What would have happened if Richard II's wife Anne of Bohemia gave birth to a child. Would the Lancaster's attempt to overthrow Richard and how would Richard II remaining on the throne longer effect England and Europe as a whole
What did the Lancastrians have against Richards?
Is it some kind of weird Medieval name bigotry?
Richard quite possibly actually loved Anne; it would certainly explain why he married her instead of one of the Milanese girls when an alliance with Bohemia wasn't much of a political catch.
He didn't really become the tyrant he's painted as by the Lancastrians until after her death, so maybe she was a good influence on him. If she survived longer Richard could well not get into the feud with Bolingbroke.
Richard would probably have lived a while longer than in OTL; despite his sickly childhood he was a healthy adult. Ending the war with France would be a distinct possibility. If he has a son, the Plantagenet line continues.
I'm not aware of any problems they had with Richard I.
I've just read a 350 page biography of Henry IV - one that goes into some length and makes a lot of effort to diagnose why certain characters did certain things, and I can't agree with this. All of Ian Mortimer's evidence points to Richard's child King upbringing and the trouble of his early reign as to why he became a tyrant. Mortimer concludes somewhat decisively that Richard, having seen the turmoil of the peasants' rebellion, with memories of Edward II's dethroning, and such, decided from about the age of 14 (when the peasants' rebellion happened) that he thought the only way that England could be secure is if he took all power himself.
This started before he married. While Anne might have cooled his temper a few times, she couldn't control him and she wouldn't have affected his temprement - remember that they were married from 1382 to 1394, during which some of the most turbulent points of his reign happened.
This was particularly linked to the way that Richard had continued to abuse his position to get rid of anyone who opposed him - he tried to have Henry IV publicly assassinated on three occasions and fostered and encouraged a Cheshire rebellion which also wanted the Lancastrians murdered.
Richard having an heir won't change this, and in this era it was generally seen as disruptive and dangerous to have a child King (Richard II himself was proof of this) so it is entirely likely that any child of Richard would be disinherited by Henry.
There were no Dukes of Lancaster during Richard I's reign...
I heard he was really gay and that his marriage to Anne was not even consummated. In that case he would never have had any children by her.
I agree that Richard reigning from such an early age was the primary reason for his later tyrannical behaviour. The best thing for Richard would probably have been his father or maybe his brother surviving Edward III for a time, giving Richard a good example of kingship to study at firsthand and Richard coming to the throne when he's older, more experienced and less likely to be regarded as weak.
I Started, yes, but I don't think it was inevitable that it would reach the crisis it did in 1397. It was only after Anne's death that the 'Tyranny of Richard II' began. Given that Richard's mental state was somewhat fragile, I don't think it's an entirely implausible hypothesis that grief at her death tipped Richard over the edge.
I Didn't Richard elevate Henry after the latter took part in the 1387 rebellion?
I Need Richard's son still be a child when Richard dies? Richard was, I believe, in good health up until his death, so he might well reign for longer without Bolingbroke's rebellion, which can easily be avoided - Henry only rebelled when he had nothing to lose.