The Black Prince becomes king

[Dr.Evil]

In 1376 Edward "The Black Prince" died shortly before his father Edward III. He left his young son Richard to become king and died after having been plagued by illness for quite some time. It was probably something he had caught while campaigning in Spain to support his ally in the Castillian civil war.

What if Edward doesn't go to Spain but stays in Aquitaine due to a sudden illness that discourages many nobles to support him.
With a longer living Edward we could see a much "better" Richard II and England wouldn't lose the Aquitaine in the 1380s. He and Joan could also father more children and prevent any possible roots for the Cousins-War.

I could see Edward as a very warlike king that would probably be antagonized in parliament by his brother John of Gaunt. If parliament can press him to stop warring in France he could keep (at least parts of Aquitaine) and maybe direct his martial ambitions towards Scotland. Richard II would probably not face rebellions in his youth that threaten his life and wouldn't see many of his friends executed thus maybe molding him into a more able king. Even if he does not father any children he could have lots of half-brothers that could do so.

 

[VVD0D95]

I like where this is going. Only one issue though, Joan of Kent was passed child bearing age by 1377, so Richards going to be married off to
Someone from a fertile family stat

 

[Black Prince of Britannia]

I think there was a timeline where the Black Prince's eldest son Edward of Angouleme survives, and the Black Prince only outlived Edward III for a few years before giving the throne to a 15 year old Edward V -> who did reign successfully. It was called the "The Dead Lives" or something of the sort.

The thing about the Black Prince was that he was an undisputed wartime strategist, but not a very bright politician I fear. Also regarding the POD, I strongly believe that for him to have a stable reign he requires the support of his brothers (most notably the more pragmatic John of Gaunt), and if his focus was diverted north towards Scotland instead of the Continent (especially Spain), he would face the ire of John, who after 1371 (after the POD), would claim Spain. Perhaps an earlier POD? Something about his upbringing, or perhaps or longer lived Lionel of Clarence, who could arguably counteract John's influence in Parliament, and has a lasting interest in Ireland/Scotland.

Oh and last but not least, I understand there are quite a few interested people about Plantagenet timelines (Angevins -> Lancasters), but from what I see half the time the thread gets hijacked midway by random suggestions of marriages of surviving characters to random princesses, and the thread just....fizzles out after a whole bunch of "oh yes he can marry her"

 

[VVD0D95]

I think there was a timeline where the Black Prince's eldest son Edward of Angouleme survives, and the Black Prince only outlived Edward III for a few years before giving the throne to a 15 year old Edward V -> who did reign successfully. It was called the "The Dead Lives" or something of the sort.

The thing about the Black Prince was that he was an undisputed wartime strategist, but not a very bright politician I fear. Also regarding the POD, I strongly believe that for him to have a stable reign he requires the support of his brothers (most notably the more pragmatic John of Gaunt), and if his focus was diverted north towards Scotland instead of the Continent (especially Spain), he would face the ire of John, who after 1371 (after the POD), would claim Spain. Perhaps an earlier POD? Something about his upbringing, or perhaps or longer lived Lionel of Clarence, who could arguably counteract John's influence in Parliament, and has a lasting interest in Ireland/Scotland.

Oh and last but not least, I understand there are quite a few interested people about Plantagenet timelines (Angevins -> Lancasters), but from what I see half the time the thread gets hijacked midway by random suggestions of marriages of surviving characters to random princesses, and the thread just....fizzles out after a whole bunch of "oh yes he can marry her"

Yeah it was The Dead Lives by @Zulfurium. Great timeline!

And oh what makes you say he was t thay great a politician?

 

[Dr.Evil]

Oh what a sloppy mistake regarding Joan! Well for one thing I could see her dieing though and get Edward a new wife. Maybe a french princess to seal the deal?

I agree he wasn't really interested in ruling so Gaunt as a sort of advisor could balance things out.
I know John of Gaunt wanted Castille but I think he would not necessarily be opposed towards peace with France. Instead of drawing away funds he could hope for more monetary support for his cause. I also think Thomas of Gloucester would start to play a bigger role in politics and could balance out John of Gaunt - who would probably not be more successful in Spain than in our timeline.

