WI Richard II had married Caterina Visconti?

Inspired by the Yorkist/Lancastrian thread:

IOTL Richard II married Anne of Bohemia in 1382. Their union lasted for 12 years, and the king genuinely loved her, but no children was born. However, before Anne, the most serious candidate to be Richard's wife was Caterina Visconti, who would bring a huge dowry with her (while Anne didn't bring any money, and Richard actually paid 20,000 florins to her brother Wenceslaus).

So, WI the marriage with Caterina had gone ahead? She was six years older than Richard, but would bring a lot of personal wealth, and at the time was considered a more popular candidate than Anne. Also, assuming that Caterina could give birth to a heir (let's say around 1385) how would it affect Richard's reign and the rebellion against him?
 
Caterina Visconti.

I've often heard that Richard was either imponent, gay or both! Therefore it did'nt really matter who he married..
 
I've often heard that Richard was either imponent, gay or both! Therefore it did'nt really matter who he married..

Well, I'm not so sure we can't say that Anne wasn't the problem. Her eldest sister Margaret also didn't have any children in her two marriages, and her youngest (also called Margaret) had only one daughter in more than 20 years of union. Maybe it was a family problem.
 
It's been suggested that Richard was gay, largely because of his attitude to de Vere. I don't know, somehow the evidence doesn't convince me. It's possible, but no more. Some might remember me arguing long and hard on another thread that Edward II's behaviour with Gaveston then Despenser couldn't be explained by mere friendship, and I do think that. Richard's with de Vere I think could. And it wouldn't matter, plenty of indubitably gay people have married due to societal and familial pressure, and once married you kind of have to, you know ... I suppose it's like lying back and thinking of England, except you're not lying back and it's not England. A gay monarch has those pressures cubed, plus he might actually feel a duty to ensure the succession.

Impotent, who knows? Again, maybe. There is no doubt that Richard sincerely loved his first wife, and no doubt also that he was happy to have as second wife a little girl, necessarily deferring consummation for years. Nor is he reported to have had mistresses. There is also the suggestion that, as has also been said of Edward the Confessor, he remained a virgin for religious reasons, which might be fine for anyone else but is not for a monarch, with the peace of the land depending on an assured succession.

We just don't and won't know. It is though hard to think of anything that could have made the reign much worse. So Caterina Visconti, go for it.
 
If Richard II has a heir that is 14, 13 years old by 1399, could Henry still get the throne, or Richard would just be removed and his son crowned in his place?
 
There wouldn't be all the doubt and questions over the succession, so the whole situation would be a lot easier and, who knows, Richard might not have been deposed, or at least not until later. If he had a son that age then to the way of thinking at the time he would almost have reached his majority, so I don't see any reason why he would not have succeeded Richard if the deposition had in fact taken place.
 
Richard II

It's been suggested that Richard was gay, largely because of his attitude to de Vere. I don't know, somehow the evidence doesn't convince me. It's possible, but no more. Some might remember me arguing long and hard on another thread that Edward II's behaviour with Gaveston then Despenser couldn't be explained by mere friendship, and I do think that. Richard's with de Vere I think could. And it wouldn't matter, plenty of indubitably gay people have married due to societal and familial pressure, and once married you kind of have to, you know ... I suppose it's like lying back and thinking of England, except you're not lying back and it's not England. A gay monarch has those pressures cubed, plus he might actually feel a duty to ensure the succession.

Impotent, who knows? Again, maybe. There is no doubt that Richard sincerely loved his first wife, and no doubt also that he was happy to have as second wife a little girl, necessarily deferring consummation for years. Nor is he reported to have had mistresses. There is also the suggestion that, as has also been said of Edward the Confessor, he remained a virgin for religious reasons, which might be fine for anyone else but is not for a monarch, with the peace of the land depending on an assured succession.

We just don't and won't know. It is though hard to think of anything that could have made the reign much worse. So Caterina Visconti, go for it.
I agree. But Richard II was also rather inbred, his parents were both grandchildren of Edward I. He also suffered from mental illness.
 
I wouldn't say he was inbred. In actual fact his father was a great-grandson of Edward I, through the latter's first marriage. His mother was a granddaughter, from the second marriage to Margaret of France. His ancestry doesn't show a lot more inbreeding than that. He was three times descended from Philip III of France, but that still made him only twice his great-great-great-grandson and once his great-great-grandson, again through two different marriages. That's nothing out of the way. Mentally ill? Maybe. He acted somewhat deranged at times, but mostly seemed to function. It's something we can speculate about, but probably not establish.
 
Top