Richard the Lionheart survives

On April 6th, 1199, King Richard died after a wound from a crossbow bolt turned gangrenous; which wound having been taken during the siege of Château de Châlus-Chabrol.

What if the Lionheart had never been wounded? How might English history have developed from there?

For one thing, King Richard was just 42 when he died. If he avoided that crossbow bolt, he could very easily have reigned for another 15-20 years. This would have delayed the accession of Prince John to the throne and, very possibly, butterflied Magna Carta out of existence.

What sayeth the hive mind on this?

 
On April 6th, 1199, King Richard died after a wound from a crossbow bolt turned gangrenous; which wound having been taken during the siege of Château de Châlus-Chabrol.

What if the Lionheart had never been wounded? How might English history have developed from there?

For one thing, King Richard was just 42 when he died. If he avoided that crossbow bolt, he could very easily have reigned for another 15-20 years. This would have delayed the accession of Prince John to the throne and, very possibly, butterflied Magna Carta out of existence.

What sayeth the hive mind on this?
If he continues to be childless, Arthur would be his successor.
 
If he continues to be childless, Arthur would be his successor.
Most likely yes, Arthur will be his heir as John also would be childless (as he would likely be unable to set aside his first wife, uninterested in doing it as he had married her for her lands AND surely would not remarry to Isabelle d'Angouleme, who will marry directly Hugh X of Lusignan to which she was engaged (if her cousin Maud married Hugh IX as second wife when she was still in single digits or barely in her teens she must have married him shortly after the annulment of Hugh’s first wedding and not as replacement for Isabella, plus Hugh X was a couple of years older than Isabella).
So, assuming who Richard will stay childless, we will have a secure succession for Arthur, a Plantagenet Empire who will include at least Normandy, Anjou and Brittany on the continent (as Eleanor can always designated another grandson as eventual heir of her lands) and a France without casus belli for taking Angevin lands and against a great commander if they try to do it...
 
Most likely yes, Arthur will be his heir as John also would be childless (as he would likely be unable to set aside his first wife, uninterested in doing it as he had married her for her lands AND surely would not remarry to Isabelle d'Angouleme, who will marry directly Hugh X of Lusignan to which she was engaged (if her cousin Maud married Hugh IX as second wife when she was still in single digits or barely in her teens she must have married him shortly after the annulment of Hugh’s first wedding and not as replacement for Isabella, plus Hugh X was a couple of years older than Isabella).
So, assuming who Richard will stay childless, we will have a secure succession for Arthur, a Plantagenet Empire who will include at least Normandy, Anjou and Brittany on the continent (as Eleanor can always designated another grandson as eventual heir of her lands) and a France without casus belli for taking Angevin lands and against a great commander if they try to do it...
Sounds like my kinda scenario
 
Most likely yes, Arthur will be his heir as John also would be childless (as he would likely be unable to set aside his first wife, uninterested in doing it as he had married her for her lands AND surely would not remarry to Isabelle d'Angouleme, who will marry directly Hugh X of Lusignan to which she was engaged (if her cousin Maud married Hugh IX as second wife when she was still in single digits or barely in her teens she must have married him shortly after the annulment of Hugh’s first wedding and not as replacement for Isabella, plus Hugh X was a couple of years older than Isabella).
So, assuming who Richard will stay childless, we will have a secure succession for Arthur, a Plantagenet Empire who will include at least Normandy, Anjou and Brittany on the continent (as Eleanor can always designated another grandson as eventual heir of her lands) and a France without casus belli for taking Angevin lands and against a great commander if they try to do it...
Possible butterflies
>Arthur of Brittany marries Sanchia of Portugal or a bride that would produce heirs
>Urraca of Castile marries Louis VIII
>Eleanor of Brittany would marry Peter II of Aragon or Alfonso II of Portugal, the first butterflies Peter II's involvement in the Cathar crusades.
>Henry II of Champagne's daughters inherits Champagne not Theobald and Theobald is given Aquitaine.
>Theobald of Champagne inherits Aquitaine, remember, Theobald married Blanche of Navarre, that might be part of the arrangement or Odo of Brunswick inherits Aquitaine or we can get the daughters of Henry II be given Aquitaine as a consolation to not inheriting Champagne.
 
