Lionel of Antwerp was the Duke of Clarence as the second eldest surviving son of Edward III, he died in 1368 at the age of thirty leaving behind a daughter. What might have happened had he not died in 1368 and been around for the next couple of decades?
Big question is whether he has a son by his new marriage. If so it's likely to be much harder for Henry IV to claim the throne in 1399. If Lionel's son is alive his claim is obviously stronger, while if he goes to Ireland and gets killed, that means Roger Mortimer doesn't, so either way Henry has an adult rival rather than a child.
Okay interesting, let's say Lionel does have a son from his second marriage, what influence might this son have on events?
Depends how he gets on with Richard II.
If they fall out, Richard may still get deposed, only by someone else. If they don't the Duke of Clarence is the unquestioned heir to the throne. He may go to Ireland instead of Roger Mortimer, in which case it all depends on whether he returns alive or not. Of course there's no knowing whether his advice to Richard will be good or bad, or whether Richard will listen to it either way.
First issue how involved in the regency he would he have been? Would he have overshadowed his younger brother John of Gaunt? Or would it of been relatively equal?
Second issue would he have taken his brother Thomas's side with the Lord Appellants or his nephew and kings? If he would of taken his king's side there is a good chance the rebellion would of failed. If he took his brother's side or actually led the Lord Appellants there is a decent chance they would of been more successful, keeping the king a puppet until Clarence's death.
Let us say Lionel has a son, Edward, in 1370, another son, Lionel, in 1373 and a daughter in 1379. He has a strong say in government when his nephew is in his minority, and helps put down the Lord Appellants why his younger brother, John, is off pursuing his claim on the Crown of Castile. His brother, Thomas, is murdered and attained and his nephew Bolingbroke is tried an executed for treason. Becoming a favorite he gets several more land grants and is by far the richest man in England.
In 1389 John of Gaunt comes home to invade England to avenge what he sees as his son's murder. After a year of War Gaunt is victorious and starts executing all who he thinks has anything to do with his son's murder, starting with his older brother Lionel who is executed and attained with treason in 1390, just stopping short of murdering the king. Edward Lionel's Heir flees with his brother Lionel to France.
After four years of John of Gaunt's rule and his refusal to restore Edward's patrimony, Edward invades to restore the king and his own rightful Honour. After months of bloody war Edward looks to be winning and in bitterness and final revenge John of Gaunt declares himself king, after Richard is murdered by his own hand. Not long after John of Gaunt looses and is tried and executed as a traitor, drawn and quartered for regicide, and Edward is the unquestioned King.
Okay interesting.
Well what makes you think Bolingbroke would be executed for his role? As far as I am aware Richard II did not punish him for his role in the events of the Lords Appellant. If Clarence does support the king during the lords appellant affair, would he argue for his brother to survive or not? And I am tempted to say he would have overshadowed his younger brother during the regency
I think the main reason Bolingbroke wasn't punished was that his father John of Gaunt was one of the main reason's that Richard was restored to power. Richard II didn't seem to be a forgiving man, so without Gaunt's intervention after he helped restore him, I do not see Bolingbroke being saved; Richard II ordered the murder of his uncle Thomas so family feeling was secondary to revenge.
Okay I see, so if Clarence is still kicking around this time, I guess that's Bolingbroke gone, though considering Gaunt was willing to see his son exiled following the aborted duel, would he kick up a fuss for his son's treason?
If he took his brother's side or actually led the Lord Appellants there is a decent chance they would of been more successful, keeping the king a puppet until Clarence's death.
If Lionel joins the Lords Appellant, isn't Richard liable to be deposed altogether?
Lionel, unlike Gloucester or Bolingbroke, is the undisputed heir to the throne. So why settle for half-measures?
A temporary Exile is different then execution. But I was trying to be intentionally dramatic. But I do think it would be possible my scenario happens, I read somewhere that one of the reasons John of Gaunt wasn't named Lord Protector in Edward III's will was that he was a little afraid that his son might usurp the throne with no council to inhibit him. He might of come back and supported the King, to secure the Duchy of Lancaster for his son John Beaufort. Especially, if he was assured that John would be fully legitimized with fully dynastic rights attached. Kind of like what Richard II did in otl but clearer in favor of right to the throne.
If Lionel joins the Lords Appellant, isn't Richard liable to be deposed altogether?
Lionel, unlike Gloucester or Bolingbroke, is the undisputed heir to the throne. So why settle for half-measures?
It would be unprecedented at that point an heir to the throne deposing the King, and it would set a bad precedent, like it did in our time line but worse. What if Richard named another heir when Lionel joins the Lord Appellants? If that person was of Royal blood they would then have a superior claim by precedent at that time. Then Lionel would have the same problem Bolingbroke had, a rival claimant, with a superior claim. Lionel might win anyway and set a new precedent that primogeniture is a superior claim to the previous kings nomination, but it would taint his reign and very possible his heirs. If you keep Richard as a puppet and have him declare you heir and then basically rule as king, and the old king dies after a couple of years there might be less taint on his reign and his succession would most definitely be cleaner. Oh and he would less likely to have civil war with his brother John of Gaunt who by all appearances was pretty loyal to Richard at that point, and it would give John a honorable excuse to try to take the throne himself or restore the rightful king richard. With Richard as King and a Hostage puppet it would be harder to challenge him. Lionel wouldn't be a tainted king then only a high noble forcing a tyrant king to do something which was traditional at that point in English history.
At least that was my reasoning, but he might very well just force Richard's abdication, it would depend on his political position and his hunger for the title and power.