The Sport of Kings

I've used this in my 'Mad Timeline' which will one day hopefully see the light of day.

But, what if Henry VI dies aged 2 or 3 ? It was hardly uncommon for infants to die at that age in that period.

It would make his uncle John, Duke of Bedford King John II.

IMHO John and his brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester are going to end up at blows, and I wouldn't be surprised if John doesn't end up having to have him killed, although he is his heir presumptive.

If John does this, there is going to be a succession crisis between Somerset and Richard, Duke of York. It may depend on who John gives his backing to, but if Richard is effectively Regent in France, then York is going to have a stronger case because with his military skills he is probably busy saving Normandy and smashing the French

So, let's say John II dies on time in 1435, Richard and Somerset fight out the succession, and Richard wins, becoming King Richard III in his mid twenties, and founding a successful Yorkist dynasty 25 years earlier than OTL, and one not encumbered with Henry VI being around, or with losing France

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I've used this in my 'Mad Timeline' which will one day hopefully see the light of day.

But, what if Henry VI dies aged 2 or 3 ? It was hardly uncommon for infants to die at that age in that period.

It would make his uncle John, Duke of Bedford King John II.

IMHO John and his brother Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester are going to end up at blows, and I wouldn't be surprised if John doesn't end up having to have him killed, although he is his heir presumptive.

If John does this, there is going to be a succession crisis between Somerset and Richard, Duke of York. It may depend on who John gives his backing to, but if Richard is effectively Regent in France, then York is going to have a stronger case because with his military skills he is probably busy saving Normandy and smashing the French

So, let's say John II dies on time in 1435, Richard and Somerset fight out the succession, and Richard wins, becoming King Richard III in his mid twenties, and founding a successful Yorkist dynasty 25 years earlier than OTL, and one not encumbered with Henry VI being around, or with losing France

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
GW

Not a great expert on the period but if Richard III has to fight a civil war for the throne how likely is he to hold onto most of the dynasty's lands in France?

Steve
 
GW

Not a great expert on the period but if Richard III has to fight a civil war for the throne how likely is he to hold onto most of the dynasty's lands in France?

Steve
Funny, I only put that bit in at the end because I thought someone would raise an objection, but apart from your goodself no one has raised ANYTHING and I thought it such an interesting POD !!!

Somerset's line was barred from the succession by Henry IV, but this was after the Beauforts had been legitimised by Richard II who put no bar to their rights of succession in place. Thus, it was always assumed that a law passed by one king (Henry IV) could be undone by a later one, and thus they had a SEMI-legitimate claim to succession.

I can see what you mean about whether a couple of civil wars would have undermined the ability to defend the French possessions. I imagine the action against Humphrey would have more closely resembled Edward IV's getting rid of his brother Clarence, rather than a full-blown war, or even a battle. But Richard of York against Somerset, if the latter decided to press his claims to the throne, would have brought about a wider conflict.

Would Talbot have sided with Richard ? That might be something of a key question. I have to admit that my own knowledge of the mid 1430s is a bit vague !

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I hope when I do the full timeline it gets more replies than this; I've spent a week so far researching for it... :(

Grey Wolf
 
Thats ok for the Duke of Bedford to become King of England... But what about France?
Since the death of Charles VI in 1422 there was no heir apparent for France... Dauphin Charles has been declared a bastard by his mother Isabeau de Bavaria and his brothers were already dead...
I guess that France would have gone to civil war between the Valois and the Duke of Burgundy for the French Crown...
 
Thats ok for the Duke of Bedford to become King of England... But what about France?
Since the death of Charles VI in 1422 there was no heir apparent for France... Dauphin Charles has been declared a bastard by his mother Isabeau de Bavaria and his brothers were already dead...
I guess that France would have gone to civil war between the Valois and the Duke of Burgundy for the French Crown...
I think so, though in some terms Bedford could have claimed to be Henry VI's heir male, even if the actualities of the French succession do not recognise his claim. I suspect that the Valois would have had to make do with a 'reduced' France, bounded by an enlarged Bugundy and by England in both Normandy and Gascony, and with Brittany as ever played between them.

