Richard II dies in 1399

Let's say Richard II is in Ireland in 1399, when he suffers an accident and dies. What happens next?

By this point, Richard has already confiscated the Lancastrian estates thus denying Bolingbroke his inheritance, a child Mortimer is Earl of March and technically Richard's heir.

Would Bolingbroke invade England and claim the throne, or would Mortimer's supporters try and place the boy King on the throne? Does it descend into civil war or a peaceful ascension?
 
Let's say Richard II is in Ireland in 1399, when he suffers an accident and dies. What happens next?

By this point, Richard has already confiscated the Lancastrian estates thus denying Bolingbroke his inheritance, a child Mortimer is Earl of March and technically Richard's heir.

Would Bolingbroke invade England and claim the throne, or would Mortimer's supporters try and place the boy King on the throne? Does it descend into civil war or a peaceful ascension?


Except that Langley is Richard's heir and I think there would be war between Langley and Bolingbroke.
 
I think what happens here is

Langley is offered the throne
Langley declines in no uncertain terms
He restores Bolingbroke to his lands and titles (maaaayyyybbbbee keep the lands he got for himself)
He serves as regent for Mortimer
 
Was he? And would there be? Langley doesn't seem to have given much thought to the political situation. The man willingly bent the knee to Bolingbroke.

Ian Mortimer claims that Richard entailed the throne to Langley and @material_boy mentioned once that after Richard's deposition, parliament chose between Langley and Bolingbroke after Richard's deposition.
 
I think what happens here is

Langley is offered the throne
Langley declines in no uncertain terms
He restores Bolingbroke to his lands and titles (maaaayyyybbbbee keep the lands he got for himself)
He serves as regent for Mortimer

Hmm interesting, but if he's declined the throne he can't restore Bolingbroke to his lands and titles, as he doesn't have that power. At least he won't unless recognised as regent.
Ian Mortimer claims that Richard entailed the throne to Langley and @material_boy mentioned once that after Richard's deposition, parliament chose between Langley and Bolingbroke after Richard's deposition.

I see
 
I think Langley's the obvious choice for being regent here. Edmund and John Mortimer are untitled so doubtful of the Lords accepting him, Bolingbroke is still technically exiled, his sons untitled and too young, leaving Langley to take up the mantle.

Assuming obviously that everyone doesn't go axe-crazy.
 
I think Langley's the obvious choice for being regent here. Edmund and John Mortimer are untitled so doubtful of the Lords accepting him, Bolingbroke is still technically exiled, his sons untitled and too young, leaving Langley to take up the mantle.

Assuming obviously that everyone doesn't go axe-crazy.

Indeed, and of course assuming that Langley holds firm if Bolingbroke comes with an armed body of men
 
Hmm interesting, but if he's declined the throne he can't restore Bolingbroke to his lands and titles, as he doesn't have that power. At least he won't unless recognised as regent.


I see

I think that everyone's overestimating Mortimer, he's just a boy, he is not going to have many supporters.
 
Well, yes, but the difference would be that his reign would be more stable without him forcibly deposing Richard and murdering him, John Holland would most likely keep his head on shoulders

Indeed, there won't be an epiphany rising, and certainly no plots completely centred on the Mortimers I think. Though Gwyndr may still rebel
 
Top