Edward II dies

If Edward II had died before his son Edward III had been born what might have happened?

Also, if Edward II had died at Bannockburn what might the situation have been?
 
If Edward II dies before Edward III is born, his successor would have been either Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk or Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, Edward I's sons by his second wife, Margaret of France.

If Edward dies at Bannockburn, Edward III is about 2 years old. I'd imagine a regency council would be set up, with Isabella in charge.

In either case, there could be an uprising in favour of his cousin, Thomas, Earl of Leicester and Lancaster.
 
If Edward II dies before Edward III is born, his successor would have been either Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk or Edmund of Woodstock, Earl of Kent, Edward I's sons by his second wife, Margaret of France.

If Edward dies at Bannockburn, Edward III is about 2 years old. I'd imagine a regency council would be set up, with Isabella in charge.

In either case, there could be an uprising in favour of his cousin, Thomas, Earl of Leicester and Lancaster.

Hmm interesting, what makes you think that might have happened? The whole Gaveston affair?
 
Hmm interesting, what makes you think that might have happened? The whole Gaveston affair?

I s'pose it depends on how Isabella handles herself- would there be the lavish spending and taking a lover etc? Or would the fact that she's significantly younger mean she's more cautious and stuff? The fact that she's the king's widow rather than the king's deposer probably makes for a more stable regency (though a regency set to last c. 15 years is always taxing).

Thomas of Norfolk and Edmund of Kent are probably too young to cause any immediate trouble (14 and 13ish), but should opposition to Isabella grow later on they could lead it, and maybe try to claim the regency themselves as the king's closest male relatives (though they'd still be relatively young).

Thomas of Lancaster/Leicester can probably make common cause with Isabella when it comes to despensing the Despensers, but he could conceivably try to claim the regency and stuff.

That said, things would have to get spectacularly bad for any of them to claim the kingship outright- deposing the king is a whole order of magnitude more serious than just trying to displace 'evil advisers' or even seizing the king and ruling in his name (like Simon de Montfort and Henry III or Richard Duke of York and Henry VI in the early stages of the Wars of the Roses).

It's also safer should things not go your way- the King is more likely to spare you if your platform is 'I think the king is surrounded by bad people who should be displaced' than 'I'm the real king'. John took his entire reign to piss people off to the extent they wanted to get rid of him outright in favour of Louis (the stuff with Arthur was a genuine dispute over who was the rightful heir rather than a 'screw you John, we want someone else!' (though admittedly doubts about John's character and competence probably influenced some of Arthur's supporters). Said reign included rapacious financial strategies and taxation, the outright murder of his aforementioned nephew, the genocidal rampage against the Braose family, wholesale paranoia and hostage taking and the complete failure of his continental policies. Similarly, though to an admittedly less extreme degree, Richard Duke of York only claimed the crown after years of frustration and disappointments at the hands of Margaret and the Beauforts.

Thomas of Leicester/Lancaster faces the added difficulty of being what, 4th in-line (at best, that'd be his position in purely agnatic/Salic terms)? So, if he wants the throne he'd have to justify passing over Edmund and the other Thomas (which would also split the aristocracy). This is difficult- I think Henry IV, after seizing the throne, cooked up some story wherein he was the rightful king through his mother Blanche (Lancaster's great-niece) because Edmund Crouchback was actually older than Edward I but they got switched around because of Crouchback's deformity. I'm not sure anyone would believe it, but Thomas could play a similar card.

Edmund would merely have to say 'my supposed nephew is a bastard' to claim kingship (and if Isabella publicly takes a lover his claim would be somewhat strengthened).

That said, should any of them rebel it's more likely they'd go for being pre-eminent magnate/regent/Protector of the Realm. Whether this occurs depends on whether a younger Isabella, perhaps less sure of herself, is more likely to hand over/share power with her in-laws or straight up cave to their demands. Alternatively, a younger Isabella might be lacking in political knowledge and nous and thereby exacerbates an already volatile situation.

