King Richard II of England keeps his throne

If Henry Bolingbroke's attempt to overthrow Richard in 1399 was unsuccessful, because the Earl of Northumberland, the Duke of York and other leading magnates remained loyal to Richard, how would that have effected the course of English and European history?

Bolingbroke would most likely have been executed. Richard was 32 years old in 1399. He could have lived for another 30 to 40 years, which would be until the 1430s. He wanted peaceful relations with France, so he would not have re-started the Hundred Years War. A 28-year long truce was signed in Paris in 1396.

His second wife Isabella of France was born in 1396. Richard was married to his first wife, Anne of Denmark for 12 years without fathering any children. The cause may have been his impotence or his wife's infertility. In OTL Isabella dies in childbirth at the age of 19. If Richard were impotent that would affect the succession. Richard Plantagent, 3rd Duke of York, (1411-1460) who is descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second son of Edward III would probably have the greatest claim to the Englsh throne in the 1430s.
 
The biggest change is that the absolutist form of government triumphs over parliamentary government - the accession of Henry IV through the use of Parliament to both depose Richard and raise Henry gave parliament a feeling of its power outside that of the King - and also was (iirc) the first legal parliament to sit without a monarchs presence. This is bad for - well, democracy generally, as it removes - or at least weakens - the philisophical base of the English philosophers of C17th who influenced Moliere etc, and so the American and French Revolutions.

Expct a number more executed people in England - and a host of poor government, as Richard seemed to think that disagreeing with him was high treason. Maybe - if this goes on another 20 years, more attempts to remove him - the people of the SE cheered Henry home, and Richards rule seemed at times to be based upon the power of his loyal Cheshire archers. An earlier war of succession could result.
 
If Henry Bolingbroke's attempt to overthrow Richard in 1399 was unsuccessful, because the Earl of Northumberland, the Duke of York and other leading magnates remained loyal to Richard, how would that have effected the course of English and European history?

Bolingbroke would most likely have been executed. Richard was 32 years old in 1399. He could have lived for another 30 to 40 years, which would be until the 1430s. He wanted peaceful relations with France, so he would not have re-started the Hundred Years War. A 28-year long truce was signed in Paris in 1396.

His second wife Isabella of France was born in 1396. Richard was married to his first wife, Anne of Denmark for 12 years without fathering any children. The cause may have been his impotence or his wife's infertility. In OTL Isabella dies in childbirth at the age of 19. If Richard were impotent that would affect the succession. Richard Plantagent, 3rd Duke of York, (1411-1460) who is descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the second son of Edward III would probably have the greatest claim to the Englsh throne in the 1430s.

Well, depending on when Richard dies, his heir might be Edmund de Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, who was the heir presumptive when Richard was overthrown in OTL.
 
Last edited:
I was just thinking about the possibilities of Edmund Mortimer succeeding to the throne after Richard II.

In OTL, Edmund Mortimer apparently married Anne Stafford c. 1415 (the date is uncertain), but had no issue. He died of plague in Ireland in 1425.

However, Anne Stafford did have at least one child with her second husband, so she was not infertile. The fact that she and Edmund had no children in ten years might indicate that he was infertile. However, Edmund seems to have spent almost all the latter years of his life from 1415 onwards overseas on campaign, first in France and then in Ireland. So it may simply be a case where he didn't get home very often to "sow the field," shall we say.

If Richard II retains his throne, all this might change. Richard, as the OP stated, wanted peace with France, so he won't be campaigning overseas for years at the time, and Edmund gets to stay home, "sowing the field." Eventually, one of those seeds might have produced a son and heir.

Furthermore, as heir presumptive, Edmund most likely isn't made Lieutenant of Ireland, so he is not there to catch the plague and die in 1425. When Richard II dies, lets say sometime in the late 1420s or early 1430s, Edmund succeeds him to the throne, founding the Mortimer Dynasty. Edmund himself was born in 1391, and could possibly live into the 1450s, 1460s, or even 1470s, if not longer.

When King Edmund finally dies, his son (lets call him Roger) succeeds him. Prince Roger by this time may well have a son and heir as well.

Possibly the whole era of the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors, the Stuarts, etc., are all butterflied away. It actually might make a good TL...if someone wants to take it up.

Possible outline...