 

[Dr.Evil]

Yeah it was The Dead Lives by @Zulfurium. Great timeline!

And oh what makes you say he was t thay great a politician?

He basically pissed off the gascon noblea at every opportunity and apparently got such an autocratic attitude on the continent that things didn't go well over in Parliament. It seems in general that Edward's sons were all a bit haughty and had a talent for antagonizing their subjects.

 

[GauchoBadger]

How inclined would Edward and his hypothetical surviving sons be towards pressing their dynastic claims to the Kingdom of France?

Oh and last but not least, I understand there are quite a few interested people about Plantagenet timelines (Angevins -> Lancasters), but from what I see half the time the thread gets hijacked midway by random suggestions of marriages of surviving characters to random princesses, and the thread just....fizzles out after a whole bunch of "oh yes he can marry her"

Yeah, that is also how i feel about something like 60% of all Medieval European threads on this site... don’t get me wrong, alternate marriages can be interesting when they, say, grant a noble a claim to a pivotal territory, but most of the time i just get bored at reading discussions about princes and princesses and heirs being married off to whoever, no offense to those who don’t.

 

[VVD0D95]

He basically pissed off the gascon noblea at every opportunity and apparently got such an autocratic attitude on the continent that things didn't go well over in Parliament. It seems in general that Edward's sons were all a bit haughty and had a talent for antagonizing their subjects.

ah I see though he did support the good parliament which removes the cancer at the heart of his fathers court

 

[Dr.Evil]

How inclined would Edward and his hypothetical surviving sons be towards pressing their dynastic claims to the Kingdom of France?

Yeah, that is also how i feel about something like 60% of all Medieval European threads on this site... don’t get me wrong, alternate marriages can be interesting when they, say, grant a noble a claim to a pivotal territory, but most of the time i just get bored at reading discussions about princes and princesses and heirs being married off to whoever, no offense to those who don’t.

Well he fought there for a majority of his life but as far as I know he wasn't opposed to the Treaty of Bretigny. He would surely not give up Aquitaine without a fight - I read once that John of Gaunt got increasingly aware of the fact that France was a lost cause.. Not too sure how accurate that is but some must have seen that without taking Paris and controlling a major part of the country, the war was more a "take what you can".
If Charles V dies early (as OTL) then chances are high the war continues. However, I think if Plantagenet and Valois can settle for a permanent solution then aggression would be directed towards Scotland. While Bretigny said that Aquitaine was Edward III duchy which he held by himself, there would be need of something more long-lasting. Maybe a legal fiction that Aquitaine is held from the king of France but that the English kings wouldn't have to do any homage could help for a while.

Another option would be to continue the alliance-policy of the early war years: while very costly and without results, a bit more focus could surely help here.

 

[Dr.Evil]

ah I see though he did support the good parliament which removes the cancer at the heart of his fathers court

Well the Black Prince supported the removal of Alice Perrers. I think he died during those proceedings but I think he wouldn't fully support it. However, he would probably not be in conflict with the Commons as much as John since he was not directly involved in government as he was too sick.

 

[VVD0D95]

Well the Black Prince supported the removal of Alice Perrers. I think he died during those proceedings but I think he wouldn't fully support it. However, he would probably not be in conflict with the Commons as much as John since he was not directly involved in government as he was too sick.

That’s true, I suppose if he avoids going to Castile then some of the bad government that occurred under his brother would be butterflied, as being the heir he’d need to be in England

 

[Black Prince of Britannia]

Yeah it was The Dead Lives by @Zulfurium. Great timeline!

And oh what makes you say he was t thay great a politician?

Probably an average politician at best, but certainly not a good administrator, the mismanagement of Aquitaine pretty much reduced much of the gains of his earlier campaign. He was being outmaneuvered by Charles V at every point, it's unlikely that a surviving Black Prince (who had reigned longer, and still with Richard II as heir) would be able to stop this trend. Furthermore, despite his overwhelming reputation and position as heir to the throne, John of Gaunt was still able to amass immense political power supposed under him, with the Black Prince unable to decidedly overrule John's workings. Honestly the reason why "The Dead Lives" worked as a TL was, in my opinion, the short reign of Edward IV, had he reigned longer, it would be difficult for Edward of Angouleme to shine in order to supersede his father's somewhat indecisiveness at times.