There's also every chance Edward III just dies as a child. Even if he's out of the danger-zone of infancy there are still plenty of other risks- Edward II had three elder brothers who died at 11 (Alphonso Earl of Chester), 6 (Henry) and 5 (John). Though you can easily just employ a butterfly net here or say 'meh, Edward had robust health (he lived to 64), he'll be right'.
 
Last edited:
I s'pose it depends on how Isabella handles herself- would there be the lavish spending and taking a lover etc? Or would the fact that she's significantly younger mean she's more cautious and stuff? The fact that she's the king's widow rather than the king's deposer probably makes for a more stable regency (though a regency set to last c. 15 years is always taxing).

Thomas of Norfolk and Edmund of Kent are probably too young to cause any immediate trouble (14 and 13ish), but should opposition to Isabella grow later on they could lead it, and maybe try to claim the regency themselves as the king's closest male relatives (though they'd still be relatively young).

Thomas of Lancaster/Leicester can probably make common cause with Isabella when it comes to despensing the Despensers, but he could conceivably try to claim the regency and stuff.

That said, things would have to get spectacularly bad for any of them to claim the kingship outright- deposing the king is a whole order of magnitude more serious than just trying to displace 'evil advisers' or even seizing the king and ruling in his name (like Simon de Montfort and Henry III or Richard Duke of York and Henry VI in the early stages of the Wars of the Roses).

It's also safer should things not go your way- the King is more likely to spare you if your platform is 'I think the king is surrounded by bad people who should be displaced' than 'I'm the real king'. John took his entire reign to piss people off to the extent they wanted to get rid of him outright in favour of Louis (the stuff with Arthur was a genuine dispute over who was the rightful heir rather than a 'screw you John, we want someone else!' (though admittedly doubts about John's character and competence probably influenced some of Arthur's supporters). Said reign included rapacious financial strategies and taxation, the outright murder of his aforementioned nephew, the genocidal rampage against the Braose family, wholesale paranoia and hostage taking and the complete failure of his continental policies. Similarly, though to an admittedly less extreme degree, Richard Duke of York only claimed the crown after years of frustration and disappointments at the hands of Margaret and the Beauforts.

Thomas of Leicester/Lancaster faces the added difficulty of being what, 4th in-line (at best, that'd be his position in purely agnatic/Salic terms)? So, if he wants the throne he'd have to justify passing over Edmund and the other Thomas (which would also split the aristocracy). This is difficult- I think Henry IV, after seizing the throne, cooked up some story wherein he was the rightful king through his mother Blanche (Lancaster's great-niece) because Edmund Crouchback was actually older than Edward I but they got switched around because of Crouchback's deformity. I'm not sure anyone would believe it, but Thomas could play a similar card.

Edmund would merely have to say 'my supposed nephew is a bastard' to claim kingship (and if Isabella publicly takes a lover his claim would be somewhat strengthened).

That said, should any of them rebel it's more likely they'd go for being pre-eminent magnate/regent/Protector of the Realm. Whether this occurs depends on whether a younger Isabella, perhaps less sure of herself, is more likely to hand over/share power with her in-laws or straight up cave to their demands. Alternatively, a younger Isabella might be lacking in political knowledge and nous and thereby exacerbates an already volatile situation.

There's also every chance Edward III just dies as a child. Even if he's out of the danger-zone of infancy there are still plenty of other risks- Edward II had three elder brothers who died at 11 (Alphonso Earl of Chester), 6 (Henry) and 5 (John). Though you can easily just employ a butterfly net here or say 'meh, Edward had robust health (he lived to 64), he'll be right'.

Interesting, considering the Despensers did not truly come to power until 1318ish, they might not be that much of an issue. Though clearing up the mess of Edward II is going to be a monumental task for anyone, and then there would be dealing with the Scots.

A regency does look to be the perhaps best bet, due to the whole need to stick together etc.
 
Top