IMHO this would have been an interim settlement, and would have left the door open to further wars in coming decades. The Kings of England would have continued to play the legally dubious but politically useful card of havng a valid claim - OTL see how tenuous other claims to thrones were in the 15th century, but were nevertheless pursued with vigour when it was to the advantage of the attacker (eg Louis XII in Naples, Ferdinand II of Aragon in Navarre)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The Valois claimants would be the Orleans/Angouleme branch as far as I can see, tho' the Duc of Orleans is a prisoner in England since Agincourt and has no children (OTL he was released in 1440 married for a third time and sired children including the future Louis XI) and the Count of Angouleme is ALSO a prisoner in England since Agincourt and OTL wasn't released till 1444, not siring any children till the 1450s

Given that, if my researches are correct, the line of succession goes to the House of Anjou which is pretty well supplied with males, as well as a series of territorial bases of its own, and would be in a good position to continue the fight

Burgundy's claim to the French throne is inferior to that of Anjou (the Duke of Anjou was Jean II's second son whilst the Duke of Burgundy was his 4th; in between was the Duke of Berry but his line died out in 1416)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Last edited:
Once again I am floored by your knowledge of dynasties of Europe GW...truly astounding. :cool:
LOL, I had forgotten almost all of this ! I just spent the last 2 1/2 hours re-researching it for the timeline...

Or should I just have smiled enigmatically and pretended I had a memory ? ;)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Could you please impart upon us (or just me if nobody else is interested) where you recieve your knowledge of European dynasties. It would be awesome to know what site or books to go to/read to find out, and I'd be most grateful:). I would love to see the timeline of this by the way.
 
Hmm... I haven't looked into the 100 years war for a while now so my memory is a little fuzzy.

Will the premature death of Henry VI affect the Anglo-Burgundian Split (Treaty of Arras wasn't it?) or is that unavoidable. IMO that was a major factor in England's defeat.

Perhaps John II and Richard III could provide more effective leadership during the period also preventing a French resurgence.

No War of the Roses will definitely leave England in a stronger position.

Long term I think you'll see a much longer English Presence in France, far beyond OTL which will have interesting ramifications especially if they last as long as the Reformation.

I hope my uninformed ramblings were somewhat helpfull/entertaining.
 
Could you please impart upon us (or just me if nobody else is interested) where you recieve your knowledge of European dynasties. It would be awesome to know what site or books to go to/read to find out, and I'd be most grateful:). I would love to see the timeline of this by the way.
Er, well the outline dynastic knowledge is in my head but I usually manage to forget the details and have to look them up - easy when I could access my own database, more difficult having to start from scratch. I just used Google, Wiki etc and created family trees from everything I found in a notebook so I could tell who was related where to whom. My only other useful skill is that I can mentally map things very well, I used to work with data, and I can see how things inter-relate etc. But, as I said, the details usually I have to remind myself of as only the salient facts remain in what I call my memory

The timeline is stuttering as the more I learn, the less I know ! Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester emerges as a sympathetic figure the more one learns about him, for example. He was destroyed in OTL by other influential nobles conspiring against him, and the same could happen here, except in OTL these nobles were free to do far more than usual due to the weakness of Henry VI's personal rule.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Hmm... I haven't looked into the 100 years war for a while now so my memory is a little fuzzy.

Will the premature death of Henry VI affect the Anglo-Burgundian Split (Treaty of Arras wasn't it?) or is that unavoidable. IMO that was a major factor in England's defeat.

Perhaps John II and Richard III could provide more effective leadership during the period also preventing a French resurgence.

No War of the Roses will definitely leave England in a stronger position.

Long term I think you'll see a much longer English Presence in France, far beyond OTL which will have interesting ramifications especially if they last as long as the Reformation.