I mean I'm a fan of him, like look at my username hahaha, but the more I've read the more I felt a sort of pessimistic view of him as king. He is too similar to Richard I in many aspects, perhaps the one good outcome would be a different education and influence to Richard II.

 

[VVD0D95]

Probably an average politician at best, but certainly not a good administrator, the mismanagement of Aquitaine pretty much reduced much of the gains of his earlier campaign. He was being outmaneuvered by Charles V at every point, it's unlikely that a surviving Black Prince (who had reigned longer, and still with Richard II as heir) would be able to stop this trend. Furthermore, despite his overwhelming reputation and position as heir to the throne, John of Gaunt was still able to amass immense political power supposed under him, with the Black Prince unable to decidedly overrule John's workings. Honestly the reason why "The Dead Lives" worked as a TL was, in my opinion, the short reign of Edward IV, had he reigned longer, it would be difficult for Edward of Angouleme to shine in order to supersede his father's somewhat indecisiveness at times.

I mean I'm a fan of him, like look at my username hahaha, but the more I've read the more I felt a sort of pessimistic view of him as king. He is too similar to Richard I in many aspects, perhaps the one good outcome would be a different education and influence to Richard II.

Interesting, of course one assumes any rebellions against him probably wouldn’t go the way they did against Edward Ii due to his superior commanding skills

 

[Skallagrim]

This is a cool thread and I approve 100%

I think there was a timeline where the Black Prince's eldest son Edward of Angouleme survives, and the Black Prince only outlived Edward III for a few years before giving the throne to a 15 year old Edward V -> who did reign successfully. It was called the "The Dead Lives" or something of the sort.

Ooh, I'll have to read that! I suggested this POD in a recent thread I made about possible England-wanks, but I didn't know that there was already a TL based on that premise.

The thing about the Black Prince was that he was an undisputed wartime strategist, but not a very bright politician I fear. Also regarding the POD, I strongly believe that for him to have a stable reign he requires the support of his brothers (most notably the more pragmatic John of Gaunt)

He basically pissed off the gascon noblea at every opportunity and apparently got such an autocratic attitude on the continent that things didn't go well over in Parliament. It seems in general that Edward's sons were all a bit haughty and had a talent for antagonizing their subjects.

ah I see though he did support the good parliament which removes the cancer at the heart of his fathers court

He wasn't a good administrator, but he wasn't an absolutely hopeless case, either. At his best, he knew what to leave to others-- at least in England. His governance in France was, ah, another matter completely. He seems to have been intent on ruling his 'spear-won lands' in the fahion of a classical war-lord, without regard for the complexities of the situation.

Probably an average politician at best, but certainly not a good administrator, the mismanagement of Aquitaine pretty much reduced much of the gains of his earlier campaign. He was being outmaneuvered by Charles V at every point, it's unlikely that a surviving Black Prince (who had reigned longer, and still with Richard II as heir) would be able to stop this trend. Furthermore, despite his overwhelming reputation and position as heir to the throne, John of Gaunt was still able to amass immense political power supposed under him, with the Black Prince unable to decidedly overrule John's workings. Honestly the reason why "The Dead Lives" worked as a TL was, in my opinion, the short reign of Edward IV, had he reigned longer, it would be difficult for Edward of Angouleme to shine in order to supersede his father's somewhat indecisiveness at times.

We should pobably keep in mind that the death of Edward of Angoulême totally wrecked the Black Prince, and made both his mental disposition and his physical health much worse. John of Gaunt's major triumph in amassing power occurred in the years thereafter. The POD of Edward of Angoulême not dying would presumably have the effect of Edward the Black Prince being both more pro-active and in better health. As such, I'm not sure that success of the scenario is predicated on him only living a slight bit longer. He could use the parliamentary revolt against John of Gaunt's politics to side-line John considerably, and to secure his own position/reputation. Thus, no Bad Parliament, and the Black Prince is seen as a friend of the triumphant reform faction. (He doesn't even have to do anything afterwards; just letting others do the work and staying out of the way suffices.)

 

[VVD0D95]

This is a cool thread and I approve 100%




Ooh, I'll have to read that! I suggested this POD in a recent thread I made about possible England-wanks, but I didn't know that there was already a TL based on that premise.








