Because in John's II case there is no regency, and the country is ruled by experienced politician in his late 30's, that's also wealthiest man in England. Richard II struggled with powerful uncles all his reign - and their ambitions were so high especially after long regency. If John grabs the reign, there is no room for that.Why so?
Yeap, I see that I rushed things "a little" , my bad. But still - it proves that John was quite skilled diplomat, and he considered other ways to achieve glory than military conquest. Of course, the problem is that his english subjects wanted to try luck on the continent.I think I mostly agree with you here?
John supported Leulinghem, sure, but that the late-80s and early-90s version of John. He'd gone off and had his Castilian adventure, and been paid genuinely unbelievable amount of money to give up his claim to Castile. Richard had made him duke of Aquitaine as a reward for negotiating Castile's exit from the war. John had finally done something big with his life here. He had a legacy.
OTL they didn't do it, and in 1377 OTL they had to deal with a child king. I see no reason why John as ruler should have been any less "intimidating".Well, in 1377, Charles V is king, and Charles VI won't go mad until 1392. So it's really a question of 1) can John II get himself a truce, and fast, and 2) can he sort out his various domestic problems before Charles V gets his own house in order and goes on the offense again?
In theory, John could try to negotiate "Aquitaine without homage". for his claim to the french crown. But f course I doubt any King of France could easily accept it.I don't think John is seriously going to considering selling his claims to Castile and to France and suzerainty of Aquitaine. Though, some combination of two of these three could may be acceptable.
OTL Gascons were highly opposed to divorcing Aquitaine, so it has to be Bolingbroke.