House of Plantagenet
Richard II, reigned 1377-1427, last ruler of the House of Plantagenet

House of Mortimer
Edmund I, reigned 1427-1453 (b. 1391)
Roger I, reigned 1453-1471 (b. 1422)
Roger II, reigned 1471-1501 (b. 1450)
...and so on.
 
Last edited:
Edmund I would not have given up his claim to the French throne, but would he have allied with Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy and invaded France? In OTL the English-Burgundian alliance continues until 1435. If an English army lands in Normandy in 1429 and in military alliance with the Burgundians win a few battles, it would take several years to conquer northern France up to the Loire. But an English conquest of all France is not feasible. Also it would need a very large investment by England in men, weapons and money for Gascony to remain an English possession appreciably longer after 1453 (when it was conquered by the French in OTL).
 
I think there is also a strong possibility that Richard would produce and heir and if at least not a son a daughter, who could be married to Edmund's son if he ever haves one

Also didnt Richard's wife die in child birth so, who could Richard marry??
 
I think there is also a strong possibility that Richard would produce and heir and if at least not a son a daughter, who could be married to Edmund's son if he ever haves one

Also didnt Richard's wife die in child birth so, who could Richard marry??

Richard's widow (and she was only 10 when Richard died/was murdered) died in 1406 giving birth to her 2nd husband's child. Richard's 1st wife, Anne, never became pregnant. I wonder how significant an impact Richard's inability to father a child, or even the realization that he was perhaps unable to, had on his psyche and behavior as king?
 
i wonder if his first wife was infertile or he was unable to have heirs.. this impacts wether Richard maintains the throne for Edmund or continues the Plantangent line
 
Richard II suffered from bouts of insanity. This is going to guarantee that intrigue and plots swirl in his court, even following the defeat of Henry Bolingbroke. The ability of Henry OTL to seize the throne demonstrates how unpopular Richard II was, and I think points to future attempts to overthrow him.

So the POD should be Richard II immediately returns to England once he hears of Henry's landing in England. He lands in England, and makes it clear he won't surrender. He is able to rally some loyalist forces, and faces Henry and his supporters in battle. Henry is killed early in the battle, and his allies, chiefly the Duke of York, quickly make peace with the King.

The problem is going to be that Richard II was not the forgiving kind, witness his treatment of the Lords Apellant. If he goes after the nobility who sided with Henry while Richard was in Ireland, then that will provoke a civil war. Since he probably will go after those nobles, then it could very well be the descendants of Edward, Duke of York, rather than John, Duke of Lancaster, who overthrow Richard II.

So I think that you'll have Richard II continue his persecution of nobility he believes oppose him. John of Gaunt's descendants give a myriad of options for possible claimants to the throne. I would say the most interesting among them is probably John Beaufort, since upon Henry Bolingbroke's death he would be in a position to claim his father's estates. John doesn't have a very good claim to the crown, but he was loyal to Richard II and he might be in a position to demand his father's estates given the weak state of Richard II's rule. Edmund, the Duke of York, has a two sons, Edward and Richard. It is Richard who OTL became the first Yorkist claimant to the English throne. IOTL Edward and Richard could be the men who are looked to for anti-Richard leadership.

I don't think that Richard II was going to end his life peaceably. He was a bad ruler, he had bouts of insanity, he was childless and he has too many adult male relatives- any of whom have a pretty valid claim to the throne given Richard II's shortcomings.
 
One thing that came to mind...my scenario assumes no Wars of the Roses. However, some sort of dynastic struggle and/or challenge of the right of the House of Mortimer to the throne is by no means out of the question. The succession of Edmund Mortimer passes the throne from the line of Edward, the Black Prince, to the line of Lionel of Antwerp. But there are two other, more junior lines...the lines of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and Edmund of Langley, Duke of York.

Of course, the OP mentions that the senior surviving son of John of Gaunt, Henry Bolingbroke, is executed following his failed attempt to seize the throne in 1399. Bolingbroke's son, the OTL Henry V, was born in 1386 and would have been 13 years old in 1399. Does Richard II have him killed as well, and if not, will he, like his father, eventually attempt to seize the throne? And Bolingbroke had three other sons, Thomas, John, and Humphrey, all of whom were born before 1399. Any of these could have become the central figure in a revolt. How does Richard deal with them? If left alone, any or all of these, or their descendants, could have challenged the House of Mortimer at some point during the 1400s.

