WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke

[Zygmunt Stary]

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.

Because some people claim he was associated with Lord Appelants so this claim must be based on something.

as he was reported to be close to the uncle who was associated with the Appellants.

And after Mortimer refused to bring Richard his uncle, Richard noticed where March's loyalty truly lies.

hey associate Thomas Mortimer only with them AFAIK

No http://mortimerhistorysociety.org.uk/index.php/the-earls-of-march

"Roger found himself increasingly associated with the Lords Appellant, a powerful group of lords (including his uncle, Sir Thomas Mortimer)"

 

[HortenseMancini]

I think Monmouth himself was in royal favor.

Evidence very much supports this. Monmouth even stayed with Richard after his father's invasion.

 

[Archduke]

Evidence very much supports this. Monmouth even stayed with Richard after his father's invasion.

Monmouth was a young ward, he probably had little choice in the matter. But in regards to that does anyone know how true the poor relationship between Monmouth and Bolingbroke was and also when that poor relationship started?

 

[CaptainShadow]

Monmouth was a young ward, he probably had little choice in the matter. But in regards to that does anyone know how true the poor relationship between Monmouth and Bolingbroke was and also when that poor relationship started?

They seem to have been on reasonable terms till 1410. The split AIUI was because of their differing stance on the war with France. Monmouth wanted to invade; Bolingbroke did not.

@Zygmunt Stary the dude who killed Molineux was definitely Thomas Mortimer. His wiki page says the same and is sourced.

 

[Archduke]

They seem to have been on reasonable terms till 1410. The split AIUI was because of their differing stance on the war with France. Monmouth wanted to invade; Bolingbroke did not.

@Zygmunt Stary the dude who killed Molineux was definitely Thomas Mortimer. His wiki page says the same and is sourced.

That makes sense, I’ve read that their disagreements were mainly political.

Regarding France, Orleans and Burgundy were headed toward a confrontation and would have had one regardless of what happened in England. So there is a fair chance of a civil war breaking out in France. Given Richard II’s marriage to Isabella of Valois, he would have cause to involve himself in that civil war even if only in a political or limited fashion. Which aide do y’all see him supporting. Technically both sides were fighting in the name of King Charles VI, who Richard II had no ill blood toward. I’m just wondering if Richard II might support the Burgundians due to their commercial importance or perhaps Orleans and Armagnac.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

They seem to have been on reasonable terms till 1410. The split AIUI was because of their differing stance on the war with France. Monmouth wanted to invade; Bolingbroke did not.

@Zygmunt Stary the dude who killed Molineux was definitely Thomas Mortimer. His wiki page says the same and is sourced.

Yes, but this source of mine does not attribute killing of Molineux to ser Roger Mortimer (whether he is March or he isn't). It says that Roger Mortimer lured Molineux out with his speech and later knight killed him. It does not say that it was Roger Mortimer who killed Molineux.

 

[glore7]

I'm just going to jump in and add my thoughts on this.

I suspect the main reason Richard II never had any children with Anne of Bohemia was due to Anne of Bohemia herself, as she is from the same Luxembourg generation as Sigismund and Wenceslaus, and that generation only produced 1 legitimate child which was Sigismund's daughter, while there is nothing to suggest the Plantagenets had any fertility problems.

So we can assume Richard would have children with Isabella. If he has a son, then Richard's line is secure, but a daughter could really make things interesting.

If there needed to be a regency for Richard's son, it would almost certainly be Edward of Norwich, who would act as the regent, like everybody has said.

In terms of Richard's position, if Bollingbrooke dies Richard is actually in a brilliant position. Edward of Norwich is his close ally and friends, and won't go against Richard in the TL. Edmund of Langley is getting old and without bollingbrooke would likely remain aligned with Richard, as he has no direct reason to lead a revolt against the king himself. The mortimers are headed up by a minor and are so incredibly unambitious that their chances of succeeding the throne are practically zero, if Richard has no issue. Henry of Monmouth had a brilliant relationship with Richard II in OTL, which will almost certainly remain, and in fact may be even better in this TL as Richard might become his father figure, so Henry will definetley stay loyal. Henry's brothers generally followed what Henry did and had a great relationship with him so they will also likely stay loyal.

Humphrey, Thomas of Woodstock's son is also under Richard's control.

