WI Richard II doesn't banish Henry Bolingbroke

Going by Shakespeare on this but -- what if Richard II of England allows his cousin Henry and Thomas Mowbray to fight their duel of honor? Depending on who won, would his usurpation be prevented? If not, would Henry still be the replacement?
 
Last edited:
Entertaining as he may be, Shakespeare's not your best source for historical accuracy. The main reason for Bolingbroke's decision to return from exile was Richard's decision not to allow the automatic inheritance of the lands of John of Gaunt for some reason nobody's been able to work out (their relationship was fractious and oscillated from trusted allies to sworn enemies, but interrupting that sort of inheritance was quite extreme even so). After all Bolingbroke had only been exiled for 10 years, whereas Norfolk had been exiled for life.
 
Entertaining as he may be, Shakespeare's not your best source for historical accuracy.

If anything this is proberly quite understated, Shakespeare had a very shaky relationship with historical accuracy and more often than not he only lifted names (and prehaps who was friendly with who) and make up the rest out of whole cloth.
 
If anything this is proberly quite understated, Shakespeare had a very shaky relationship with historical accuracy and more often than not he only lifted names (and prehaps who was friendly with who) and make up the rest out of whole cloth.

Well, Shakespeare was in the business of writing (extremely well written) puff pieces justifying the eventual Tudor takeover.
 
Entertaining as he may be, Shakespeare's not your best source for historical accuracy. The main reason for Bolingbroke's decision to return from exile was Richard's decision not to allow the automatic inheritance of the lands of John of Gaunt for some reason nobody's been able to work out (their relationship was fractious and oscillated from trusted allies to sworn enemies, but interrupting that sort of inheritance was quite extreme even so).

Right, but he was still banished in the first place because of the duel, correct? Now if he had the duel, and won, there's the question of whether Richard would still create issue for Henry's inheritance, but I'm pretty sure we can agree that's less likely with him in the country. Though as mentioned, they've had strains on their relationship before...
 
Concerns about Shakespeare's historical accuracy aside (and there are plenty of them), then it'll be hard to predict.

Richard was genuinely unpopular by the time of his deposition, and meddling with rightful inheritances was always something to rile up the Lords in medieval England. If cousin Henry isn't banished when John of Gaunt dies, then Richard will not be able to pull off his OTL stunt. Gaunt was the richest man in the realm, and Richard had simply taken the whole thing without so much as a "how d'you do". If it could happen to the LLancastrian inheritance, what chance did Lord Bloggs have of passing off his two bit manor with a couple of fields to his son, or Baron Generic of holding his castle against such an arbitrary king?

There's also a chance that if Henry is around, and malcontents are talking about him as the heir, Richard may decide to clarify who his heir actually is, which causes plenty of changes...
 
There's also a chance that if Henry is around, and malcontents are talking about him as the heir, Richard may decide to clarify who his heir actually is, which causes plenty of changes...

If he clarifies in favor of Henry, that might just mean he's not usurped and gets to reign longer -- and could also be enough to prevent the Mortimers from claiming the throne, starting England off with a more peaceful 15th Century.
 
If he clarifies in favor of Henry, that might just mean he's not usurped and gets to reign longer -- and could also be enough to prevent the Mortimers from claiming the throne, starting England off with a more peaceful 15th Century.
Of course, if he manages to have a son in the meantime, then the whole discussion about the succession is moot.
 
Of course, if he manages to have a son in the meantime, then the whole discussion about the succession is moot.

Or the opposite -- such an heir, after all, would be the grandchild of the King of France; if Richard consolidates peace with France in such a way, it might actually make anti-French subjects more determined in seeing him and his line usurped.
 
Or the opposite -- such an heir, after all, would be the grandchild of the King of France; if Richard consolidates peace with France in such a way, it might actually make anti-French subjects more determined in seeing him and his line usurped.
Hmm, I'm not sure about that one. Edward III was the grandson of the French king, as was Henry VI. One of those was a disaster, and the other might have managed to snag the title 'The Great' if he'd died about eight years earlier. Peace with France wasn't popular, but this isn't the thing it would have been 50 years later. If he can get the nobles on board with his Irish schemes - not taxing them too much would be a start - then he might manage peace with France.
 
Hmm, I'm not sure about that one. Edward III was the grandson of the French king, as was Henry VI. One of those was a disaster, and the other might have managed to snag the title 'The Great' if he'd died about eight years earlier. Peace with France wasn't popular, but this isn't the thing it would have been 50 years later. If he can get the nobles on board with his Irish schemes - not taxing them too much would be a start - then he might manage peace with France.

Well if he does, that may be the biggest effect right there (i.e. a lasting Peace of 1389).
 
Top