Last edited:
Possible butterflies
>Arthur of Brittany marries Sanchia of Portugal or a bride that would produce heirs
>Urraca of Castile marries Louis VIII
>Eleanor of Brittany would marry Peter II of Aragon or Alfonso II of Portugal, the first butterflies Peter II's involvement in the Cathar crusades.
>Henry II of Champagne's daughters inherits Champagne not Theobald and Theobald is given Aquitaine.
>Theobald of Champagne inherits Aquitaine, remember, Theobald married Blanche of Navarre, that might be part of the arrangement or Odo of Brunswick inherits Aquitaine or we can get the daughters of Henry II be given Aquitaine as a consolation to not inheriting Champagne.
Aquitaine will not be treated as consolation prize for anyone and will go to Henry II’s descendants...
I think who the reasons who pushed Eleanor of Aquitaine to choose Blanca instead of Urraca will remain the same so Blanca will still be Queen of France (unless Philip II is able to get Eleanor of Brittany for his heir)
Arthur and Eleanor of Brittany would surely marry someone and have heirs (a double match for them with the children of Philip II of France can not be excluded)
If Otto of Brunswick is elected Emperor as OTL and/or is childless he will not inherit Aquitaine from Richard (so Aquitaine will go to Arthur with everything else)
 
Aquitaine will not be treated as consolation prize for anyone and will go to Henry II’s descendants...
I think who the reasons who pushed Eleanor of Aquitaine to choose Blanca instead of Urraca will remain the same so Blanca will still be Queen of France (unless Philip II is able to get Eleanor of Brittany for his heir)
Arthur and Eleanor of Brittany would surely marry someone and have heirs (a double match for them with the children of Philip II of France can not be excluded)
If Otto of Brunswick is elected Emperor as OTL and/or is childless he will not inherit Aquitaine from Richard (so Aquitaine will go to Arthur with everything else)
>I think a marriage between the King of Aragon and Eleanor of Brittany is possible since the Plantagenets and Barcelona both have issues in Toulouse, I think Queen Constance of Hungary or Eleanor of Aragon can marry Duke Arthur.

>I think Theobald of Champagne can inherit Aquitaine especially if his brother has kids, I think Champagne inherited by Henry II of Champagne's 2 heiresses can happen and Theobald inheriting Aquitaine is possible since IOTL he married Blanca of Navarre, since that might be her OTL plans and Eleanor might support her great-grandchildren, Alice and Philippa in Champagne.
 
Arthur II, by the Grace of God King of England, Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascony

Would Arthur inherit the countships of Poitiers, Anjiou, Maine and Nantes?
Absolutely. Anjou and Maine are his male line inheritance, Poitou more often than not was given to the heir of Aquitaine and for Nantes he is both Henry II’s grandson and the Duke of Brittany so would have not reason for leaving it to anyone else

Wouldn’t he be Arthur I?
Yes, he would.
 
1)I think a marriage between the King of Aragon and Eleanor of Brittany is possible since the Plantagenets and Barcelona both have issues in Toulouse, I think Queen Constance of Hungary or Eleanor of Aragon can marry Duke Arthur.

>I think Theobald of Champagne can inherit Aquitaine especially if his brother has kids, I think Champagne inherited by Henry II of Champagne's 2 heiresses can happen and Theobald inheriting Aquitaine is possible since IOTL he married Blanca of Navarre, since that might be her OTL plans and Eleanor might support her great-grandchildren, Alice and Philippa in Champagne.
1) Possible but a double French wedding for Eleanor and Arthur is still more likely.
2) Pretty unlikely the Plantagenets will accept that. Aquitaine will be inherited from the heirs of Eleanor’s second wedding not from the descendants of the first
 
One has to wonder if in this TL, Richard will be remembered LESS fondly than OTL? Sure, John has still tarnished his reputation, but the English might come to resent being treated as Richard's black credit card, no?
 
One has to wonder if in this TL, Richard will be remembered LESS fondly than OTL? Sure, John has still tarnished his reputation, but the English might come to resent being treated as Richard's black credit card, no?
I think so, without the crusading hero narrative to compare with John the idiot, Richard rhe lionheart might be seen more poorly. Unless he hits French is on the nose a fair few times
 
I think so, without the crusading hero narrative to compare with John the idiot, Richard rhe lionheart might be seen more poorly. Unless he hits French is on the nose a fair few times
I suspect he would have a very split legacy - a conqueror and warrior, who trammeled the heathens, humbled the French and secured a lasting dynasty, but who achieved it by neglecting England, taxing it to support his armies and revelled in war.

Scenario 1
Might the English Barons revolt anyway if we have a king absent on the continent, pouring English Treasure into French adventures? Where would he spend most time? Would the Barons see him as essentially a foreign king who uses them as his purse? I can imagine him using force to get his taxes leading to an alt Magna Carta (though he might actually WIN rather than be forced to sign it).

