Richard II of England.

WI: Richard II dies in 1395, of grief over the death of his queen Anne. Does Roger Mortimer succeed him? Could there have been an earlier version of the Wars of the Roses? What happens in France? Do the French take sides with one of the warring English faction and as a result are able to recover Gascony? If the war breaks out a generation earlier, does this mean that the English re-conquest of Normany never happens ?
 

Krall

Banned
I think medical science has advanced to the point where we can state that, without a shadow of a doubt, people do not die of grief.
 
I think medical science has advanced to the point where we can state that, without a shadow of a doubt, people do not die of grief.

Actually, a large number of people - especially men - die soon after their long term partner. While grief isn't the scientific cause of death, it is the real cause.
 
Interesting. I'm reading a biography of Henry IV, and I'm up to 1396. The biographer claims that Henry and Richard haven't been looked at thoroughly or intelligently enough by biographers in the past (it's an Ian Mortimer book if anyone is curious) and actually goes so far as to claim that his book is the first to ever analyse motives to draw conclusions, so there may be a lot of contrasting opinions, but he draws the conclusion that by this point, though the factions weren't fully formed, John of Gaunt steadfastly believed in his heirship to the crown (Edward signed a private agreement to make John Richard's heir) and was trying to butter Richard up to advance the cause for Henry, knowing that he (John) was too unpopular and old to take the crown himself. Richard, however, having not known either father or grandfather, had grown up teaching himself how to rule, and is characterised as being either insecure or egotistical enough that he wouldn't permit any noble the light of day unless that noble was wholeheartedly devoted to the king. So Richard constantly played off noble against noble against noble, and while it was too dangerous for John to go against Richard (Richard had tried to have John assassinated a decade ago, and was protecting the leaders of a rebellion with a public stated aim to call for the English, honest to God, to lynch and kill John and Henry for not being loyal enough) Henry was not at all deceived and knew that Richard would never recognise him.

However, Mortimer also claims there is weighty evidence that Richard didn't even want the Earl of March as his heir either. Mortimer draws the opinion that Richard's declaration of March as his heir was specifically because March was a child at the time (this was also about 10 years ago). The idea was that March was therefore unable to weigh into politics, and therefore could exercise no independent thought which could ruin Richard's scheming, so he therefore became a perfect pawn in Richard's plans. He existed only as a threat to Richard's rivals to coy them into submission. However, March hadn't forgotten that he had been promised the throne, and now he was older he was starting to agitate to be treated as Richard's number two, which Richard wasn't prepared to accept (because March was displaying too much independent will Richard now viewed him as a threat).

In fact, Mortimer speculates that, with the aging Duke of York being appointed to a number of positions of honour - he was, for instance, tasked with heading the deputation to France to arrange Richard's marriage to the King of France's sister - that this was a tacit show that Richard had selected York to be his heir (at this point, as long as one had a strong blood claim many believed that the king could modify the succession to allow candidates with better credentials to rise higher, and Mortimer says Richard was abusing his 'right' to do so) believing that the Duke would die soon (he was about 55) and that his son would be much more controllable if the throne was dangled as a carrot for good behaviour.

On top of this, an interesting thing is that in peace negotiations with France, the French kept insisting that the Lancastrians be appointed Dukes of Gascony. This is not likely to be because they thought the Lancastrians were the true heirs; quite the opposite in fact. The deal which made John Richard's heir was a secret agreement that none, even John, ever spoke of and Mortimer claims only about 10 people even knew of its existence. This clause is more likely to be because the French believed that with a Duke of Gascony who WASN'T the King of England, they could persuade the Duke to change allegiance, or certainly not be an English puppet at any rate. In reply, the English kept lobbying for the King to be made Duke of Gascony with no homage to be made to France in perpetuity. The main reason warfare in Gascony was so internecine in this period was just this - even when one side lost, they never would accept anything but being treated as though they had won.

If I were to speculate, I'd say the country would break into three or maybe even four factions, with each of the main claimants, each branch of Edward III's male heirs, claiming the throne. Politics would go all over the place as factions made and broke alliances. I really couldn't speculate as to who would win, but in 1395 there were three men who believed they were Richard's heir and that would mean fighting. And yes, Gascony would be brought in, but I think the French wouldn't claim it for themselves - not immediately anyway. I think rather they would offer its throne to any candidate who seemed weak, and basically would keep using it to prolong the English civil war, by boosting its weakest factions.

I really couldn't speculate as to who would win without pulling names out of the air.
 
Top