N/A

Really, absolutely no interest? No possible debate could arise from contemplation of a radically different Third Crusade, or a successful King John (considering that he was probably the next most powerful figure once Henry II died, after Richard in 1189)?

Not so fast w/John. Don't forget Geoffrey, whose OTL death may well be butterflied away by Richard's earlier demise. Long live King Geoffrey I!
 
Lord Grattan said:
Not so fast w/John. Don't forget Geoffrey, whose OTL death may well be butterflied away by Richard's earlier demise. Long live King Geoffrey I!

Not so fast with Geoffrey : I think the event mentionned by 037771 happened shortly before Henry II's death, meaning 1189. Geoffrey accidentally killed himself in 1186 : he won't become King in that scenario.

We just get an earlier opposition between Arthur of Britanny, son of Geoffrey, and John Lackland, as happened after Richard's death OTL.

Question is : does John participate in the Third Crusade? Is Arthur put on the throne under Regency? How does Philip Augustus look on this turn of events?

I can only partially answer to the third question. With Richard dead in 1189, Philip Augustus would probably be saddened once more by the death of one of his friends, in this case Richard. That would be the third Plantagenêt son he would see the funerals.
This does proves good for him though : Arthur is very young and Philip was a close friend and ally of his mother Constance : he could make a perfect puppet. And if there are arguments between John and Arthur, then Philip could take advantage of this situation.
 
Marshall may very well be executed for the killing of Richard as part of a deal to patch up relations between the family.

This does bring us to a rather tricky situation however. Henry II had promised to go on Crusade, and Richard as the elder son took up this obligation when his father died. John may be required in some legal sense to do so as well, but I think that given that England has a very shaky dynastic position, this may well be waived to allow John to remain in the country and sort out the succession pronto. After Henry II, the throne passes to his 2 year-old grandson Arthur of Brittany, then John and then we have to go to the female children of Henry II on account on there being no other male heirs (even going back to beyond William I). We actually get Henry V, Count Palatine as a result of this, and he's 16.

Essentially,John needs to marry. John probably doesn't marry Isabel, Countess of Gloucester in this situation (the marriage was forbidden to be consumated by the Pope even when he lifted the forced annulment), and as Isabella of Angouleme is only 1 at this point, she's out the running as well. Perhaps the recently bereaved Countess of Brittany?

John is almost certainly regent in this situation, though we could have a Richard III situation with John (who is suspected of killing Arthur OTL in any case). Unlike Richard I, John has an uncontested hold on the throne/regency as he is Henry's only surviving legitimate son. I doubt this makes him any better an administrator or General, so if he stays in England, he's just as likely to piss of the Barons.
 
Last edited:
Technically John could press his claim to the throne of England due to proximity of blood (IIRC he did OTL) and actually being of age.
Of course his claim to Normandy, Greater Anjou, and Aquitaine are less certain.
We could see a division of the Angevin lands.
 
Probably not. John may not have been an idiot, but he wasn't a good general. Look at how fast he lost the Angevin Empire OTL.
 
Top