The only legitimate Plantagenet that could lead a rebellion against Richard II is Richard of Consiburgh, but even then that is incredibly unlikely. The only way I think it could happen is if Edward of Norwich gains too much control over Richard in a way that leads to poor governenance, or if Noriwch becomes regent and Conisburgh doesn't gain any more land as the brothers did not have the best relationship.

The remaining members of the Lord's Appellant may immensley dislike Richard, but they lack the power of influence to lead a successful rebellion against him.

Also Owain Glyndwr will never revolt in this TL as his revolt in OTL was due to Bollingbrooke's usurpation and the Percies won't revolt either meaning there should much less civil strife.

Richard with an incredibly popular young Henry of Monmouth to uphold his regime, instead of the unpopular John of Gaunt, may actually be able to implement his policies that he was planning on in OTL.

As to foregin policy I suspect Richard will keep his OTL for the moment but when the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War properly flares up, Richard may be pressured or perhaps see an opportunity to engage in France, although maybe not to the same level as Henry V in OTL, which in the long term could actually be a good thing for the English.

I also suspect that Richard may focus on Ireland like he did in OTL and try to continue expanding English control over in Ireland, while they wait for the French situation to flare up.

 

[Archduke]

I'm just going to jump in and add my thoughts on this.

I suspect the main reason Richard II never had any children with Anne of Bohemia was due to Anne of Bohemia herself, as she is from the same Luxembourg generation as Sigismund and Wenceslaus, and that generation only produced 1 legitimate child which was Sigismund's daughter, while there is nothing to suggest the Plantagenets had any fertility problems.

So we can assume Richard would have children with Isabella. If he has a son, then Richard's line is secure, but a daughter could really make things interesting.

If there needed to be a regency for Richard's son, it would almost certainly be Edward of Norwich, who would act as the regent, like everybody has said.

In terms of Richard's position, if Bollingbrooke dies Richard is actually in a brilliant position. Edward of Norwich is his close ally and friends, and won't go against Richard in the TL. Edmund of Langley is getting old and without bollingbrooke would likely remain aligned with Richard, as he has no direct reason to lead a revolt against the king himself. The mortimers are headed up by a minor and are so incredibly unambitious that their chances of succeeding the throne are practically zero, if Richard has no issue. Henry of Monmouth had a brilliant relationship with Richard II in OTL, which will almost certainly remain, and in fact may be even better in this TL as Richard might become his father figure, so Henry will definetley stay loyal. Henry's brothers generally followed what Henry did and had a great relationship with him so they will also likely stay loyal.

Humphrey, Thomas of Woodstock's son is also under Richard's control.

The only legitimate Plantagenet that could lead a rebellion against Richard II is Richard of Consiburgh, but even then that is incredibly unlikely. The only way I think it could happen is if Edward of Norwich gains too much control over Richard in a way that leads to poor governenance, or if Noriwch becomes regent and Conisburgh doesn't gain any more land as the brothers did not have the best relationship.

The remaining members of the Lord's Appellant may immensley dislike Richard, but they lack the power of influence to lead a successful rebellion against him.

Also Owain Glyndwr will never revolt in this TL as his revolt in OTL was due to Bollingbrooke's usurpation and the Percies won't revolt either meaning there should much less civil strife.

Richard with an incredibly popular young Henry of Monmouth to uphold his regime, instead of the unpopular John of Gaunt, may actually be able to implement his policies that he was planning on in OTL.

As to foregin policy I suspect Richard will keep his OTL for the moment but when the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War properly flares up, Richard may be pressured or perhaps see an opportunity to engage in France, although maybe not to the same level as Henry V in OTL, which in the long term could actually be a good thing for the English.

I also suspect that Richard may focus on Ireland like he did in OTL and try to continue expanding English control over in Ireland, while they wait for the French situation to flare up.

Thanks for your input, I tend to agree with what you said.

I do have two questions:

For Conisburgh was it merely a problem of him getting his fair share or did he have problems with Richard II on a more personal level.

Also for Richard II’s policies, what exactly were his domestic policies aside from increasing his own power and wealth?

 

[glore7]

Thanks for your input, I tend to agree with what you said.

I do have two questions:

For Conisburgh was it merely a problem of him getting his fair share or did he have problems with Richard II on a more personal level.

Also for Richard II’s policies, what exactly were his domestic policies aside from increasing his own power and wealth?

