WI: Richard I killed by William Marshall

Here is an unusual PoD:

During the rebellion of 1173 William Marshall reportedly unhorsed the young Richard the Lionheart while covering Henry II's rear guard. After unhorsing Richard, William could have killed the prince, but spared him and killed his horse instead. So what if William had killed the young Richard instead of sparing him? Presumably John becomes king early, after that though, what happens? Can the Angevins even survive more King John? For that matter, is William Marshall still Henry III's regent (assuming of course, there even is a Henry III)? IIRC he was fairly instrumental in saving the Angevins after John.

EDIT: (For that matter, what happens to the Third Crusade?)
 
Here is an unusual PoD:

During the rebellion of 1173 William Marshall reportedly unhorsed the young Richard the Lionheart while covering Henry II's rear guard. After unhorsing Richard, William could have killed the prince, but spared him and killed his horse instead. So what if William had killed the young Richard instead of sparing him? Presumably John becomes king early...

Alternatively John never becomes king at all. The war in which Henry the Young King died started because of a dispute with Richard, so if Richard dies in 1173 the Young King may well live to become Henry III*.
 
Alternatively John never becomes king at all. The war in which Henry the Young King died started because of a dispute with Richard, so if Richard dies in 1173 the Young King may well live to become Henry III*.
Henry II himself may live longer than 1189 - even if only for a few years more.
 
Alternatively John never becomes king at all. The war in which Henry the Young King died started because of a dispute with Richard, so if Richard dies in 1173 the Young King may well live to become Henry III*.

Interesting, I was not aware of this, I honestly knew very little about the Young King.

Any ideas on how this alternate Henry III would rule? Also, could he successfully secure a divorce?
 
Interesting, I was not aware of this, I honestly knew very little about the Young King.

Any ideas on how this alternate Henry III would rule? Also, could he successfully secure a divorce?

Unlikely -- if Henry VIII couldn't get one 300 + years later, then the Young King wouldn't be able to either.
 
EDIT: (For that matter, what happens to the Third Crusade?)
Barbarossa may still go on crusade, and concerning butterflies, maybe he survives to capture Jerusalem.

then agian, this could also depend on whether or not Saladin (assuming that the butterflies do not reach him until now) is capablke of outsmarting/fighting Barbarossa one on one like he did richard in OTL.
 
Barbarossa may still go on crusade, and concerning butterflies, maybe he survives to capture Jerusalem.

then agian, this could also depend on whether or not Saladin (assuming that the butterflies do not reach him until now) is capablke of outsmarting/fighting Barbarossa one on one like he did richard in OTL.
That's definitely something to consider.
 
Barbarossa may still go on crusade, and concerning butterflies, maybe he survives to capture Jerusalem.

then agian, this could also depend on whether or not Saladin (assuming that the butterflies do not reach him until now) is capablke of outsmarting/fighting Barbarossa one on one like he did richard in OTL.

But Richard defeated Saladin when they met in battle. The only time he failed to actually make headway was when the Crusaders were divided in leadership and that was after Richard had helped captured Acre among other things.
 
But Richard defeated Saladin when they met in battle. The only time he failed to actually make headway was when the Crusaders were divided in leadership and that was after Richard had helped captured Acre among other things.
Well, to put it another way, Richard and Saladin were "noble knights", or what we depict as such.....can we see Barbarossa as one?
 
Well, to put it another way, Richard and Saladin were "noble knights", or what we depict as such.....can we see Barbarossa as one?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Richard could be just as ruthless as anyone as his actions in various campaigns showed. Hell, my signature was said to be a quote he was fond of using.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Richard could be just as ruthless as anyone as his actions in various campaigns showed. Hell, my signature was said to be a quote he was fond of using.
I know that, but more or less the mythology of them both is the noble soldier king. I do not think that Barbarossa has that same mythological figure. Hell, Richard and Saladin would probably have been best pals in another TL if they were not fighting each other.

Anyway. what it comes down to is whether or not butterflies make Saladin die, or Barbarossa survive? and indeed, ATL Henry III* may actually go and do what Richard did. If not him, butterflies alone may actually have brothers Geoffrey survive, and maybe even John grow up into a better person than he was given in OTL. They may be the people who will go on crusade instead of Richard.

and now for some reason i want John Lackland to be King in Acre now.:p
 
Well, to put it another way, Richard and Saladin were "noble knights", or what we depict as such.....can we see Barbarossa as one?

Richard a noble knight hah maybe for the holdings in france. Dd you know he hated England and smply viewed it as his money bag to use in his wars. Heck he despised the english people themselves. Nearly everythng about England he hated. Some knght he was. Not to mention hiss blatent sezure of Cyprus from Isaac Komnenos. Not to say he wasn't a good leader but he had his darker sides. He was in essence a warmonger out for glory and fame.

As for Saladin he too was not some noble knight. He butchered many and enslaved many others. Yeah he spared guy but every other crusader was ether killed or enslaved. Same thing he did to most of his enemies. It was only rich nobles on the off chance he spared most lkely due to monetary and baganng reasons. He was a typicl medieval ruler though a bit moreTue he mmay have been better than cusader scum lke reynald but to say he was a paragon of virtue is overstated. He was in his time a competantt arab sultan who had manpower, resources, and a whole host of other advantages over the crusader states.
 
Richard a noble knight hah maybe for the holdings in france. Dd you know he hated England and smply viewed it as his money bag to use in his wars. Heck he despised the english people themselves. Nearly everythng about England he hated. Some knght he was. Not to mention hiss blatent sezure of Cyprus from Isaac Komnenos. Not to say he wasn't a good leader but he had his darker sides. He was in essence a warmonger out for glory and fame.

As for Saladin he too was not some noble knight. He butchered many and enslaved many others. Yeah he spared guy but every other crusader was ether killed or enslaved. Same thing he did to most of his enemies. It was only rich nobles on the off chance he spared most lkely due to monetary and baganng reasons. He was a typicl medieval ruler though a bit moreTue he mmay have been better than cusader scum lke reynald but to say he was a paragon of virtue is overstated. He was in his time a competantt arab sultan who had manpower, resources, and a whole host of other advantages over the crusader states.

My only corection is that he was a Kurd in actuality. Not an Arab.
 
Unlikely -- if Henry VIII couldn't get one 300 + years later, then the Young King wouldn't be able to either.

I disagree: the Young King could have gotten an annulment as easily as his mother's first husband Louis VII did.

Henry Tudor faced a uniquely difficult set of circumstances - the Lutheran schism, a living daughter, the entire "pope under the control of Catherine's uncle" mess - that the Young King simply never faced.
 
Top