WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke

[CaptainShadow]

Well, maybe Richard had a more lax attitude to March than to rest of conspirators due to his youth at Rabcot, and wanted to give him a second chance, but March neglected the king's order and got himself into further trouble?

I don't think so. We all know that Richard would want Norwich to succeed him and attainting Mortimer is a step towards doing so.

Mortimer would have been like 13 at Radcot. Pretty unlikely that he was present at all.

Not enough trouble to get an attainder. You do realize that getting an attainder was extremely rare and not given out freely?

He only needed to leave his own entail naming Norwich his heir than attaining Mortimer.

Did Roger actually respect his wife or just treated her like breeding mare? Young, he was, yes, but young boys often do stupid things to prove themselves.

Can't say if they had a close relationship but I haven't heard of him ill treating his wife.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

We do not know, but still Richard’s actions to me looked more oriented, in the worst case, to recover control over Roger, putting him under Surrey’s influence instead of that of his traitor uncle.

Well, we cannot know for sure, but I think that if Richard just wanted to recover control over Roger, he'd send someone else that Surrey, whom he used when he needed harsher methods.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Well, we cannot know for sure, but I think that if Richard just wanted to recover control over Roger, he'd send someone else that Surrey, whom he used when he needed harsher methods.

And do you have a source for Surrey having been Richard's henchman only used when he intended to be harsh?

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

And do you have a source for Surrey having been Richard's henchman only used when he intended to be harsh?

It was more of my impression than actual claim, I should see: "and it seems to me that Richard was sending Surrey once he needed harsher measures"

 

[CaptainShadow]

It was more of my impression than actual claim, I should see: "and it seems to me that Richard was sending Surrey once he needed harsher measures"

Doesn't seem likely to me. Surrey having been "reserved" (idk what to call it) for such tasks would imply he was a favorite, which he was not, as evidenced by his attack on the king's favorites. He would not have attacked members of his own clique.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Doesn't seem likely to me. Surrey having been "reserved" (idk what to call it) for such tasks would imply he was a favorite, which he was not, as evidenced by his attack on the king's favorites. He would not have attacked members of his own clique.

Richard gave him a part of Arundel's estates, so he most likely forgave him.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Anne of Bohemia seems to have indicated in a letter to her brother King Wenceslas that she was pregnant or believed she was pregnant in the late 1380's - so who knows if Richard II was sterile or if she had a miscarriage that made her barren but Richard's regime will always be slightly chaotic without an heir

 

[isabella]

Richard gave him a part of Arundel's estates, so he most likely forgave him.

Then he had not reason for being so harsh on Mortimer who was still young and, if he had really done something against the King, was likely only under the bad influence of his uncle, so pretty unlikely to be seen as irredeemable.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Then he had not reason for being so harsh on Mortimer who was still young and, if he had really done something against the King, was likely only under the bad influence of his uncle, so pretty unlikely to be seen as irredeemable.

I interpret Roger being given the order to capture his uncle as second chance from Richard, which Roger didn't use.

 

[CaptainShadow]

I interpret Roger being given the order to capture his uncle as second chance from Richard, which Roger didn't use.

Why would he even require a second chance?

 

[isabella]

Anne of Bohemia seems to have indicated in a letter to her brother King Wenceslas that she was pregnant or believed she was pregnant in the late 1380's - so who knows if Richard II was sterile or if she had a miscarriage that made her barren but Richard's regime will always be slightly chaotic without an heir

That also is true. And if Richard was bot much interested in sex or more interested in men, he would not have any child outside his marriages and if Anne was barren or made barren by a miscarriage I can not see any reason for Richard not having children by Isabella once she was of age.

I interpret Roger being given the order to capture his uncle as second chance from Richard, which Roger didn't use.

Pretty unlikely and still would NOT BE ENOUGH for justifying harsher action than being replaced in his post and at the worst being kept under house arrest/custody by his brother-in-law

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Why would he even require a second chance?

If he was present at Radcot Bridge among the rebels, he would.

Pretty unlikely and still would NOT BE ENOUGH for justifying harsher action than being replaced in his post and at the worst being kept under house arrest/custody by his brother-in-law

Evidence could be fabricated, after all Arundel was tried for trying to depose Richard, which isn't true, because if he wanted him deposed, he could press to do it during Merciless Parliament.

 

[CaptainShadow]

If he was present at Radcot Bridge among the rebels, he would.



Evidence could be fabricated, after all Arundel was tried for trying to depose Richard, which isn't true, because if he wanted him deposed, he could press to do it during Merciless Parliament.

If he was, we would have known and several sources would have mentioned this. Much more likely that this guy confused Roger (March) Mortimer and Thomas Mortimer (Whom we know for sure was at Radcot). Hell, this could be another Roger Mortimer entirely. March, AIUI, would have been named "March" rather than "Sir Roger Mortimer". And he was like 13.

WHY would he fabricate evidence?

The merciless Parliament was focused on removing the king's favorites not the king himself.

 

[isabella]

Well, we cannot know for sure, but I think that if Richard just wanted to recover control over Roger, he'd send someone else that Surrey, whom he used when he needed harsher methods.

As Surrey was March’s brother-in-law and as such the person who had more interest in keeping him alive and with his inheritance intact (else he would have to provide to his sister and her children) I doubt Richard II had intention to be too harsh on March

If he was present at Radcot Bridge among the rebels, he would.



Evidence could be fabricated, after all Arundel was tried for trying to depose Richard, which isn't true, because if he wanted him deposed, he could press to do it during Merciless Parliament.