For Conisburgh, his problem was that he was given no land/very little land by his father Edmund of Langley, or his brother Edward of Norwich, who both had plenty of land to give. Conisburgh in OTL eventually became the Earl of Cambridge, but had very little land and was considered one of the poorest nobles in the country despite being a Plantagenet. It was said he couldn't afford a proper suit of armour for the campaign in France. This was why he joined Scrope and Grey's plot to rebel against Henry V. He did not as far as I know have any problems on a personal level with Richard or Henry. He only had problems with his brother Edward of Norwich understandably. This is why he could potentially be in a position to lead a revolt against Richard II in this TL, as if Edward of Norwich becomes the dominant noble after John of Gaunt's death and one of the King's favorites, Conisburgh could use this claiming that once again the King's favorite get all the land and wealth and everyone else gets nothing. The Lord's Appelant could also use this too their advantage and once again showcase that Richard II is ruled by his favorites, meaning there is a possibility of a revolt, but they would have to convince a huge amount of the nobility to join the revolt as Richard II's potential favorites are far more powerful than his earlier OTL ones.

I'll get back to you on the policy one.

 

[glore7]

Richard's policy was called Royal Prerogative which aim was to curve the power of the nobility and rely on a private retinue for military protection.

Basically an early attempt to centralise the country, curve the power of the nobility and create a kind of standing army. Unlikely to work fully, but he could potentially make some progress on it like setting up a private retinue.

 

[CaptainShadow]

If he's smart, he'll play them against each other and try to strengthen Gascony.

Yes, but this source of mine does not attribute killing of Molineux to ser Roger Mortimer (whether he is March or he isn't). It says that Roger Mortimer lured Molineux out with his speech and later knight killed him. It does not say that it was Roger Mortimer who killed Molineux.

Pretty sure the source meant Mortimer only. No other knight is mentioned.

I'm just going to jump in and add my thoughts on this.

I suspect the main reason Richard II never had any children with Anne of Bohemia was due to Anne of Bohemia herself, as she is from the same Luxembourg generation as Sigismund and Wenceslaus, and that generation only produced 1 legitimate child which was Sigismund's daughter, while there is nothing to suggest the Plantagenets had any fertility problems.

So we can assume Richard would have children with Isabella. If he has a son, then Richard's line is secure, but a daughter could really make things interesting.

If there needed to be a regency for Richard's son, it would almost certainly be Edward of Norwich, who would act as the regent, like everybody has said.

In terms of Richard's position, if Bollingbrooke dies Richard is actually in a brilliant position. Edward of Norwich is his close ally and friends, and won't go against Richard in the TL. Edmund of Langley is getting old and without bollingbrooke would likely remain aligned with Richard, as he has no direct reason to lead a revolt against the king himself. The mortimers are headed up by a minor and are so incredibly unambitious that their chances of succeeding the throne are practically zero, if Richard has no issue. Henry of Monmouth had a brilliant relationship with Richard II in OTL, which will almost certainly remain, and in fact may be even better in this TL as Richard might become his father figure, so Henry will definetley stay loyal. Henry's brothers generally followed what Henry did and had a great relationship with him so they will also likely stay loyal.

Humphrey, Thomas of Woodstock's son is also under Richard's control.

The only legitimate Plantagenet that could lead a rebellion against Richard II is Richard of Consiburgh, but even then that is incredibly unlikely. The only way I think it could happen is if Edward of Norwich gains too much control over Richard in a way that leads to poor governenance, or if Noriwch becomes regent and Conisburgh doesn't gain any more land as the brothers did not have the best relationship.

The remaining members of the Lord's Appellant may immensley dislike Richard, but they lack the power of influence to lead a successful rebellion against him.

Also Owain Glyndwr will never revolt in this TL as his revolt in OTL was due to Bollingbrooke's usurpation and the Percies won't revolt either meaning there should much less civil strife.

Richard with an incredibly popular young Henry of Monmouth to uphold his regime, instead of the unpopular John of Gaunt, may actually be able to implement his policies that he was planning on in OTL.

As to foregin policy I suspect Richard will keep his OTL for the moment but when the Armagnac-Burgundian Civil War properly flares up, Richard may be pressured or perhaps see an opportunity to engage in France, although maybe not to the same level as Henry V in OTL, which in the long term could actually be a good thing for the English.

I also suspect that Richard may focus on Ireland like he did in OTL and try to continue expanding English control over in Ireland, while they wait for the French situation to flare up.

