WI: Richard II and Anne of Bohemia had a son?

Richard II has long fascinated me. He brought high culture to the Royal Court, curtailed the power of the nobility, and tried to fully exercise his royal prerogative. Sadly he was overthrown and later killed by his cousin, who became Henry IV. A key problem he had was a failure to produce a son with his first wife Anne of Bohemia. So what if he did? What if he and Anne had a son in, lets say 1384? Would having a son help his reign or hinder it? Would this son, who would be 14-15 when Henry Bolingbroke invaded, be allowed to become King, with Henry as power behind the throne or would he be exiled/imprisoned in the the Tower?
 
I think Henry's scant legitimacy as monarch would have dropped to negligible levels had Richard II had a son or two. A "power behind the throne" arrangement might appeal, but it's not as if there needs to be a regent if the Prince of Wales is 15. It also depends on what happens to Richard. Does he flee? Or abdicate? Would he attempt to fight, to preserve something for his son and heir, or try to make a deal which allows the prince to inherit?

The international scene may also be somewhat different. By this stage, Richard's son will be betrothed, if not married. Any such marriage could bring new allies into the King's camp, and bring new enemies too...
 
It would definitely help his reign. Henry's whole drama with Richard centered on Richard disliking him intensely and alternately favoring the Earl of March or the Duke of York as potential successors instead of Henry (who was the heir by the contemporary entail of the throne). With a prince of Wales in the picture, Henry of Bolingbroke has nothing to be mad about - most likely he focuses his energy on securing/expanding his principality of Aquitaine. Worse case scenario Richard is deposed á la Edward II and replaced with his son.
 
I think Henry's scant legitimacy as monarch would have dropped to negligible levels had Richard II had a son or two. A "power behind the throne" arrangement might appeal, but it's not as if there needs to be a regent if the Prince of Wales is 15. It also depends on what happens to Richard. Does he flee? Or abdicate? Would he attempt to fight, to preserve something for his son and heir, or try to make a deal which allows the prince to inherit?

The international scene may also be somewhat different. By this stage, Richard's son will be betrothed, if not married. Any such marriage could bring new allies into the King's camp, and bring new enemies too...

Just what was the age of majority for an English King back then? I honestly can't remember. But yes with a son or two Henry's claims go straight out the window. I wonder if having a son would change Richards policies at all or no... Anyway with a son Richard might have more support to be able to fight off the invasion by Bolingbroke. Personally, if everything gos OTL with Bolingbrokes invasion I can see Henry becoming the power behind the throne but not the King. Remember Parliament wouldn't depose Henry VI for Richard so I doubt they would depose a Richard II with a son or two for Henry.

I think 15 might be a little young for an actual marriage but a betrothal would be a definite yes. Maybe to Richard II's OTL second wife Isabella of France?

It would definitely help his reign. Henry's whole drama with Richard centered on Richard disliking him intensely and alternately favoring the Earl of March or the Duke of York as potential successors instead of Henry (who was the heir by the contemporary entail of the throne). With a prince of Wales in the picture, Henry of Bolingbroke has nothing to be mad about - most likely he focuses his energy on securing/expanding his principality of Aquitaine. Worse case scenario Richard is deposed á la Edward II and replaced with his son.

I thought that March was the heir by primogeniture? Though Henry would still have his stolen inheritance to be mad over. Though a reconcilliation wouldn't be out of the question. Royal reconciliations happened often enough in 14th and 15th century England. Maybe part of the Lancastrian inheritance is returned to Bolingbroke?
 
I think Henry's scant legitimacy as monarch would have dropped to negligible levels had Richard II had a son or two.

It's almost inconceivable that Henry would have usurped the throne for himself if Richard had an heir. It's much, much more likely that Richard's son - probably called Edward - would have been installed in place of Richard by the nobility at some point. They could then dictate the terms of a minority in their own interests.
 
Last edited:
It would definitely help his reign. Henry's whole drama with Richard centered on Richard disliking him intensely and alternately favoring the Earl of March or the Duke of York as potential successors instead of Henry (who was the heir by the contemporary entail of the throne).
Not by the rules that Edward III, a couple of generations earlier, had said applied (and, for that matter, had claimed should apply not only to England, but to France as well): Under those rules of 'male-favoured primogeniture' Lionel of Clarence's heirs, at that date in the Mortimer line, would have taken prededence over the Lancasters.

Henry of Bolingbroke has nothing to be mad about - most likely he focuses his energy on securing/expanding his principality of Aquitaine.
:confused:
Whose principality of Aquitaine?

Just what was the age of majority for an English King back then?
Considering Richard II as an example, 14.
 
Richard made Gaunt Duke of Aquitaine.
I'd forgotten that. Was the grant actually on a hereditary basis, though, or just a 'personal' one i.e. for John's lifetime only?
IOTL, Richard was reluctant to recognise Henry's inheritance of even the older 'Lancaster' estates.
 
Last edited:
But would he have confirmed Henry's inheritance of that title?

ITTL, Richard may not even be on the throne by the time Gaunt dies. And if he does try to interfere with the Lancastrian inheritance in a similar fashion to OTL, well, he's not going to be long on the throne anyway.
 
@ Velasco: I thought that the cousins Richard (II) of Bordeaux and Henry Bolingbroke initially was quite well, in part because they grew up together. However they eventually grew apart.
IIRC Richard also was in need of funds, because he needed it for expeditions to Ireland among others. Denying Bolingbroke his inheritance might have seen worth the gamble for Richard, also because he felt that the French (Bolingbroke's place of exile) wouldn't support him. Still this illegal action also costed Richard the support of some, who not necessarily were a fan of Bolingbroke.

Still if the son of Richard and Anne is old enough, then this son probably would have replaced his father and Bolingbroke could have become his regent. However once this son is old enough and fully takes over the government, he might avenge himself on Bolingbroke for the treatment of his father...
 
I think England and Aquitaine can be split at this point.

Well, they can, and were; but it's difficult for me to see that situation being permanent. Assuming Richard is deposed in favour of his son, the Lancastrians would be in a very, very strong position as the indisputably most powerful magnates in the polity, very much over-mighty subjects. I suspect something has to give eventually; either they're going to be crushed at some stage, or they're going to usurp the throne at some stage. Which way it goes probably depends in good part on whether Edward IV* is more like his father or his great-grandfather as a king.

Henry of Monmouth, the wicked usurper-king. Now there's an interesting possibility.
 
I thought that March was the heir by primogeniture? Though Henry would still have his stolen inheritance to be mad over. Though a reconcilliation wouldn't be out of the question. Royal reconciliations happened often enough in 14th and 15th century England. Maybe part of the Lancastrian inheritance is returned to Bolingbroke?

March was the heir general, but Henry Bolingbroke was the heir male. Edward III had entailed the throne with male representation - that is, male grandchildren can take their father's place in the succession (like Richard did) but female grandchildren can't. In royal charters Bolingbroke always had precedence over March. March was briefly recognized as heir in 1386 but the entail wasn't reversed and the notion was discarded by the 1390s. Mortimer didn't receive a dukedom when the other heirs were made dukes (Hereford and Aumale), and was pushed further down the order of precedence when Richard created a further three dukes (Ireland, Exeter, Surrey) and a marquis (Dorset). In 1398 Richard was considering resigning the throne to his uncle York (Bolingbroke's pardon had been reversed).

And yes, reconciliations were definitely possible - especially once you have a clear male heir and nothing to gain by opposing him.
 
Last edited:
Top