WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke

[Archduke]

Someone mentioned earlier that the relationship between Monmouth and Bolingbroke deteriorated in 1410 other whose side to take in the French Civil War. I was reading a book by Ian Mortimer (it might've been the one about Henry IV), who can be irritatingly pro-Lancastrian in his writing, but he does acknowledge human faults, and his writing is entertaining. He stated that there seems to have always been a strain in the relationship of Monmouth and Bolingbroke. For example, in 1398 Monmouth was not listed as a receiver of any Christmas gifts from his father. The presumed favorite, Thomas, was high on the list. There are many other factors than can come into play that suggest it wasn't an ideal relationship.

Monmouth was twelve when that happened. He must have been a troublemaker as a child, which probably led later on to Henry IV believing that Monmouth was too reckless or undisciplined.

I think it was after Richard III's bones were discovered that a "break" in the Yorkist line was discovered. Someone was illegitimate somewhere. Of course, it doesn't have to be Richard of Conisburgh, but because the affair was so noticeable, Langley excluded him from his will, and Richard II was paying a sort of pension to support Conisburgh (as requested in his mother's will)-it makes you wonder.

I forgot about that! Conisburgh would make sense...and with the way that Langley neglected him, perhaps he knew all along.

Oh wow, yeah Conisburgh most probably is illegitimate at that point then.

Just for guidance: here are some articles on it

Richard III's DNA throws up infidelity surprise

Analysis of Richard III's DNA has thrown up surprising evidence of infidelity somewhere in his family tree.

www.bbc.com

Richard III DNA study uncovers illegitimate child mystery

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Viveka Elm]

Monmouth was twelve when that happened. He must have been a troublemaker as a child, which probably led later on to Henry IV believing that Monmouth was too reckless or undisciplined.

He could've been. I'm guessing it started off as more personality differences and clashes. Monmouth became ill after his mother died and it is believed her death caused the illness. (I know historical fiction isn't reliable without references, but the ones I have read about him in childhood have reference him having his large eyes and skin tone from his mother.) They were probably very close. Bolingbroke was a jouster and Monmouth was not. After Richard II took him as a hostage and developed a close relationship (father figure sort) with him, I made things worse between him and Bolingbroke. Etc, etc.

 

[HortenseMancini]

Oh wow, yeah Conisburgh most probably is illegitimate at that point then.

Just for guidance: here are some articles on it

Richard III's DNA throws up infidelity surprise

Analysis of Richard III's DNA has thrown up surprising evidence of infidelity somewhere in his family tree.

www.bbc.com

Richard III DNA study uncovers illegitimate child mystery

www.businessinsider.com

Reading those articles was very interesting! So, theoretically, the infidelity could’ve occurred pretty much anywhere between Edward III and the 14th Duke of Beaufort, or between Edward III and Richard III. Perhaps genetic testing on the remains of the 2nd Duke of Exeter could confirm whether Conisburgh was in fact the son of John Holland?

 

[CaptainShadow]

Best suited for genetic testing tho would be comparing the remains of Conisburgh and Langley. For even if the Exeter-Conisburgh DNA doesn't match, there's still a possibility that he wasn't Langley's son even then. Isabel could've slept with someone other than Holland as well after all.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Richard II was paying a sort of pension to support Conisburgh

That was IIRC pretty common occurrence. The Duke of Somerset, for example, despite having means of income, still recieved annuities (AKA pension) from Henry VI.

 

[HortenseMancini]

Best suited for genetic testing tho would be comparing the remains of Conisburgh and Langley. For even if the Exeter-Conisburgh DNA doesn't match, there's still a possibility that he wasn't Langley's son even then. Isabel could've slept with someone other than Holland as well after all.

That’s a very good point, and would definitely put the matter to rest. Though funnily enough, it doesn’t really change the later Yorkist claim if Conisburgh was illegitimate. He still married Anne Mortimer.

 

[CaptainShadow]

That’s a very good point, and would definitely put the matter to rest. Though funnily enough, it doesn’t really change the later Yorkist claim if Conisburgh was illegitimate. He still married Anne Mortimer.

Lmao true. Two luckless poor people run away together and their descendant proceeds to claim and win the throne because of that.

I would like to point out that being the purported heir-males of Edward III in addition to being the heir-general of the same (inbreeding was far to common in medieval times IMO) went a long way in stabilizing the Yorkist regime post Tewkesbury. This would have been undeserved had Conisburgh been illegitimate. But oh well, I ain't complaining

 

[Archduke]

That was IIRC pretty common occurrence. The Duke of Somerset, for example, despite having means of income, still recieved annuities (AKA pension) from Henry VI.

In Conisburgh's case, the annuity has greater relevance since if he is the son of John holland then he is also Richard II's nephew.

 

[CaptainShadow]

In Conisburgh's case, the annuity has greater relevance since if he is the son of John holland then he is also Richard II's nephew.

He would have been Richard II's cousin had he been Langley's son, and Langley was Richard's favorite uncle. Your point being?

 

[isabella]

Lmao true. Two luckless poor people run away together and their descendant proceeds to claim and win the throne because of that.

I would like to point out that being the purported heir-males of Edward III in addition to being the heir-general of the same (inbreeding was far to common in medieval times IMO) went a long way in stabilizing the Yorkist regime post Tewkesbury. This would have been undeserved had Conisburgh been illegitimate. But oh well, I ain't complaining

You know who in the end the true paternity mattered little if the child was legally recognised by his official father? And is without any doubt who Langley accepted Conisburgh as his son (whatever doubt he had about being his true father, if he ever had doubts) so his claim as legitimate male heir of Edward III was still true and valid.
Langley, Norwich and Conisburgh‘s relationship was surely strained but that do not mean who know the true reasons for that and is evident who both the Yorks and the Holland’s were in high favor at Richard II’s court.