Possibly, Possibly not.

True

True again

Yeah, uh, wouldn't call the Mortimers unambitious. And they've still been recognized as heirs.

Conisburgh's main gripe with the Lancastrian regime was the cancelation of his annuities under Henry IV. So I doubt he'd be doing much rebelling.

Can I have a source for that? Cuz I have never seen any source say they had a bad relationship. Norwich gave up his title, for one, and Conisburgh recieved it in the same year. And Norwich appointed Conisburgh's son as his heir so he didn't consider him illegitimate either.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Pretty sure the source meant Mortimer only. No other knight is mentioned.

It mentions that Mortimer was present "among others", so nameless knight might be among those others.

 

[glore7]

If he's smart, he'll play them against each other and try to strengthen Gascony.

Pretty sure the source meant Mortimer only. No other knight is mentioned.

Possibly, Possibly not.

True

True again

Yeah, uh, wouldn't call the Mortimers unambitious. And they've still been recognized as heirs.

Conisburgh's main gripe with the Lancastrian regime was the cancelation of his annuities under Henry IV. So I doubt he'd be doing much rebelling.

Can I have a source for that? Cuz I have never seen any source say they had a bad relationship. Norwich gave up his title, for one, and Conisburgh recieved it in the same year. And Norwich appointed Conisburgh's son as his heir so he didn't consider him illegitimate either.

Well I mean they clearly didn't have a great relationship as Edward of Norwich granted basically no land, he got the title of Earl of Cambridge only because Edward of Norwich forfeited it, and one Richard was arrested Norwich stood by and let him die, too be fair - he didn't have much of a choice but it does not suggest they had a great relationship.

The Mortimer's definetely were unambitious, they never pursued their claim to the throne, and Edmund Mortimers expose the Southampton plot to Henry V which would have put him on the throne.

Plus while the Mortimers may have been recognised as heir in theory, in practice I don't think it would have been plain sailing and would have happened if push came to shove as Richard wanted Edward of Norwich to succeed him, the Lancasters were incredibly powerful and Henry of Monmouth rather popular and also Henry and Edward were both male legitimate Plantagenets, something the Mortimers weren't which gives them a small advantage.

 

[glore7]

Conisburgh received no land from his father, and was not mentioned in either his father or brother's will. This does seem to show they did not have the best relationship.

A popular theory for this by historians is that they didn't recognise Conisburgh as full relative as there was a strong rumour he was the son of John Holland, the King's favorite and Edward of Norwich's mother, making him a bastard.

And unlike the Edward IV rumour, I would actually put some stock in this one, yet it never seems to be mentioned anywhere.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Well I mean they clearly didn't have a great relationship as Edward of Norwich granted basically no land, he got the title of Earl of Cambridge only because Edward of Norwich forfeited it, and one Richard was arrested Norwich stood by and let him die, too be fair - he didn't have much of a choice but it does not suggest they had a great relationship.

The Mortimer's definetely were unambitious, they never pursued their claim to the throne, and Edmund Mortimers expose the Southampton plot to Henry V which would have put him on the throne.

Plus while the Mortimers may have been recognised as heir in theory, in practice I don't think it would have been plain sailing and would have happened if push came to shove as Richard wanted Edward of Norwich to succeed him, the Lancasters were incredibly powerful and Henry of Monmouth rather popular and also Henry and Edward were both male legitimate Plantagenets, something the Mortimers weren't which gives them a small advantage.

Land-Not Norwich's to give, Langley was supposed to provide for him and failed in doing so. Hardly Norwich's fault.

Norwich struck me as hyper-loyal to Henry V, he probably shouldn't have stood over but what could he even do? Henry V was sold on setting an example and I doubt anyone could've convinced him otherwise.

To be clear, I didn't say that they had a great relationship. I've always assumed they were on upper mediocre terms because we have near-nada on Conisburgh.

Yeah, after Edmund Mortimer had been brought up his whole life as effectively a prisoner of Henry IV, I think one could excuse him.

Tbf, that was a rather hare-brained plot. One needs more than a dude with an empty title, a baron with some money, and a broke knight to overthrow the king.

Not when he was like 20 he wasn't.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Conisburgh received no land from his father, and was not mentioned in either his father or brother's will. This does seem to show they did not have the best relationship.

A popular theory for this by historians is that they didn't recognise Conisburgh as full relative as there was a strong rumour he was the son of John Holland, the King's favorite and Edward of Norwich's mother, making him a bastard.

