WI: John of Gaunt Dies in 1377?

In 1377 there was the trial of John Wycliffe in St. Paul's Cathedral. John of Gaunt caused a ruckus by his attendance and even - according to some accounts - came to blows with the bishop of London himself. The mob swarmed in protection of the bishop and John and the Earl Marshall (Harry Percy) left St. Paul's in a hurry. The next day, the mob was inflamed to hear that Percy had unjustly imprisoned some poor soul in the Marshalsea prison. They stormed the prison and the news came as Gaunt was sitting down to dinner at a friend's. From Marshalsea they stormed, ransacked and looted both Percy's house at Aldersgate and then Gaunt's Savoy Palace. Fortunately, Gaunt and Percy fled over the Thames to where Joan of Kent was living and she and the bishop of London later calmed the mob.

But what if John hadn't been out dining that day? His death doesn't have to be intentional or planned, it could be something as borderline comic as slipping on a banana peel going down the stairs to get away. Or his boat sinks as he's crossing the Thames. Or he tries to get away in disguise only to wind up being trampled to deathby the mob.

Either way, John of Gaunt winds up dead. Now what?

@RedKing @Zulfurium @isabella @VVD0D95 @CaptainShadow @John Fredrick Parker @DTF955Baseballfan @mcdnab @material_boy @FLAYvian1310
 
I imagine whoever is deemed responsible for his death is punished very severely. Edward III might slip off into the night slightly earlier. The regency for Richard II is likely shared between York and Gloucester, which makes things incredibly interesting. The Trastamara's get a bit of relief in Castile, and I imagine no Anglo-Portuguese alliance?
 
The succession is probably clearer here. Gaunt likely influenced Edward III when he wrote his entail in OTL, so without him, it’s likely it doesn’t exist, unless Edmund gets him to write something similar to it. The Beauforts probably vanish into obscurity unless they are legitimised because… reason?

Would Catherine of Lancaster still marry Henry III here?
 
The regency for Richard II is likely shared between York and Gloucester
They weren't allowed on the Council iotl, not sure they would be atl. Gaunt effectively held the reins because of his immense wealth, lands and partisans iotl, something both brothers lack, especially Cambridge. Though might be they're more palatable to the people.

Given Cambridge's seeming uninterest in government, I'm guessing Buckingham would call the shots. Which'd be interesting given how pro war he was and how screwed the English were. We might be seeing an earlier loss of Gascony.

No invasion of Castile, I'm thinking the English get a negotiated settlement, seeing Cate married to Enrique as OTL and Castillan neutrality (maybe). In atl York may profit off his marriage, getting the annuities and lands Gaunt did iotl (probably not lands). Otoh highly possible the Castilians just nope the negotiations, in which case I imagine the English would pull some moves to put pressure. The result could go either way.

OTL Mrs. Henry IV most likely spends her life in a nunnery unless Richard wants to curb Gloucester's influence/raise his own friends up. In which case Westmorland, De Vere and Norwich are on the top of my list of candidates.

Probably no illustrious generation. Might see Philippa marry the Foix dude she was in negotiations for, which'd have interesting consequences for Gascony.

There may not be Appellants in atl, or they may not get as large a following with Bolingbroke (I imagine with Gaunt dead Richard's love hate love death hate death relationship with the Lancasters is butterflied.) If Buckingham becomes de facto regent I think no Appellants is likelier. No Appellants, obviously, comes with a fuckton of it's own implications.

Aquitaine (what's left of it) probably remains in the crown demense in ATL unless we're seeing Bolingbroke/York/Gloucester get it as a part of Anglo-French negotiations.
The Beauforts probably vanish into obscurity unless they are legitimised because… reason?
If one follows the "countering Bolingbroke" theory, which I find implausible af, he'll legitimise them anyway. Otoh I'm not sure Bolingbroke likes them enough to demand/lobby for their legitimation (I've seen BOTH him loving his half siblings to hell and back and hating them with every inch of his soul).
 
I'm guessing Buckingham would call the shots. Which'd be interesting given how pro war he was and how screwed the English were. We might be seeing an earlier loss of Gascony.
I assume you mean OTL Gloucester?

If Buckingham becomes de facto regent I think no Appellants is likelier. No Appellants, obviously, comes with a fuckton of it's own implications.
Bit of a stretch, isn't it? Gloucester being pro-war means Richard likely gets brought up in more "martial" atmosphere. Maybe Richard decides to go to war with France instead of the "pause" like OTL. Which, while not so good for the English coffers, would probably be better giving those lords who were sitting idly on their hands and chafing at it something "worthwhile" to do. But that doesn't mean there won't be a reaction to Richard wanting war as much as there was one against him not going to war OTL.
 