 

[CaptainShadow]

You know who in the end the true paternity mattered little if the child was legally recognised by his official father? And is without any doubt who Langley accepted Conisburgh as his son (whatever doubt he had about being his true father, if he ever had doubts) so his claim as legitimate male heir of Edward III was still true and valid.
Langley, Norwich and Conisburgh‘s relationship was surely strained but that do not mean who know the true reasons for that and is evident who both the Yorks and the Holland’s were in high favor at Richard II’s court.

If Conisburgh was posthumously accepted as illegitimate, would the male-line Yorkist claim still be considered valid? Meaning that neither Langley nor Norwich state that they consider him illegitimate, but someone (Somerset?) plays a propaganda war to discredit York's position as heir to H6 and succeeds to an extent. What then?

 

[isabella]

If Conisburgh was posthumously accepted as illegitimate, would the male-line Yorkist claim still be considered valid? Meaning that neither Langley nor Norwich state that they consider him illegitimate, but someone (Somerset?) plays a propaganda war to discredit York's position as heir to H6 and succeeds to an extent. What then?

Will NOT change anything. Legally Conisburgh was and would still remain son of Langley

 

[The Professor]

Also worth pointing out that all the genetic evidence does is highlight that either the Yorks OR the Lancaster/Beauforts had a false paternity or even both tbh! It doesn't show who.
What's needed are tests on each of the members to pinpoint where.

 

[Archduke]

Found this article on Richard II's succession: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-fears-of-henry-iv-the-life-of-englands-king/25.php
The article confirms that Richard II preferred the Yorks over anyone else but goes further to suggest that Richard II probably made an entailment that named the Yorks as his heir, because otherwise Henry IV could have merely pointed to Edward III's entailment to give himself a legitimate claim. The fact that Henry IV traced his claim all the way until Henry III indicated that Edward III's entailment was superseded in some fashion, which would probably have been Richard II's own entailment. The fact that Richard II's entailment has not survived to this day just means it was likely created shortly before his deposition and quickly destroyed by Henry IV. I imagine that Richard II would have made the entailment following Gaunt's death since doing it earlier would have been a major source of unnecessary aggravation (Gaunt was dying, so why not wait).

 

[isabella]

Found this article on Richard II's succession: https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-fears-of-henry-iv-the-life-of-englands-king/25.php
The article confirms that Richard II preferred the Yorks over anyone else but goes further to suggest that Richard II probably made an entailment that named the Yorks as his heir, because otherwise Henry IV could have merely pointed to Edward III's entailment to give himself a legitimate claim. The fact that Henry IV traced his claim all the way until Henry III indicated that Edward III's entailment was superseded in some fashion, which would probably have been Richard II's own entailment. The fact that Richard II's entailment has not survived to this day just means it was likely created shortly before his deposition and quickly destroyed by Henry IV. I imagine that Richard II would have made the entailment following Gaunt's death since doing it earlier would have been a major source of unnecessary aggravation (Gaunt was dying, so why not wait).

Edward III’s entail was abolished by Parliament not replaced by another entail of Richard II, who had not yet settled his own succession (likely because he had not yet felt the necessity of doing it)

 

[Archduke]

Edward III’s entail was abolished by Parliament not replaced by another entail of Richard II, who had not yet settled his own succession (likely because he had not yet felt the necessity of doing it)

The previous article, as well as this one (https://www.jstor.org/stable/24427962), suggests otherwise and previous research has never indicated Parliament did so. The most recently linked article in fact indicates Parliament probably was not even aware of the entailment. And of course, both articles clearly state that in the Parliament rolls of 1394 that the entailment was recognized. This article (https://www.jstor.org/stable/578029) also indicates that the entailment was originally witnessed by the King's inner council rather than the Parliament and goes on discuss its continued relevance and the necessity of Richard II to voice the claim of the Mortimers for it to be a viable claim at all.

 

[Zazou]

Cool

TBP was healthy and died in his 40s. Lionel was arguably the healthiest and died in his 20s. Stuff happens.

Ok

Some, yes, but whether this holds is debatable.

I think so and, the English lords were beginning to get tired of facing the Scots. And, Henry IV IOTL got the custody of James I, if that happens, he may well try to raise a puppet king.

He was rather pro-French too AIUI.

Most will stay as loyalists. Might face problems, but with Bolingbroke out of the picture, usurpation is unlikely.

Parliament of 1386 did so IIRC.

Err, not sure. Norwich was certainly his favorite (and thus more likely to be named heir out of fondness) and Mortimer's father was considered by and large his heir. And he did have custody for sometime and Norwich/Mortimer remained heir soo.

Randomly picked it.

Again, Parliament of 1386.

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

So, if Richard II had children do you think he would have married some of them to Lancastrians to try and heal the divide?

 

[isabella]

So, if Richard II had children do you think he would have married some of them to Lancastrians to try and heal the divide?

Absolutely NOT. For what reason he would need to marry his children to the heirs of Gaunt? He had NOTHING to gain and much to lose with such matches who would give more power to someone who had already too much.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Depending on what bride provides the heir - Any hypothetical Edward IV/Richard III will be marrying a French or Spanish Princess

 

[CaptainShadow]

So, if Richard II had children do you think he would have married some of them to Lancastrians to try and heal the divide?

Nope.

As for marriages, a kid is likely to be born ~1407, perfect age to marry Anne of Burgundy after his father kicks the bucket. Consolidates lucrative trade routes, gets England a powerful ally, the works.