Richard II

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
 
It may have depended on the sex of the child and when it was born. A girl could easily be married off to one of Henry's sons provided she is old enough. A boy could continue Richard's line. From what I remember about Richard's reign, he favored peace with France. If he had reigned longer, the last phase of the Hundred Years War may have been avoided. I still think that England would have lost Gascony in the long run.
 
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.

What did the Lancastrians have against Richards? :confused:

Is it some kind of weird Medieval name bigotry?

They didn't like Richard II because he became a little paranoid and went after several nobles with confiscations, exiles, etc, especially Bolingbroke.

Richard III was involved in the defeat and possibly the murder of Henry VI, the last Lancastrian king (besides which, Richard was a Yorkist).

I'm not aware of any problems they had with Richard I.
 
That's only because Richard I never hung around England long enough for them to decide what they hated him for.

Probably.
 
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.
 
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'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. He saw nobles as potential traitors or sycophants only, and essentially refused to trust any of them past the point where he could back-stab them first before they got him. 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.

Ultimately the reason why Henry took the throne boiled down to two things: Edward III had declared he and his father to be Richard's heirs, leading him to see himself as the natural follow-up to Richard, and he disagreed implicitly with Richard's actions and honestly believed that the kingdom would fall to turmoil and chaos if Richard were allowed to continue his personal rule. 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.

Incidentally, yes Richard was devoted to his wife. He was devastated when she died.

I'm not aware of any problems they had with Richard I.

There were no Dukes of Lancaster during Richard I's reign...
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Didn't Richard elevate Henry after the latter took part in the 1387 rebellion?

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.

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.

There were no Dukes of Lancaster during Richard I's reign...

I don't call that much of an excuse.
 
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.

Perhaps so, although I believe some historians question whether the Black Prince would have been a good King. He had a lot of the angry personality problems and distrust that Richard had.

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.

Can't agree there. Mortimer's biography of Henry IV shows Richard's tyrannical streak being quite clear from an early age. It got worse at the end, prompting Henry's intervention, but in many ways 1397 was not unexpected after Richard's first 16 years. Maybe Anne's death could have thrown Richard into a mental imbalance, but it was nothing he hadn't threatened to do before. He had repeatedly accused nobles to their faces of treason and had in his time tried to arrest or disempower every single noble of rank, simply because he didn't trust anyone with power.

Perhaps it would help if I quoted Mortimer here. I apologise for the long quote, but it's all so relevant :D:

---------------------

"Historians have argued for many years over whether Richard went mad in 1397. In the mid-twentieth century it was thought that he had indeed lost his mind, and the death of Queen Anne was identified as one of the catalysts. But this really is a modern myth; there is no evidence of madness in the king, just as ever-increasing tendency to rule his subjects through the medium of terror. In explaining their actions in 1397-8, the lords who were later arraigned for treason all pleaded that they had been frightened of the king. It was a genuine excuse; anyone in their position would have been scared. Even those intimate and trusted friends of the king, who were given high titles and extensive lands, were only favoured so long as they followed the king's orders. Modern scholars now see Richard as essentially narcissistic, convinced of his own perfection, and yet deeply insecure. We might elaborate on this slightly and say that he was exceptionally self-conscious: so much so that his own identity, royal personage, ideas, rivalries and feelings formed not only the core but the limit of his entire world. As a result, with no real balance or objective view of himself and his kingdom, he suffered from a chronic lack of self-confidence, which made him by turns unreasonably angry and vengeful, as well as unreasonably generous, unjustifiably king and increasingly paranoid. Moreover, these characteristics were noticeable from an early age: in his sacking of the chancellor for disagreeing with him, for example. When he rode out in front of the crowd during the Peasant's Revolt, aged fourteen, he may have been very brave in the eyes of the expectant public, but he was driven by his own narcissistic obsession with himself and his powers as a monarch. Now, sixteen years later, he was wiser and more artful, but no one now believed he was a great leader. He was a thirty-year-old who still had something about him of the boy who pulls the legs off spiders - not because he is interested in insects or likes causing pain but because he has an unending fascination with the contrast between his inner fear and his apparent power.

-------------------------

I Didn't Richard elevate Henry after the latter took part in the 1387 rebellion?

He was made Duke of Hereford in 1397, ten years later. But then Richard also had a history of granting priviledges as a temporary measure to secure the loyalties of nobles at crucial points. He named three different men as his heir at different times, after all, merely to use them under a form of control.

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.

I'm not so sure about the last sentence - I'd put it more as Henry rebelling when he was pushed beyond the point of his tolerance. In the event of an organised rising against him it might be hard for Richard as he had cheesed off so many nobles, and the entire City of London was against him, so they would be all too happy to lock their gates with him stuck outside, as indeed they did do in 1399. But yes, if Richard survived longer then he could see his son grow up.
 
Top