In addition to Bolingbroke and his sons, there were also the Beauforts, who also had a claim on the throne through John of Gaunt. In this TL, they will probably not have been barred from the succession (in OTL, it was Bolingbroke, as King Henry IV, who did that). Again, a possible source of revolts and dynastic turmoil.

Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, died in 1402. His eldest son, Edward of Norwich, Duke of York, was in OTL killed in 1415 at the Battle of Agincourt, an event which won't happen in this timeline. He was born in 1373, and was only 42 when he died. It is reasonable to expect that he might be around into the 1430s or even the 1440s. Edward's wife, Philippa de Mohun, was fertile, having had children in her previous marriages, but produced no children for Edward. This could indicate infertility, or lack of opportunity, for Edward (Edward of Norwich, like Edmund de Mortimer, spent much of his time away on campaign in France in OTL). If Richard II's more peaceful policies allow Edward of Norwich to produce an heir, then how does that affect the conduct of the House of York in the possible power struggles of the 15th century? The claim to the throne which the Yorkists asserted in OTL was through Anne Mortimer, who was from the line of Lionel of Antwerp (more on this below). In an ATL where Edward of Norwich produces an heir, this claim won't really exist anymore.

But if Edward of Norwich never produces an heir, then Richard of Conisburgh likely becomes Duke of York upon Edward's death. Richard is interesting because his wife was Anne Mortimer, SISTER of King Edmund I in this ATL. In OTL Richard was executed in 1415 after taking part in a plot against Henry V. That plot obviously doesn't happen in the ATL, so Richard may well survive to inherit from his brother. But if he doesn't, his eldest son, Richard Plantagenet, succeeds Edward of Norwich as Duke of York, as per OTL, just at a later date.

Richard Plantagenet's mother, as mentioned above, was Anne Mortimer, who was the older sister of King Edmund I in this ATL.

So another interesting question arises. Does the House of York, headed by a branch with descent from the Mortimers, support the Mortimer Dynasty against the Lancasters and the Beauforts? Or, because Anne Mortimer was actually the elder sister of King Edmund, will they press a claim based her "seniority" in line of descent from Lionel of Antwerp? If the former, we could end up with something similar to our OTL Wars of the Roses. If the latter, we have a three-way power struggle between the Mortimers, the Yorks, and the Lancasters, or maybe even a four way struggle (if we assume the Beauforts form a separate faction).
 
Last edited:
Richard II suffered from bouts of insanity.

That is a debatable, and largely outdated, interpretation. He may have had a narcissistic personality, but there is not really a historical basis for claiming insanity. The claims of insanity mainly trace back to Tudor historians and William Shakespeare.

This is going to guarantee that intrigue and plots swirl in his court, even following the defeat of Henry Bolingbroke. The ability of Henry OTL to seize the throne demonstrates how unpopular Richard II was, and I think points to future attempts to overthrow him.

So the POD should be Richard II immediately returns to England once he hears of Henry's landing in England. He lands in England, and makes it clear he won't surrender. He is able to rally some loyalist forces, and faces Henry and his supporters in battle. Henry is killed early in the battle, and his allies, chiefly the Duke of York, quickly make peace with the King.

One problem...Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, would not necessarily have joined Bolingbroke if Richard had returned to England immediately. It was because Richard was delayed in returning, allowing Bolingbroke to move south quickly from Yorkshire to London (where Edmund was acting as Keeper of the Realm in the King's absence) that basically forced Edmund to side with Bolingbroke. The same might also have been true of other nobles as well.

The problem is going to be that Richard II was not the forgiving kind, witness his treatment of the Lords Apellant. If he goes after the nobility who sided with Henry while Richard was in Ireland, then that will provoke a civil war. Since he probably will go after those nobles, then it could very well be the descendants of Edward, Duke of York, rather than John, Duke of Lancaster, who overthrow Richard II.

