Mortimer (the one we're talking about) was dead by the time Bolingbroke was exiled......
WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke
- Thread starter Archduke
- Start date
Our Roger Mortimer was already Earl of March and Earl of Ulster at that point so he CAN NOT be that Sir Roger Mortimer. 13 years are way too young for being already knighted and he would be called with his proper title (aka Earl of March or at the worst Earl of Ulster) and as I have already said Richard II had NO need to attaint Mortimer if he wanted place Norwich as heir
Yeah, but there was a shortage of spoiled wealthy teenagers named Roger Mortimer, wasn't it?
I think gaining the part of Mortimer estates would trump fear of providing for his sister and her children.
he preferred Norwich above either of them.
Jonathan1997
Banned
Very interesting what you just said then we could have a civil war starting on who gets Richard crown there is Edmund Duke of York or his son Richard and there is also Henry V and Edmund and Roger Mortimer.
Only Surrey would have NO claim on Mortimer‘s estates and so is unlikely to get them,
If Richard can and want place Norwich as heir presumptive is free to do that (and he biggest obstacle on his road for doing that is Bolingbroke NOT March, who is still useful to be out in the place of the heir presumptive until Richard can totally remove his enemy Bolingbroke from the succession).
I have already explained to you why that Sir Roger CAN NOT BE March, but must be an older Roger Mortimer without any title
He did have no claim on Arundel's estates, still got a part of it by Richard's will.
......No? We don't know for sure but it is not unreasonable to think there was someone named Roger Mortimer who was a spoiled teenager. And he was knighted in 1390 according to the wiki and Radcot was years before that.
But he wouldn't know the extent of Richard's plans, would he?
That is true.
He was son of a sister of Arundel so he had a sort of claim on it
Yeah, but evidently the fact who March had already two Earldoms, was not yet knighted and was way too young for it is not enough for being certain who he was NOT that Sir Roger Mortimer...
That's true, but chronicler could falsely attribute knighthood to Roger Mortimer.
But this is not a justification used by Richard when giving him estates.
Perhaps, but he was already Earl of March by then and would have been known as such. Similar to how one calls Richard Plantagenet as "York" and Edmund Beaufort as "Somerset".
Yeah, but why people think that March was associated with Appellants if he wasn't present on Radcot?
Explain me for what reason a chronicler so incompetent to call him with a knighthood he do not had yet instead of either the Earldoms he already held can be reputed trustworthy, because I can not understand why.
Exactly.
They associate Thomas Mortimer only with them AFAIK. I am not aware of anyone saying that Roger Mortimer was a member of them (and Richard cracked down on them pretty hard later on so I think that would atleast warrant a mention on the wiki or something)
He was too young for being present there. The association is likely born by a mistake as he was reported to be close to the uncle who was associated with the Appellants.
This also. Roger was still entrusted with the Lieutenancy of Ireland for many years after tha battle, so is unlikely he had anything to do directly with then
@Archduke
She doesn't have much preserved letters and honestly the interpretation that she was pregnant isn't super solid but the word choice she used does imply miscarriage -- I remember researching it for a potential surviving Richard II TL I never got off the ground
She doesn't have much preserved letters and honestly the interpretation that she was pregnant isn't super solid but the word choice she used does imply miscarriage -- I remember researching it for a potential surviving Richard II TL I never got off the ground
Also Richard II does seem to have favored OTL Henry V as he was taken along with the King to Ireland before he was deposed and didn't execute him despite his father seeking to overthrow him
I genuinely believe that Mortimer was favored as heir because Richard was prideful and spiteful and never forgave the Lord Appellants
I genuinely believe that Mortimer was favored as heir because Richard was prideful and spiteful and never forgave the Lord Appellants
Monmouth was young, a ward of the King and much more useful kept alive as hostage than to being executed so I would not say who he was favored by Richard II, at least not judging from that facts
It's reported by contemporary sources that Richard was fond of his young Ward and personally knighted him
Additionally Henry V reburied Richard II upon taking the throne, which seems to indicate the feelings were reciprocated in my eyes
Plus he's not a very useful hostage once Henry IV made clear he was usurping Richard