What if John of Gaunt Dies in Castile? Richard II Deposed? Thomas I, King of England?

[Philip]

IOTL, John of Gaunt, invaded Castile in 1386 to press his claim to kingdom. While he was away from England, the Lords Appellant rose up against Richard II. Richard was largely reduced to being a figurehead. In 1389, John returned to England and worked to rebuild Richard's authority. A few years later, Richard was deposed and John's son Henry was crowned Henry IV.

What if John dies during his expedition to Castile? Do the Lords Appellant keep Richard around? Does Richard submit to this or rebel against them? Do they depose Richard and install one of their own, Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of Edward III, as king? (Sure, there is still the matter of Edmund Mortimer, but Henry got around that, so I don't see why the Lord Appellant can't.)

 

[V-J]

(Sure, there is still the matter of Edmund Mortimer, but Henry got around that, so I don't see why the Lord Appellant can't.)

This kind of ignores the fact that Henry only had the Mortimer clan between him and the rightful claim; Thomas would have the Mortimers and the Lancastrians. And the Lancastrians are politically savvy. And, unlike the Mortimers, they're Plantagenets of the blood royale.

Not such a hot idea.

Edit: Oh, and of course Edmund Langley and his offspring as well.

Can you say 'legitimacy clusterfuck'?

 

[Lord Grattan]

IOTL, John of Gaunt, invaded Castile in 1386 to press his claim to kingdom. While he was away from England, the Lords Appellant rose up against Richard II. Richard was largely reduced to being a figurehead. In 1389, John returned to England and worked to rebuild Richard's authority. A few years later, Richard was deposed and John's son Henry was crowned Henry IV.

What if John dies during his expedition to Castile? Do the Lords Appellant keep Richard around? Does Richard submit to this or rebel against them? Do they depose Richard and install one of their own, Thomas of Woodstock, the youngest son of Edward III, as king? (Sure, there is still the matter of Edmund Mortimer, but Henry got around that, so I don't see why the Lord Appellant can't.)

Thomas is too far down the line. "Remember Stephen of Blois" would be the response if he were proposed as the new king. Henry got around Edmund Mortimer because he was a young child at the time. The Lords will, in 1389/90 have Edmund's father, Roger to turn to. Perhaps we'd have King Roger I if Richard II doesn't submit and is deposed.

 

[Philip]

This kind of ignores the fact that Henry only had the Mortimer clan between him and the rightful claim; Thomas would have the Mortimers and the Lancastrians. And the Lancastrians are politically savvy. And, unlike the Mortimers, they're Plantagenets of the blood royale.

Meh. It is easy enough to get around the Lancastrians. If Henry Bolingbroke dies at Radcot Bridge, then the line is effectively ended. John has no other legitimate sons and Henry Monmouth is an infant.

Or, have things go closer to OTL. Bolingbroke wins at Radcot Bridge, but still ends up close to Richard. Without the influence of John, Richard is unable to rebuild his authority. He is still deposed, and Bolingbroke is discreditted and exiled/imprisoned. Maybe he is murdered as Woodstock was IOTL. Maybe he tries to claim the throne, but lacks the support he had IOTL.

Or, he is killed rather than being captured in one of his campaigns in Lithuanian. Or on the way to Jerusalem.

Or, if you don't like that route, have Bolingbroke take up his father's claim to Castile.

Edit: Oh, and of course Edmund Langley and his offspring as well.

Indeed, but Edmund does not seem to have been too interested, and Edward of Norwich was, at the time, a supporter of Richard.

Can you say 'legitimacy clusterfuck'?

I don't see it being any worse than what led to Henry VII.

 

[Philip]

Henry got around Edmund Mortimer because he was a young child at the time. The Lords will, in 1389/90 have Edmund's father, Roger to turn to. Perhaps we'd have King Roger I if Richard II doesn't submit and is deposed.

Roger was named heir presumptive by Richard. The Lords Appellant are not likely to support him. Further, his claim is through a maternal line. Then again, he was about 16 at the time. Maybe the Lords Appellant might think they could control him.

 

[The Professor]

Looks like we have an early War of the Roses brewing.
Don't forget the role of John Holland Duke of Exeter, Edmund Langley Duke of York and sons, and John I of Portugal

 

[V-J]

Meh. It is easy enough to get around the Lancastrians. If Henry Bolingbroke dies at Radcot Bridge, then the line is effectively ended. John has no other legitimate sons and Henry Monmouth is an infant.

Err, what? The line is intact and very much alive so long as someone - anyone - from the family is alive. And John had daughters; The Yorkist claim in OTL went through the female line. And in respect of Monmouth, I hear that male children grow older.

Indeed, but Edmund does not seem to have been too interested, and Edward of Norwich was, at the time, a supporter of Richard.

This is irrelevant though. The fact is, the line is there, and it's superior in it's claim. This gives any of Edmund's progeny a cast-iron excuse for rebellion should things go pear-shaped.

I don't see it being any worse than what led to Henry VII.

Because as I said, Henry only had a relatively politically uninfluentual family from the backwaters of Wales in front of his claim. Thomas would have three families, one of whom were until recently controlling the government of the country, and two of whom are of unimpeachable Platangenet stock, with superior claims.

This is, politically speaking, a nonsense. As Lord Grattan says, Thomas is far too low down in the succession to pass this off. Even if the Lords Appellant do somehow manage to wrangle Thomas onto the throne and get him steady at least for the most immediate short-term, then my god, they are storing up a world of trouble for the future.