments about John of Gaunt wanting the Castilian throne and then ended up wandering across topics back to OTL England. Thus, I (again) responded more to the OTL situation in a "I want to set the record straight here" way than I did actually respond to your comments. I think I somehow persuaded myself that you were referring to OTL too. Clearly I am a right numpty.

No worries. Honest confusion happens to the best of us.

For a start - John didn't want the throne for himself, he wanted it for Henry. Secondly, he wanted it for Henry because Richard had no son. TTL, Richard does, hence my comment about my answering the wrong question and now look like a total idiot. Thirdly, no, I meant to expand on this more, but John never once plotted against Richard. In fact I believe he opposed his son's joining the Lords Appellant, even if he never made that public. John was trying to do everything by the book, and he was naive enough to believe that by his own sincerity he could win Richard over. He stayed doggedly loyal to Richard throughout - not because he liked Richard, but because Richard gave him just enough incentive to believe that he might declare Henry as the heir without ever doing anything to live up to his supposed promises.

My source, for the record, is Ian Mortimer's "The Fears of Henry IV". Anyway, now that I've proven myself a total imbecile I believe it's time I withdrew from this thread.

Thanks for the explanation, though, so I hope you read this post at least.