Scenario 2
All this assumes of course he is some medieval Napoleon and not just an above average but not infallible war-leader. Suppose is the latter, and he survives/avoids his OTL fatal injury, then rampages around the continent, spilling English blood and gold, but overreaches himself and dies/is captured/retreats with the loss of more of his holdings. Then he's a blood thirsty, irresponsible tyrant - and we probably get a revolt at home refusing to bankroll a failure if hes alive or a civil war when his heir tries to go back after his failed ventures.

Scenario 3
He IS as good at killing people as we think he is. He secures his current possessions, subdues a couple more, vassalises a few more and the King of France kneels to him pleading to be allowed to remain king. He is also a skilled politician and sets up strong marriage alliances, rewards his English supporters, shows his face in England and keeps a good balance of power in France. Does his empire collapse within two generations? does it lead to a permanent division in France, with a big chunk now in an alt United Kingdom with England? Does he or his successors decide to pacify the Welsh/Scottish/Irish?

Frankly I think 1 or 2 are most likley. 3 requires him to be a mix of Napoleon, Bismarck and Nostradamus.
 
I suspect he would have a very split legacy - a conqueror and warrior, who trammeled the heathens, humbled the French and secured a lasting dynasty, but who achieved it by neglecting England, taxing it to support his armies and revelled in war.

Scenario 1
Might the English Barons revolt anyway if we have a king absent on the continent, pouring English Treasure into French adventures? Where would he spend most time? Would the Barons see him as essentially a foreign king who uses them as his purse? I can imagine him using force to get his taxes leading to an alt Magna Carta (though he might actually WIN rather than be forced to sign it).

Scenario 2
All this assumes of course he is some medieval Napoleon and not just an above average but not infallible war-leader. Suppose is the latter, and he survives/avoids his OTL fatal injury, then rampages around the continent, spilling English blood and gold, but overreaches himself and dies/is captured/retreats with the loss of more of his holdings. Then he's a blood thirsty, irresponsible tyrant - and we probably get a revolt at home refusing to bankroll a failure if hes alive or a civil war when his heir tries to go back after his failed ventures.

Scenario 3
He IS as good at killing people as we think he is. He secures his current possessions, subdues a couple more, vassalises a few more and the King of France kneels to him pleading to be allowed to remain king. He is also a skilled politician and sets up strong marriage alliances, rewards his English supporters, shows his face in England and keeps a good balance of power in France. Does his empire collapse within two generations? does it lead to a permanent division in France, with a big chunk now in an alt United Kingdom with England? Does he or his successors decide to pacify the Welsh/Scottish/Irish?

Frankly I think 1 or 2 are most likley. 3 requires him to be a mix of Napoleon, Bismarck and Nostradamus.
Agreed, I also think most of the barons who rebelled against JOhn would probably be a bit scared to do it against Richard. Richard has a reputation of being a great commander, John didn't. Reputations still mattered in this day and age.
 
Agreed, I also think most of the barons who rebelled against JOhn would probably be a bit scared to do it against Richard. Richard has a reputation of being a great commander, John didn't. Reputations still mattered in this day and age.
Definitely. To clarify, I think if he fights in France and loses, or at least loses face, then he's at a high risk of a revolt especially if there's a strong figurehead to lead it. If he keeps winning there's a smaller risk (not absent though) but it might mean him sailing over the channel with his battle hardened veterans to intimidate the wobbling barons before a revolt starts - and what happens in France when he's away? If he stays in France and there's no threat of revolt, who is his regent in England, because if he's in France killing lots of french peasants, a good number of french knights, and a few french aristocrats, he's not making the day to day decisions. Is it still john? Because john is an untrustworthy, greedy weasel who would do everything in his power to mess things up for big bro.
 
Definitely. To clarify, I think if he fights in France and loses, or at least loses face, then he's at a high risk of a revolt especially if there's a strong figurehead to lead it. If he keeps winning there's a smaller risk (not absent though) but it might mean him sailing over the channel with his battle hardened veterans to intimidate the wobbling barons before a revolt starts - and what happens in France when he's away? If he stays in France and there's no threat of revolt, who is his regent in England, because if he's in France killing lots of french peasants, a good number of french knights, and a few french aristocrats, he's not making the day to day decisions. Is it still john? Because john is an untrustworthy, greedy weasel who would do everything in his power to mess things up for big bro.
He could name William Marshal? Or as he gets older, Arthur, or if he has a son, that son.
 
Top