Again he was only 24 years old. Better putting him under the direction and influence of someone trustworthy than being too hard with him.
Custody, house arrest or if he had really need of a lesson a short time in prison but nothing more...

 

[isabella]

If he was, we would have known and several sources would have mentioned this. Much more likely that this guy confused Roger (March) Mortimer and Thomas Mortimer (Whom we know for sure was at Radcot). Hell, this could be another Roger Mortimer entirely. March, AIUI, would have been named "March" rather than "Sir Roger Mortimer". And he was like 13.

WHY would he fabricate evidence?

The merciless Parliament was focused on removing the king's favorites not the king himself.

Exactly. Roger was too young and still without any reason for being counted among the enemies of the King who needed to be eliminated.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

. Hell, this could be another Roger Mortimer entirely. March, AIUI, would have been named "March" rather than "Sir Roger Mortimer". And he was like 13.

Was there another Roger Mortimer alive? And whole speech given to us by chronicler sounds exactly like what spoiled teenager from wealthy family would say in this situation, so I think it was Roger Mortimer of March who fulfilled every requirement (was spoiled wealthy teenager).

As Surrey was March’s brother-in-law

Surrey didn't care about his uncle being tried beheaded, why would he care about brother-in-law?

Again he was only 24 years old. Better putting him under the direction and influence of someone trustworthy than being too hard with him.

I think Richard tried this when he gave order to capture Thomas Mortimer, but Roger's neglect convinced him to try to arrest and attaint Roger to ease Norwich's way to the throne.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Was there another Roger Mortimer alive? And whole speech given to us by chronicler sounds exactly like what spoiled teenager from wealthy family would say in this situation, so I think it was Roger Mortimer of March who fulfilled every requirement (was spoiled wealthy teenager).



Surrey didn't care about his uncle being tried beheaded, why would he care about brother-in-law?



I think Richard tried this when he gave order to capture Thomas Mortimer, but Roger's neglect convinced him to try to arrest and attaint Roger to ease Norwich's way to the throne.

There were other Mortimers for sure and Roger was a common name in the family.

Most people from noble families were spoiled and wealthy. Anyone could have met that criteria. I could have met that criteria.

She literally explains her reasoning in the same post.

A helluva lot options and many conclusions to jump to other than the most harshest.

 

[Jonathan1997]

Richard II was a bully who lacked the marshal at intellectual skill to back himself up he was no William the conqueror.

 

[Archduke]

If you read Dan Jones's book, it was mentioned here and also http://mortimerhistorysociety.org.uk/index.php/the-earls-of-march.

Thank you.

Parliament of 1386 did so IIRC.

Pious, yes, but I doubt he was pious enough to not dabble in sinful behavior like the rest of the human race.

At 1386, Richard II mentioned Mortimer as a possible heir but did not actually confirm Mortimer as his heir with a bill.

I was speaking in regards to having a mistress. Plenty of pious kings avoided them but plenty also did have many mistresses. So i think there is a case for Richard II not being sterile.

Anne of Bohemia seems to have indicated in a letter to her brother King Wenceslas that she was pregnant or believed she was pregnant in the late 1380's - so who knows if Richard II was sterile or if she had a miscarriage that made her barren but Richard's regime will always be slightly chaotic without an heir

Thanks for that tidbit. Do you by chance have the source, I'm curious if there is anything else interesting in Anne's letters.

Richard II do not trusted anymore Mortimer, and that is fine. He had sent Surrey, son of Richard II’s half-brother AND brother-in-law of Mortimer to remove the latter from his post and take him in custody and that is ok. But what make you think who Richard II wanted do more than removing Mortimer from his post and have him back in England, possibly under house arrest? That is Surrey was sent to arrest and capture ROGER Mortimer, instead of being sent to replace Roger AND capture Thomas Mortimer (who is much more likely)

Well, maybe Richard had a more lax attitude to March than to rest of conspirators due to his youth at Rabcot, and wanted to give him a second chance, but March neglected the king's order and got himself into further trouble?

I don't think so. We all know that Richard would want Norwich to succeed him and attainting Mortimer is a step towards doing so.

Regarding Mortimer, I tend to think that Richard II was suspicious of both Mortimer and Bolingbroke but preferred Mortimer to Bolingbroke. As long as they were both around, Richard II could hope for them to oppose each other and didn't have to be aggressive against either. But once Bolingbroke was exiled, Richard II's relationship with Mortimer soured. I do think it is likely that Richard II wanted to arrest Mortimer for failing to carry out his orders and presumably being treasonous. However, I doubt Richard II wanted to kill him since he did not want Bolingbroke to inherit the throne and Bolingbroke was still alive and an adult compared to Mortimer's children. With Bolingbroke dead, we may see Richard II kill Mortimer since he doesn't have to worry about Bolingbroke getting the throne. However, I do not thinK Richard II would publically execute Mortimer. Instead, Richard II is more likely to have Mortimer murdered as he had Gloucester murdered. Or most probably Richard II could just put Mortimer in life imprisonment like Warwick.

If Mortimer imprisoned, Richard II will have Mortimer's sons and Bolingbroke's sons are his wards sorta similar to OTL and then should Richard II not produce his own son, he can either use Edward III or Edward I's entail to choose whichever branch he feels is more loyal to him.

 

[Archduke]

Richard II was a bully who lacked the marshal at intellectual skill to back himself up he was no William the conqueror.

Richard II is more often compared to Edward the Confessor who was also a tyrant but a more successful one.