Richard II - Different Bride and Longer Reign?

King Richard II of England and his wife Anne of Bohemia were married for 12 years before her death in 1394. Despite the length of the marriage, Anne died childless leading to rumors that either she or Richard was sterile (It’s never been proven which is the case so let’s assume Richard II could produce an heir). I find it surprising that the childless Richard, the last direct heir of Plantagenet Dynasty, did not immediately remarry in 1394/5. It’s even more surprising and odd that Richard II was betrothed to Isabella, a 6 year old. I know that this betrothal was designed to seal a major truce between France and England but I would have thought that succession would have been a keen and pressing subject in Richard’s court and thus they could have pressured him to marry an older bride capable of producing an heir sooner rather than later. In fact, I think Richard’s lack of an heir was likely a contributing factor in Henry IV’s willingness to depose Richard and crown himself King.

Who are potential brides of Richard II and what impact would they and a potential heir have on Richard II. Also how would a longer reign of Richard II and the lack of the Lancaster Dynasty affect England, France and the region?Was a War of the Roses style conflict inevitable and would England's monarchs slowly assert more Royal Authority over the nobility as Richard II attempted?
 
Yolande could be quite interesting, she brings with her a claim to Aragon as well does she not?

Plus she was said to be quite intellectually saavy
 
About Richard marrying Yolande

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=380196

About the rights to the crown of Aragon... he first needs a son. Then, a bit of luck.

Thank you Kurt, I thought I came across a similar discussion recently but was unable to locate it. Warrant I didn't do a detailed search because I am on my phone in an airport.

I think the discussion on the linked thread plus my own personal interest means its time to do a little more research on the subject and roll the dice and see if I want to maybe craft a TL
 
King Richard II of England and his wife Anne of Bohemia were married for 12 years before her death in 1394. Despite the length of the marriage, Anne died childless leading to rumors that either she or Richard was sterile (It’s never been proven which is the case so let’s assume Richard II could produce an heir). I find it surprising that the childless Richard, the last direct heir of Plantagenet Dynasty, did not immediately remarry in 1394/5. It’s even more surprising and odd that Richard II was betrothed to Isabella, a 6 year old. I know that this betrothal was designed to seal a major truce between France and England but I would have thought that succession would have been a keen and pressing subject in Richard’s court and thus they could have pressured him to marry an older bride capable of producing an heir sooner rather than later. In fact, I think Richard’s lack of an heir was likely a contributing factor in Henry IV’s willingness to depose Richard and crown himself King.

Who are potential brides of Richard II and what impact would they and a potential heir have on Richard II. Also how would a longer reign of Richard II and the lack of the Lancaster Dynasty affect England, France and the region?Was a War of the Roses style conflict inevitable and would England's monarchs slowly assert more Royal Authority over the nobility as Richard II attempted?

I just finished a biography on Richard II and I think I can shed some light on the second marriage of the King. To begin with, part of the reason was money. Anne of Bohemia, despite being a daughter of the Emperor and sister of the King of the Romans, brought no dowry and in fact cost the English as King Wenzel needed a loan from his new brother-in-law.

Therefore the English were determined to get Richard a wealthy second bride. No country was more wealthy than France at this point. I mean Isabella's dowry was 1,000,000 francs, a massive sum. The installation payments from Paris allowed Richard more or less financial independence from Parliament in his "tyranny" of 1397-1399.

The only other Princess that's mentioned as being a serious player was Yolande of Aragon. The possible Anglo-Aragonese alliance is what led the French to offer Richard Isabella in the first place.

As for the succession, the issue was there but wasn't as important as it was to say, Henry VIII. In 1394/1395 there was no reason to think of the Earl of Derby as disloyal. Hell his father Lancaster was the Crown's biggest supporter. Plus the heir presumptive (to some anyway) was the Earl of March, the King's cousin, who was himself only 21 (he only died in 1398). At the time of the marriage to Isabella the succession seemed fairly stable. The King was young and healthy, as was his heir (either March or Derby) and both potential successors had sons. With hindsight its easy to see the crisis that was created but at the time it was apparent to no one.

However, I do agree that if Richard had a son there would have been no Lancastrian Dynasty. At worst Richard would be deposed and killed and replaced with his son, like Edward II and Edward III. At best it might keep more of the magnates and gentry loyal to the King over his cousin, saving his throne.
 
Constantine, do you mind if I ask for the name of the book and what exactly it focused on? Was it a general history or did it mostly focus on his period of “Tyranny”? Lastly would you recommend it?
 
Constantine, do you mind if I ask for the name of the book and what exactly it focused on? Was it a general history or did it mostly focus on his period of “Tyranny”? Lastly would you recommend it?

Sure. Its Richard II by Nigel Saul. Its a bio on Richard from his early years to his deposition and death and is part of the English Monarch bio series. As for recommendation, its a bit dry but a great source on Richard and his reign.
 
Sure. Its Richard II by Nigel Saul. Its a bio on Richard from his early years to his deposition and death and is part of the English Monarch bio series. As for recommendation, its a bit dry but a great source on Richard and his reign.

I do find Saul very much a Henry IV fanboy, always putting Richard in the poorest light. For one instance, Saul doesn't mantion Henry risking his eldest son's life by his invasion.
 
I do find Saul very much a Henry IV fanboy, always putting Richard in the poorest light. For one instance, Saul doesn't mantion Henry risking his eldest son's life by his invasion.

I think at the end its less fanboy and more anti-Richard. I find his idea that Richard was a narcissist to be compelling but some of his conclusions about the end of the reign are made with the value of hindsight, not with a view of what was happening in 1399. The idea that, without Bolingbroke's invasion, Richard's reign was still doomed is to me ridiculous.
 
Top