I'm wondering if Richard II had sons with Anne of Bohemia, say at least 2 and their about 13 in 1399 how would this change things. Surely this makes it far harder for Henry Bollingbrooke to crown himself king.
Not especially.
John usurped his nephew, the duke of Brittany. Henry VI had a son and Edward IV managed to ascend the throne rather easily. Edward IV had two sons and a boatload of daughters yet Richard III still climbed onto the throne. Now you can argue that Ned and Dick simply followed a precedent set by Bolingbroke, but I think the only way that Richard II will be succeeded by his sons is with a dead Bolingbroke. There was too much bad blood between Richard and Henry.
Son(s)"make it harder, probably. But not impossible. At Easter 1483 no one thought that Dickon was gonna pull his stunt (if indeed he'd even started thinking that far - which I don't).
Makes it harder but not impossible. It all depends how Henry's invasion goes. If Richard still ends up deposed then Henry is a viable Lord Protector and Regent but might not be king. It does put him in the situation of Richard III though where becoming king would be easy to arrange.I'm wondering if Richard II had sons with Anne of Bohemia, say at least 2 and their about 13 in 1399 how would this change things. Surely this makes it far harder for Henry Bollingbrooke to crown himself king.
Arthur's claim wasn't set though as it hadn't been established that sons of deceased older brothers outranked their uncles in royal succession so declaring it an usurpation isn't quite accurate.John usurped his nephew, the duke of Brittany
Not especially.
John usurped his nephew, the duke of Brittany. Henry VI had a son and Edward IV managed to ascend the throne rather easily. Edward IV had two sons and a boatload of daughters yet Richard III still climbed onto the throne. Now you can argue that Ned and Dick simply followed a precedent set by Bolingbroke, but I think the only way that Richard II will be succeeded by his sons is with a dead Bolingbroke. There was too much bad blood between Richard and Henry.
Son(s)"make it harder, probably. But not impossible. At Easter 1483 no one thought that Dickon was gonna pull his stunt (if indeed he'd even started thinking that far - which I don't).
Makes it harder but not impossible. It all depends how Henry's invasion goes. If Richard still ends up deposed then Henry is a viable Lord Protector and Regent but might not be king. It does put him in the situation of Richard III though where becoming king would be easy to arrange.
Arthur's claim wasn't set though as it hadn't been established that sons of deceased older brothers outranked their uncles in royal succession so declaring it an usurpation isn't quite accurate.
Not especially.
John usurped his nephew, the duke of Brittany. Henry VI had a son and Edward IV managed to ascend the throne rather easily. Edward IV had two sons and a boatload of daughters yet Richard III still climbed onto the throne. Now you can argue that Ned and Dick simply followed a precedent set by Bolingbroke, but I think the only way that Richard II will be succeeded by his sons is with a dead Bolingbroke. There was too much bad blood between Richard and Henry.
Son(s)"make it harder, probably. But not impossible. At Easter 1483 no one thought that Dickon was gonna pull his stunt (if indeed he'd even started thinking that far - which I don't).
Arthur's claim wasn't set though as it hadn't been established that sons of deceased older brothers outranked their uncles in royal succession so declaring it an usurpation isn't quite accurate.
Also in what way did Edward IV ascend the throne easily?