And unlike the Edward IV rumour, I would actually put some stock in this one, yet it never seems to be mentioned anywhere.

Number of explanations for that.

Langley wasn't mentioned in E3's will and AFAIK Constance was not mentioned in Langley's either. Seeing a pattern here.

People like the Yorks too much to think their great-grandaddy was illegitimate

 

[glore7]

Land-Not Norwich's to give, Langley was supposed to provide for him and failed in doing so. Hardly Norwich's fault.

Norwich struck me as hyper-loyal to Henry V, he probably shouldn't have stood over but what could he even do? Henry V was sold on setting an example and I doubt anyone could've convinced him otherwise.

To be clear, I didn't say that they had a great relationship. I've always assumed they were on upper mediocre terms because we have near-nada on Conisburgh.

Yeah, after Edmund Mortimer had been brought up his whole life as effectively a prisoner of Henry IV, I think one could excuse him.

Tbf, that was a rather hare-brained plot. One needs more than a dude with an empty title, a baron with some money, and a broke knight to overthrow the king.

Not when he was like 20 he wasn't.

But still the same principle, plus Norwich didn't acknowledge Conisburgh in his will, plus had no choice but to name Conisburgh his heir as there was no one else.

Yeah the Southamton Plot was doomed to fail, but the fact Edmund Mortimer actually told Henry about the plot shows that he clearly cannot be considered ambitious. And its not like Henry IV treated him cruely.

Henry of Monmouth is one of those people will always become popular because he was in essensce the ideal Medieval King like Edward III, and as a result liked by both the nobility and the rest of population. Yes he wouldn't be extremely ppopular at the age of 20, but it wouldn't take long for him to reach his popularity that he did in OTL.

 

[CaptainShadow]

But still the same principle, plus Norwich didn't acknowledge Conisburgh in his will, plus had no choice but to name Conisburgh his heir as there was no one else.

Yeah the Southamton Plot was doomed to fail, but the fact Edmund Mortimer actually told Henry about the plot shows that he clearly cannot be considered ambitious. And its not like Henry IV treated him cruely.

Henry of Monmouth is one of those people will always become popular because he was in essensce the ideal Medieval King like Edward III, and as a result liked by both the nobility and the rest of population. Yes he wouldn't be extremely ppopular at the age of 20, but it wouldn't take long for him to reach his popularity that he did in OTL.

Because Conisburgh was dead. Norwich made his will sometime around Honfleur and Conisburgh was dead and buried by then.

Couldn've let the lands revert to the king like everyone else without an heir.

Maybe he thought "Ight imma tell Henry and get some rewards, it's not like this is gonna work out anyways".

Did probably wage a propaganda war on him from a young age tho.

Hmm

 

[glore7]

Number of explanations for that.

Langley wasn't mentioned in E3's will and AFAIK Constance was not mentioned in Langley's either. Seeing a pattern here.

People like the Yorks too much to think their great-grandaddy was illegitimate

Because Langley had already been granted land, Conisburgh hadn't and its not exactly like Langley was short in land to grant Conisburgh. Plus if Edward of Norwich had liked Conisburgh, surely he could have found some spare land that he could have given him.

Constance was considered one of Henry IV's enemies and considering her crazy actions including attempting to kidnap the Mortimers later, its no wonder Langley didn't leave her in his will. He may have also though she was illegitimate as well.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Because Langley had already been granted land, Conisburgh hadn't and its not exactly like Langley was short in land to grant Conisburgh. Plus if Edward of Norwich had liked Conisburgh, surely he could have found some spare land that he could have given him.

Constance was considered one of Henry IV's enemies and considering her crazy actions including attempting to kidnap the Mortimers later, its no wonder Langley didn't leave her in his will. He may have also though she was illegitimate as well.

Gaunt was IIRC mentioned and that dude had more land than anyone except the king. The youngest kids weren't mentioned in E3's and Langley's will both.

He did spare a title, we don't know the specifics so maybe he did throw some land but H5 decided to keep it (the legal process AIUI would be forfeiting the land to the king and the king regranting it. Something could've easily got lost in there 😉)

She did said crazy stuff after Langley died.

There's a possibility that all of Langley's kids were John's. IIRC Isabel and Holland's affair started in 1472, and Norwich and Constance and Conisburgh were born after that.