He wasn't a good administrator, but he wasn't an absolutely hopeless case, either. At his best, he knew what to leave to others-- at least in England. His governance in France was, ah, another matter completely. He seems to have been intent on ruling his 'spear-won lands' in the fahion of a classical war-lord, without regard for the complexities of the situation.




We should pobably keep in mind that the death of Edward of Angoulême totally wrecked the Black Prince, and made both his mental disposition and his physical health much worse. John of Gaunt's major triumph in amassing power occurred in the years thereafter. The POD of Edward of Angoulême not dying would presumably have the effect of Edward the Black Prince being both more pro-active and in better health. As such, I'm not sure that success of the scenario is predicated on him only living a slight bit longer. He could use the parliamentary revolt against John of Gaunt's politics to side-line John considerably, and to secure his own position/reputation. Thus, no Bad Parliament, and the Black Prince is seen as a friend of the triumphant reform faction. (He doesn't even have to do anything afterwards; just letting others do the work and staying out of the way suffices.)

In terms
Of Edward of as death was it the case that Edward rhe black just lost the will to
Life after?

 

[Skallagrim]

In terms
Of Edward of as death was it the case that Edward rhe black just lost the will to
Life after?

I wouldn't go that far, but he was described as a "broken man" at least in the period following-- and his health just collapsed. He was already ill, but this was a major blow. In the six years afterwards (until his death) he had worse periods and some better ones, but it was generally an unstoppable decline. He just never really recovered.

 

[Dr.Evil]

So the consensus seems that the Black Prince basically needs someone to lean on in peace times. While certainly not inept I think the term "warlord" as mentioned above certainly fits. I think the more autocratic fashion of continental rulers factors in here too. Sooner or later conflict with Parliament would come up especially over money which he 1. Didn't have but 2. Was in need of.

If Edward of Angoulême survived and was a bit less on the war side and more of an administrator he could maybe balance things out especially if he gets Aquitaine (or what ls left of it) he could try to form a coalition with the southern magnates while his father tries to finance an invasion.

 

[VVD0D95]

So the consensus seems that the Black Prince basically needs someone to lean on in peace times. While certainly not inept I think the term "warlord" as mentioned above certainly fits. I think the more autocratic fashion of continental rulers factors in here too. Sooner or later conflict with Parliament would come up especially over money which he 1. Didn't have but 2. Was in need of.

If Edward of Angoulême survived and was a bit less on the war side and more of an administrator he could maybe balance things out especially if he gets Aquitaine (or what ls left of it) he could try to form a coalition with the southern magnates while his father tries to finance an invasion.

You know this does make me wonder what changes if Edward manages to not only defeat Henry of tradtamara but Henry also ends up dying during the battle, alongside his brothers. Thus removing that threat to Pedro

 

[Dr.Evil]

You know this does make me wonder what changes if Edward manages to not only defeat Henry of tradtamara but Henry also ends up dying during the battle, alongside his brothers. Thus removing that threat to Pedro

Well the threat of Enrique de Trastamara wasn't really decisive because of that battle - in fact he had been defeated several times before. You could say we are in the rare timeline where he won and Pedro lost.
As I see it the problem is that the Castillian civil war was a proxywar for France and England. Edward put way too much effort into his Spanish campaign. While a Castille that is friends with France is very dangerous, I think Enrique wouldn't have been to keen on marching his troops to Gascoigne after having just won a kingdom. Usually usurpers are not too eager to enter some foreign wars.

 

[VVD0D95]

Well the threat of Enrique de Trastamara wasn't really decisive because of that battle - in fact he had been defeated several times before. You could say we are in the rare timeline where he won and Pedro lost.
As I see it the problem is that the Castillian civil war was a proxywar for France and England. Edward put way too much effort into his Spanish campaign. While a Castille that is friends with France is very dangerous, I think Enrique wouldn't have been to keen on marching his troops to Gascoigne after having just won a kingdom. Usually usurpers are not too eager to enter some foreign wars.

This is true, plus Pedro was never likely to repay Edward, so perhaps had Edward not been enticed into that adventure things would've been better in the long term.