I hope my uninformed ramblings were somewhat helpfull/entertaining.
Well, it was the best part of a year since I last looked into it, and probably longer since I tried to 'change' it...

I doubt that the Anglo-Burgundian split was unavoidable. The cause seems to have been French resurgence making Burgundy's continuing hostility more dangerous than it had been before. If France continues on the defensive, then it is far less in Burgundy's interests to switch sides.

Do you know what John died of, if 'of' there was ? He was IIRC in his mid 40s, so he could have gone on ? Had his constitution been weakened by things which had happened before, perhaps ?

1435-1436 certainly seem to have been a disastrous couple of years for England, with John's death. Burgundy's defection, the loss of Harfleur, the Burgundian siege of Calais and the fall of Paris.

IMHO the main question is whether the period between 1428 and 1435 could have been altered ? 1429 saw the Siege of Orleans turned on its head with an English defeat, and from then the advance of France. Would Henry VI not existing have given John more power as King ? Would he have got himself crowned at Paris, or would this have occurred a long time beforehand, and had knock-on effects ?

The more I learn the less I know...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
John's death

from
http://www.warsoftheroses.co.uk/chapter_29.htm

Parliament's concern for the health of John, Duke of Bedford, had turned out to be well grounded [page ]. It had been declining for some time, and had been exacerbated by the extreme exertions he had not hesitated to make in carrying out his duties. Possibly his illness after the raising of the siege of Lagny 1432 [page ] had something to do with his end. He died at Rouen during the night of 14th September 1435, just as his old ally and friend, Philip-the-Good, was making his peace with their joint enemy a short distance away in Arras.

Few Englishmen were mourned by the French people in English-occupied France, but John was certainly one of them.

His fair dealing and good administration were respected and remembered long after the provinces returned to the rule of the French King, when they enjoyed neither of these virtues.

It says much for his governorship that men remembered him as a just ruler even though a terrible war was still going on.

There were other consequences at home. The immediate heir to the Throne was now Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, until young King Henry should marry and produce heirs of his own.

The common people may have rejoiced in this, as Humphrey had retained his popularity with them, but their can have been few in the nobility who could have welcomed the prospect of Humphrey as King of England. He had too many scores to settle with them for the slights, for such he would have seen them, visited on him over the years. Cardinal Beaufort in particular could have expected rough treatment. It was not an attractive picture. Also it brought Richard, Duke of York, who had claims of his own [pages ], a step nearer to the Throne.

No doubt John, on his deathbed, reflected on his life's work and all he had done to carry out the wishes of his dead brother, King Henry V.[page ] No doubt he also saw that it was all wasted effort, and that he had spent his life in pursuit of a chimera which was never to be grasped. It is possible that he died as much of a broken heart as any other cause


Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I hate historical 'convergence' and can't see why if something major changes the same things will end up happening anyway

But when I try to write it out in detail, I find that detail keeps pushing me in the opposite direction, towards the same game with the same players, only that the team name is different (John II and not Henry VI)

But I don't accept this - I don't know, intellectually (presuming I have any intellect left) or emotionally, whatever...

But I don't know what to do to make the timeline make sense...

I mean Joan of Arc doesn't make ANY SENSE whatsoever, but I can't simply butterfly her away, and if she pops up then how are things different ? Salisbury might not get splinters in his face and die, but for him not to do so would seem like a deus ex machina on my part

John might not die in 1435, but why not ? As the information I found stated he seems to have been getting weaker after a series of illnesses, so why should he live longer ?

If Humphrey was already Heir Presumptive would it have made any difference to his powers and ability to survive ?

Richard of York needs longer to really establish himself, 1435 he is only 24. So do we end up with a King Humphrey after all ? I hardly think this is going to be GOOD for the English position, and if things go bad, then what the Hell is the point of the timeline that I created to go in the opposite direction ?

As I said, the more I learn the less I know, and it seems eternal...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
An idea: WI John is able to conquer France and makes peace with Humphrey, appointing him regent for England? There's enough for both of them.