I assume you mean OTL Gloucester?


Bit of a stretch, isn't it? Gloucester being pro-war means Richard likely gets brought up in more "martial" atmosphere. Maybe Richard decides to go to war with France instead of the "pause" like OTL. Which, while not so good for the English coffers, would probably be better giving those lords who were sitting idly on their hands and chafing at it something "worthwhile" to do. But that doesn't mean there won't be a reaction to Richard wanting war as much as there was one against him not going to war OTL.
Currently known as Buckingham yes 😛

Richard was brought up in a martial atmosphere, the problem was that he was frequently expected to live upto the standards set by Edward III and TBP, which given their reps in effect scared him off fighting. If it's intensified in ATL, do we see a martial Richard or an extra Artsy Richard?
The count of Holland/duke of Brittany is more likely if the Foix guy still marries Béatrix d'Armagnac. I think Brittany was Edward III's idea. @Brita
Fair, and Edward was dead by the time Blois got a look in. As for Gaston, I'm not sure when the marriage was called off but they were betrothed in 1374, so I suppose it's possible.
 
If one follows the "countering Bolingbroke" theory, which I find implausible af, he'll legitimise them anyway. Otoh I'm not sure Bolingbroke likes them enough to demand/lobby for their legitimation (I've seen BOTH him loving his half siblings to hell and back and hating them with every inch of his soul).
I mean it's not impossible, he did dislike Bolingbroke, and like the Beauforts, so he that might have been his intentions. Though that is probably butterflied. Henry IV was close to them during his childhood, so he might remain on good terms with them here.
 
The count of Holland/duke of Brittany is more likely if the Foix guy still marries Béatrix d'Armagnac. I think Brittany was Edward III's idea. @Brita
I don't know if Philippa was considered for John III of Brittany OTL but since his first two wives were English I can see him marry her.
 
I'm not sure when the marriage was called off but they were betrothed in 1374, so I suppose it's possible.
Beatrix was contracted to de Foix in 3 February 1376, so not really.

In 1381/2 Philippa was offered in marriage to Jean de Blois, claimant to the duchy of Brittany; and in 1383 her prospective husband was Count William of Ostrevant, the heir to Hainault, Holland and Zeeland
 
The succession is probably clearer here. Gaunt likely influenced Edward III when he wrote his entail in OTL, so without him, it’s likely it doesn’t exist, unless Edmund gets him to write something similar to it. The Beauforts probably vanish into obscurity unless they are legitimised because… reason?
Pretty likely who Edward I‘s entail will remain the one regulating the succession as York was not particularly ambitious.
If Gaunt died while Constance was still alive, and so without marrying Katherine I can not see how their sons (as Joan would be butterflied here) would be ever able to aspire to be legitimized. They are simply Gaunt’s bastard sons and that can not change.
Would Catherine of Lancaster still marry Henry III here?
Pretty likely as that match was useful for both sides (unless Constance remarried and had a son), while Philippa of Lancaster is pretty unlikely to made her OTL match in Portugal. Bolinbroke also will not marry his OTL wife (who can end in a convent, married to one of Richard II‘s friend/supporters or maybe to Edward of York, who was 3/4 younger than her).
Edmund of York would most likely get the regency for Richard II (but his brother would have a lot of power) as he was the elder brother.
 
Last edited:
Richard was brought up in a martial atmosphere, the problem was that he was frequently expected to live upto the standards set by Edward III and TBP, which given their reps in effect scared him off fighting. If it's intensified in ATL, do we see a martial Richard or an extra Artsy Richard?
I'm not sure. Gaunt seems to have rankled at the fact that he didn't have an impressive list of military victories (think the only one he had was Najera). If Gloucester's "martial but less worried" about his military reputation, that could result in a different upbringing, no? After all, John would highlight how great Edward III/TBP were to Richard, perhaps with a deliberate intention of discouraging him from said military adventures (after all, this would be a threat to Jon-Jon's own ambitions). Not saying Jon-Jon deliberately or even did this, but if dad doesn't want to worry about his son challenging his rugby records, best way to do that is to highlight how good at rugby dad was and that the son will never be able to live up to the legacy (Hollywood tends to make us believe that all sportsmen are fathers who wish to relive their glory days vicariously through their sons, it works in the opposite direction too. Usually if dad was not "top tier"/major league player he discourages his son's talents out of fear that his son might just be better than him. Especially if dad's built his whole "persona" about it [1]).

Which means if Gloucester takes a different approach to "child rearing" we could see a different Richard forming.

[1] not talking from personal experience, but have seen it happen.
 
Top