John of Gaunt

Could he have overthrown Richard II? Perhaps before he attained his majority?

Similar to how Richard III took the throne? How would King John II as king from 1377 – 1399 be to King Richard II? He acted as de facto Head of government
He would still be succeeded like his son, OTL Henry IV. But would his father be able to influence his son's reign?
 
Similar to how Richard III took the throne? How would King John II as king from 1377 – 1399 be to King Richard II? He acted as de facto Head of government
He would still be succeeded like his son, OTL Henry IV. But would his father be able to influence his son's reign?

What reason would Gaunt have for overthrowing his nephew? He was quite loyal to Richard II.
 
Yes, probably, but he wouldn't of done it unless he was given a choice between dishonor, death, or treason and he still might of chosen death.
 
What reason would Gaunt have for overthrowing his nephew? He was quite loyal to Richard II.
I can't see a reason, I was simply asking the question, would he take the throne by killing Richard II
Yes, probably, but he wouldn't of done it unless he was given a choice between dishonor, death, or treason and he still might of chosen death.
I too doubt the idea of usurping the throne, especially with people such as, Sir Simon de Burley and Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, setting up a continual councils, excluding John of Gaunt and his younger brother Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham.

The way I see it, the easiest way would be for Richard II to die before or during the Peasant's Revolt.
What if the illness that killed his father, was spread to Richard? If the young Prince was to die, before his Grandfather, Prince John of Gaunt would be the only true heir of England.
 
I can't see a reason, I was simply asking the question, would he take the throne by killing Richard II

I too doubt the idea of usurping the throne, especially with people such as, Sir Simon de Burley and Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, setting up a continual councils, excluding John of Gaunt and his younger brother Thomas of Woodstock, Earl of Buckingham.


What if the illness that killed his father, was spread to Richard? If the young Prince was to die, before his Grandfather, Prince John of Gaunt would be the only true heir of England.


Roger Mortimer was born in 1374 three years before Edward III died and he was heir general to Lionel of Antwerp, John's older brother. By the precedent at that point it could of been either of them. Edward looked to be trying to entrench the principle of representation in english law or why make his grandson heir and not his oldest living son? The same might apply to his great grandson. But if he did appoint John of Gaunt heir, he would be by all precedent the true heir, but so would Mortimer. It all depends on Edward III. I Kind of think Roger would of succeeded if his cousin would of predeceased Edward III. He seemed to be trying to establish a more entrenched law of succession and Roger would of fit that goal better.

Oh and John of Gaunt was not a Prince, the only prince in England was the Prince of Wales, John of Gaunt was a Duke of royal blood.
 
Last edited:
Roger Mortimer was born in 1374 three years before Edward III died and he was heir general to Lionel of Antwerp, John's older brother. By the precedent at that point it could of been either of them. Edward looked to be trying to entrench the principle of representation in english law or why make his grandson heir and not his oldest living son? The same might apply to his great grandson. But if he did appoint John of Gaunt heir, he would be by all precedent the true heir, but so would Mortimer. It all depends on Edward III. I Kind of think Roger would of succeeded if his cousin would of predeceased Edward III. He seemed to be trying to establish a more entrenched law of succession and Roger would of fit that goal better.
It's also how female representation was in relation to male representation in both property succession and title (especially royal) succession. Since they were not yet considered equivalent.
There was the tradition (from France) of transmission whereby a female could transmit her right to succession to her sons (only). In that respect her sons represented her right. However there was some discussion about how valid that was in succession to the throne. In France it led to removal of transmission in royalty, in England it led to male preferred primogeniture but equal representation in succession.

Since Edward III was still claiming his right to France from a female transmission/representation (leading to greater proximity of blood) I suspect he'd declare for Edmund but perhaps rule out any of Edmund's (future) sisters.

Oh and John of Gaunt was not a Prince, the only prince in England was the Prince of Wales, John of Gaunt was a Duke of royal blood.

As a sidenote the Prince of Wales is a Prince Major and ranks above Dukes. The idea of royal princes was imported from France and their rank was of Prince Minor, ranking below Dukes but above Counts, and was established so that members of the Royal Family would instantly rank above nonRoyal Counts; an Archcount if you will.
King > Prince Major > Duke > Prince Minor > Count Palatine > Margrave > Count > Viscount.
The establishment of the Anjou dynasty in England basically cemented Earl=Count rather than Earl=Duke from before the Norman Conquest hence why Edward began creating Dukes from his sons rather than Earls.
 
Last edited:
It's also how female representation was in relation to male representation in both property succession and title (especially royal) succession. Since they were not yet considered equivalent.
There was the tradition (from France) of transmission whereby a female could transmit her right to succession to her sons (only). In that respect her sons represented her right. However there was some discussion about how valid that was in succession to the throne. In France it led to removal of transmission in royalty, in England it led to male preferred primogeniture but equal representation in succession.

Since Edward III was still claiming his right to France from a female transmission/representation (leading to greater proximity of blood) I suspect he'd declare for Edmund but perhaps rule out any of Edmund's (future) sisters..




As a sidenote the Prince of Wales is a Prince Major and ranks above Dukes. The idea of royal princes was imported from France and their rank was of Prince Minor, ranking below Dukes but above Counts, and was established so that members of the Royal Family would instantly rank above nonRoyal Counts; an Archcount if you will.
King > Prince Major > Duke > Prince Minor > Count Palatine > Margrave > Count > Viscount.
The establishment of the Anjou dynasty in England basically cemented Earl=Count rather than Earl=Duke from before the Norman Conquest hence why Edward began creating Dukes from his sons rather than Earls.

From what I understand, Prince as a title for the royal family didn't come into existence, except the prince of wales, until the house of hanover brought it over from germany. Before that the children of the king were just Lord N, until created a noble by their father, that is why the king usually created his sons noble so early. But I could be wrong could you post your reference? I would really like to know if I'm wrong. France only had prince of the blood royal as a rank not a title, the title for the royal family were Children and Grandchildren of France. Was prince minor a rank?

I remember reading about Mary I of England about how when her parents were still married she was formally known only as Lady Mary, even though she was by courtesy referred to as the Princess of wales sometimes or Princess Mary but she never actually held those titles.
 
Top