Could a more militarily successful John of Gaunt have become king?

Inspired by some of the discussions made in this thread.If John of Gaunt was as militarily successful as the Black Prince,could he have taken over the throne based on the precedence of John I,where the principle of proximity of blood triumphed over primogeniture?
 
That would make it even less likely. Nobles would rather have a malleable young man on the throne (with hereditary right to boot - primogeniture is far more established now after several generations of Angevins, the Plantagenet claim to France via primogeniture and Edward I's selection of John Balliol as King of Scots) than the richest guy in the Kingdom who is also a great military commander and wants to conquer Castile. Plus, it would make a mockery of the titles of basically every aristocrat in the country and raise the opposition of the Duke of York, etc.

Henry IV only got support after Richard had raised the ire of certain sections of the nobility and had personally wronged him by denying him his father's inheritance. Even then, he only unequivocally claimed the throne after Richard was beaten and he was secure in his own position.
 
That would make it even less likely. Nobles would rather have a malleable young man on the throne (with hereditary right to boot - primogeniture is far more established now after several generations of Angevins, the Plantagenet claim to France via primogeniture and Edward I's selection of John Balliol as King of Scots) than the richest guy in the Kingdom who is also a great military commander and wants to conquer Castile. Plus, it would make a mockery of the titles of basically every aristocrat in the country and raise the opposition of the Duke of York, etc.

Henry IV only got support after Richard had raised the ire of certain sections of the nobility and had personally wronged him by denying him his father's inheritance. Even then, he only unequivocally claimed the throne after Richard was beaten and he was secure in his own position.
WI Edward III confirmed John of Gaunt as his heir and cited John I as precedence?
 
WI Edward III confirmed John of Gaunt as his heir and cited John I as precedence?

So what if Edward III wanted to cause a civil war? The nobles aren't going to accept John of Guant otherwise. Also, using John I as precedence wouldn't go over well, considering his legacy as a failure and all.
 
So what if Edward III wanted to cause a civil war? The nobles aren't going to accept John of Guant otherwise. Also, using John I as precedence wouldn't go over well, considering his legacy as a failure and all.
Wouldn't militarily successful have made the man much more popular than he was from OTL though?There's also the affair of Henry III...would he be able to bring up that child rulers are not stable for the realm?
 
Wouldn't militarily successful have made the man much more popular than he was from OTL though?There's also the affair of Henry III...would he be able to bring up that child rulers are not stable for the realm?

Changing the line of succession would be difficult at any time, especially when its in favor of someone unpopular. The problem is John's popularity with the nobility, which was basically nonexistent. I doubt a few military victories are going to change that. Edward III made him to wealthy to be King.
 
Changing the line of succession would be difficult at any time, especially when its in favor of someone unpopular. The problem is John's popularity with the nobility, which was basically nonexistent. I doubt a few military victories are going to change that. Edward III made him to wealthy to be King.
But wasn't it only due to the accession of Richard II that established rule of primogeniture over proximity of blood(prior of that,the principle of proximity of blood prevailed).As for military victories,wouldn't the nobles want a militarily successful king so that they can get new lands(given the epitome of an ideal king in the middle ages was the king being a highly successful military leader)?And what about if he used his wealth to start bribing nobles and shore up his popularity?Would that help?
 
Last edited:
But wasn't it only due to the accession of Richard II that established rule of primogeniture over proximity of blood(prior of that,the principle of proximity of blood prevailed).As for military victories,wouldn't the nobles want a militarily successful king so that they can get new lands(given the epitome of an ideal king in the middle ages was the king being a highly successful military leader)?And what about if he used his wealth to start bribing nobles and shore up his popularity?Would that help?

This was the first time the two had been at odds with one another in 200 years. Since then, English Kings had claimed the French throne by primogeniture, noble titles had been codified to descend by primogeniture in almost every case and Edward I had given Balliol the Scottish throne based upon his English leaning towards primogeniture. Perhaps these were ad hoc pragmatic actions, but they set a precedent. The Constitutional situation of 1371 was very different from that of 1199. In that period, royalty's status as a Mighty Warlord had diminished (it was needed less, and the nobility weren't keen on having to pay for a few months' worth of dysentery in France or Castile every other year in lieu of making cash from their lands) and the King was now much more a guardian of law and order. We can see this rise in Edward I's whole Quo Warranto shindig. Royalty mattered because it offered stability and profit to the powerful men of the realm through the relationship set down in Magna Carta - the security that their sons would be provided for according to precedence in perpetuity; that their estates would not be requisitioned by a wealthy, powerful King who had conceived a dislike for them, or vice versa; that the high taxation, spoliation and bodily danger of wartime would be curtailed as much as was concomitant with personal honour.

If John took the throne, Richard would always be a source of instability, not only to John himself, but to the Realm. And quite a few powerful people, together with commoners like those who trashed his house in OTL, would be bound by either principle or self-interest to fight for a malleable kid with a strong hereditary right to the throne. If John pre-emptively got rid of Richard, he would be a tyrant, and thus would be fair game to rebels like the Northumberlands IOTL. There's no prospect of a peaceful succession while Richard is alive, so what's the point of either Edward III or anybody else backing a different horse - however many times it's won the Grand National?

Yes, Richard turned out pretty mediocre but there was no way of knowing that at the time.
 
Top