WI:Hotspur won the battle of shrewsbury

Hummmm. Interesting. What if Glyndwr heard in time and force-marched to the battlefield, slamming into Henry IV's left wing before Hotspur's fatal charge? Henry IV might have been killed, Henry V certainly would have been and the way might have been open for Hotspur (whose paternal great-great-grandfather was the son of Henry II) to try to seize the throne. And as for Glyndwr - well, as the hero of the hour, what could he have demanded? Interesting, as I said.
 
It seems interesting, but my question is, what was he attempting to gain? Overthrowing the Plantagenet Dynasty? Or just Henry IV? He did battle against the heir as well as against the King.
 
Hummmm. Interesting. What if Glyndwr heard in time and force-marched to the battlefield, slamming into Henry IV's left wing before Hotspur's fatal charge? Henry IV might have been killed, Henry V certainly would have been and the way might have been open for Hotspur (whose paternal great-great-grandfather was the son of Henry II) to try to seize the throne. And as for Glyndwr - well, as the hero of the hour, what could he have demanded? Interesting, as I said.

Hotspur would not claim the throne. He and Glyndwr were allied with Sir Edmund Mortimer, who was Hotspur's brother-in-law and married to Glyndwr's daughter. Sir Edmund had proclaimed his young nephew Edmund Mortimer rightful king, and that was the nominal cause of the rebels.

If the rebels killed both Henrys at Shrewsbury, then young Edmund would become king, with Hotspur or his father Northumberland as Lord Protector. Why should Hotspur attempt a risky usurpation when he could be the King's uncle and the effective ruler?

(Unless Henry's second son Thomas can rally the Lancastrians; but he was only 16. Henry's other sons John and Humphrey were 14 and 13.)

BTW, "Prince Hal" was only 17, while his supposed rival Hotspur was 39 - three years older than Henry IV.

Also, Prince Henry was wounded in the face by an arrow, so he could easily have been slain, and King Henry's standard bearer was cut down by Hotspur's ally Douglas, which suggests the King was in danger as well.
 
Hotspur would not claim the throne. He and Glyndwr were allied with Sir Edmund Mortimer, who was Hotspur's brother-in-law and married to Glyndwr's daughter. Sir Edmund had proclaimed his young nephew Edmund Mortimer rightful king, and that was the nominal cause of the rebels.

If the rebels killed both Henrys at Shrewsbury, then young Edmund would become king, with Hotspur or his father Northumberland as Lord Protector. Why should Hotspur attempt a risky usurpation when he could be the King's uncle and the effective ruler?

(Unless Henry's second son Thomas can rally the Lancastrians; but he was only 16. Henry's other sons John and Humphrey were 14 and 13.)

BTW, "Prince Hal" was only 17, while his supposed rival Hotspur was 39 - three years older than Henry IV.

Also, Prince Henry was wounded in the face by an arrow, so he could easily have been slain, and King Henry's standard bearer was cut down by Hotspur's ally Douglas, which suggests the King was in danger as well.

So a Mortimer dynasty. What an ugly sounding name for and dynasty
 
Top