Or, alternatively, Richard's purge of those who sided with Bolingbroke successfully eliminates the most dangerous potential troublemakers from his realm, and he is able to rule, albeit uneasily, in relative peace until his death.
 
i wonder if his first wife was infertile or he was unable to have heirs.. this impacts wether Richard maintains the throne for Edmund or continues the Plantangent line

That's a possibility as well. As Lord Grattan pointed out, his second wife, Isabella of Valois, was only 10 when he died in OTL, and she did produce a child by her second marriage (although she died in the process). However, Richard was married previously for 12 years without producing an heir. It is not certain whether the problem lay with his first wife, Anne of Bohemia, or with Richard. If the former, then Richard may well produce an heir with Isabella. If the latter, no heirs, and the House of Mortimer inherits the throne.
 
well Richard was fond of the future Henry Vth because when his father first landed in England during his revolt the young Henry was with him, and Richard rather than executing him/ or use his as a hostage let him go

also i can not get the image out of mind of Henry Vth as Richard's main general :D
 
well Richard was fond of the future Henry Vth because when his father first landed in England during his revolt the young Henry was with him, and Richard rather than executing him/ or use his as a hostage let him go

also i can not get the image out of mind of Henry Vth as Richard's main general :D

This is all true, of course. But if Richard executes young Henry's father, can young Henry be trusted anymore, or would Richard worry about him seeking revenge?
 
well Richard was fond of the future Henry Vth because when his father first landed in England during his revolt the young Henry was with him, and Richard rather than executing him/ or use his as a hostage let him go

One of the issues which appeared as the pretext for Bolingbroke to rally support for his rebellion was the way Richard treated Gaunt´s inheritance. He refused to let exiled Bolingbroke to send deputies to administer it, and instead confiscated it.

What would the public opinion have been if Richard had promptly given the inheritance to young Henry? This would assert that Richard was not seizing a wealthy inheritance for himself. Besides, not declaring perpetual banishment instead of 10 years at that point would nicely set up an issue between young Henry and his father - if Richard officially declares that the father could return in 10 years but he would return penniless because the inheritance is for the son to keep, how´d they be getting along?
 
That would be interesting... but if Richard hadn't gone to Ireland with most of his Welsh Archers, it seems likely that he could have defeated Henry before he could gather support from his holdings and various disloyal nobles
 
That is a debatable, and largely outdated, interpretation. He may have had a narcissistic personality, but there is not really a historical basis for claiming insanity. The claims of insanity mainly trace back to Tudor historians and William Shakespeare.

Whether or not he was insane, he was a bad ruler. John of Gaunt was the man who really maintained law and order in the realm, and his death in 1399 took away that steady hand and precipitated a conflict between Bolingbroke and R II.

One problem...Edmund of Langley, Duke of York, would not necessarily have joined Bolingbroke if Richard had returned to England immediately. It was because Richard was delayed in returning, allowing Bolingbroke to move south quickly from Yorkshire to London (where Edmund was acting as Keeper of the Realm in the King's absence) that basically forced Edmund to side with Bolingbroke. The same might also have been true of other nobles as well.

The way that R II just surrendered leads me to believe that the various powers that be disliked him enough to not even bother trying to keep him around as an option if Bolingbroke didn't work out. Edmund could have opposed Henry, but he didn't. Edmund either didn't care anymore (he was near death, his brother was dead, and he didn't want to leave a civil war as his legacy) or he decided to throw in his lot with Henry. Either way, he decided decisively against Richard II.

IMO killing Bolingbroke in a last-ditch battle seems the only way for Richard II to maintain his throne, given my ideas about Edmund's politics.

Or, alternatively, Richard's purge of those who sided with Bolingbroke successfully eliminates the most dangerous potential troublemakers from his realm, and he is able to rule, albeit uneasily, in relative peace until his death.

He can't eliminate the most dangerous potential troublemakers, because at Henry Bolingbroke's death, there are so many descendants of John of Gaunt and Duke Edmund of York. He would need to kill every one of those cousins to eliminate the threats to his throne, and he simply can't do that. Since he can't, there will be the ever-present threat that disaffected lords will rally to one of his cousins, and usurp the throne.

Furthermore, even if he can suppress domestic unrest, France is eager to restart the war. So even if he manages to crush any domestic opposition to his rule, there is a willing foreign sponsor ready to back an attempt on the English throne. Indeed, it was the change in French policy that allowed Bolingbroke's attempt in the first place. An uneasy domestic situation, combined with a willing foreign sponsor, well, those are the conditions under which many English Kings lost their thrones.

This is all true, of course. But if Richard executes young Henry's father, can young Henry be trusted anymore, or would Richard worry about him seeking revenge?

Richard would have to off him. But if Bolingbroke is killed, one would think that young Hal would be whisked by Lancaster supporters to a foreign exile, where he can plot a triumphant return. Hal's first military exploits might be gaining the throne as Henry IV.
 
Top