Jeanne d'Arc started to have visions in 1425, which was after Henry's death ITTL. So she could be butterflied away. Wasn't she raped by an English soldier?
 
An idea: WI John is able to conquer France and makes peace with Humphrey, appointing him regent for England? There's enough for both of them.

Jeanne d'Arc started to have visions in 1425, which was after Henry's death ITTL. So she could be butterflied away. Wasn't she raped by an English soldier?
The problem with John conquering France is that after Henry V's death its basically what he DID carry on doing...until in 1428 he ran up against Orleans, began a huge siege and saw it fail in 1429

I came across an odd mention that the English went for Orleans, despite John having wanted to consolidate Anjou first. What I don't understand is why he didn't get his way considering he was Regent ? If he was king, would he have had more chance of getting his way ?

Without the siege of Orleans, what would Joan of Arc have been offering to do for Charles VII, who was based at Chinon at that time ? An invasion of Anjou in pursuit of an English army wouldn't have the same ring about it

I'm loathe to simply butterfly her away because it feels too much like cheating!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Okay GW let's see if maybe I can help you out a bit. :)

I hate historical 'convergence' and can't see why if something major changes the same things will end up happening anyway
Well the way I see sometimes the weight of history and events are so big only an early PoD or a major event (such as an asteroid hitting the earth) can truly change an outcome. Sometimes that is just the way it is. Some events just get so far along that not much can be done to change them. Still that doesn't mean if we don't look at something close enough a slightly different outcome might be achievable.

But when I try to write it out in detail, I find that detail keeps pushing me in the opposite direction, towards the same game with the same players, only that the team name is different (John II and not Henry VI)
Well that happens but a different team might get even one thing different which could alter things slightly.

But I don't accept this - I don't know, intellectually (presuming I have any intellect left) or emotionally, whatever...
Good accepting things can change is a start. :)

But I don't know what to do to make the timeline make sense...
Well I don't know much about this time period but let's take a look at what you've got below.

I mean Joan of Arc doesn't make ANY SENSE whatsoever, but I can't simply butterfly her away, and if she pops up then how are things different ? Salisbury might not get splinters in his face and die, but for him not to do so would seem like a deus ex machina on my part
Okay so let's say she does pop up and some stuff goes the same. Doesn't meant the outcome has to stay the same. If those in charge on the other side (the English) are different maybe a few different decisions are made which changes what Joan does, etc.

As for Salisbury...well maybe he doesn't get them in the face but in say an arm/hand which gets infected and has to be amputated. A man losing his left hand is going to alter things (and simply being around when in OTL he died alters lots of things).

John might not die in 1435, but why not ? As the information I found stated he seems to have been getting weaker after a series of illnesses, so why should he live longer ?
Well where did he get these illnesses. If for example he was in France but because of the new situation he might have been in London or elsewhere maybe he wouldn't have gotten several of those illnesses.

If Humphrey was already Heir Presumptive would it have made any difference to his powers and ability to survive ?
Maybe. Power changes people. Of course maybe the power goes to his head and someone knocks him off.

Richard of York needs longer to really establish himself, 1435 he is only 24. So do we end up with a King Humphrey after all ? I hardly think this is going to be GOOD for the English position, and if things go bad, then what the Hell is the point of the timeline that I created to go in the opposite direction ?
Sometimes a bad position can be the motivation for a dynamic leader to change things around (i.e. it is their cause).

As I said, the more I learn the less I know, and it seems eternal...
I'm not sure how that is different from most people on the board. The stuff I learn around here makes me continually wonder at how little I actually know. :cool:

Hope my two cents help GW.
 
Easy or not - if we didn't know that Joan existed, and someone wrote a TL with a person much like her - would you believe it or qualify as ASB?

Some things are hard or impossible to butterfly away - frex the fact that France with its good soil has a higher population than England in medieval times. Others are quite easy to butterfly away - like extraordinary persons.
 
Top