What if Richard II had had children?

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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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).

The only reason why I say it might give Richard a better chance is that if he has sons, Edmund the Duke of York may be more inclined to pick Richard's side instead of Henry's.

Also Henry V clearly did not like his father and preferred Richard.

Also there would be no uncertainty with the succession as in OTL there were at least 3 possible claimants who could have inherited the throne after Richard died.

Also maybe Bollingbrooke would just invade to reclaim his duchy title like he originally intended to do, he would have to murder his cousin and his sons to take the throne and that would make him incredibly unpopular.

Also if thing still panned out the same way, I reckon Richard would tell his sons to remain in Ireland, its likely that an event similar to the Wars of the Roses happens as Richard's sons will likely try and claim the throne, and they will have no shortage of support.
 
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.
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.

John usurped his nephew, the duke of Brittany
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).

Also in what way did Edward IV ascend the throne easily?
 
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.

That's what I thought, if Richard II had sons Bollingbrooke is far more likely to end up as Lord Protector or Regent then 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).

The precedent would be what happened in 1327, with Edward III becoming king upon Edwards II's deposition.

In OTL, Henry IV could usurp the throne because he is the closest male line Plantagenet to Richard II, and thus, has some claim to be heir to Richard. That would give him plausible reasons for taking the throne. And Edward IV had a plausible claim because of Henry IV's earlier usurpation. And in 1483, the usurpations of 1399, 1461, 1471 had already happened, and of course, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville is questionable.

In this case, none of this applies. The marriage of Richard and Anne is incontestable. Henry Bolingbroke had no claim whatsoever. The son of Richard would be universally hailed as king the moment Richard is deposed, even by Bolingbroke's supporters.

So the son of Richard II would be crowned king, and Bolingbroke would be regent. Bolingbroke would be a fool to kill the new king, as everyone would blame him even if Bolingbroke did not actually kill him.

Anything less would be unthinkable.

Not to mention a son would butterfly a lot of things. There might not be a 1399 rebellion for one thing.
 
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.

Okay.

Also in what way did Edward IV ascend the throne easily?

I didn't mean easy as in Henry just decided to walk out the palace and Edward walked in. But the choice was between a madman (Henry), a child with an unpopular mother (Edward of Westminster) and Edward IV. IMHO it wasn't really a fair fight, although the Lancastrians deposed Ned in turn. So they weren't that much of a pushover. So strike the easy part.
 
Top