Only that is much speculative: Richard sent Mortimer’s own brother-in-law to remove him from his position, so is unlikely he had also ordered his arrest or something similar AND the part about the accepted laws of succession is false: Edward III’s entail (who was never widely know and was also abolished by Parliament) was the only thing AGAINST Mortimer’s claim. Before Edward III’s entail (and so excluding it) the succession to the English crown was regulated by Edward I’s entail who established a male preference succession (who explicitly placed daughters of the older brother before the younger brother)
WI: Richard II is never usurped by Bolingbroke
- Thread starter Archduke
- Start date
It doesn't mean that he liked Mortimer and Richard wasn't very rational person, and said person was Richard's half-brother, why Richard would expect that he won't be loyal to him, his blood brother, but would be loyal to Mortimer, husband of his sister? And Surrey already arrested his own uncle, Arundel, and Arundel's estates were forfeited, so the analogy reveals Richard's plans for Mortimer - he'd be probably arrested and attainted, with lands forfeited.
Last edited:
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.
Analogy? That makes as much sense as saying "Richard kicked cousin A in the nuts and therefore will also kick cousin B in the nuts". Nobles had different ways of being dealt with, and which Arundel was this again?
This guy. And I think it makes much more sense - Arundel and Mortimer were alike in social status and arrest of Arundel and hypothetical arrest of Mortimer would be caused by similar reasons.
Arundel betrayed Richard, Mortimer didn't.
That is, assuming that it was a full blown arrest, not sure if it was.
Exactly, the difference between the two guys is enormous. Arundel was a traitor, who insulted and humiliated the King more than once and an opposer of his politic so much more alike to Bolingbroke.
Last edited:
Arundel was one of the Lords Appelants and 14yo Mortimer was associated with them during Merciless Parliament, so I think that in fact their guilt was equal.
Surrey being sent means that it prolly was a full blown arrest.
Mortimer refused to capture his uncle, sir Thomas Mortimer when given an order by Richard.
Lemme get this straight, you think killing the king's troops = not carrying out an order?
And can I have a source for that?
And bruh.
And what makes you think Richard knew that he sat on his ass and why do you think that Mortimer didn't lie?
What exactly Arundel did except took part in Lord Appelant's uprising?
Richard should have a reason to be suspicious of Mortimer and refusing to capture sir Thomas is most possible reason.
No. But Mortimer was likely present at Radcot Bridge and account of Raphael Holinshed doesn't present him as Richard loyalist:
In 1387, King Richard II sent secretly to Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland, who was levying troops in Wales, to come to him with all speed, to aid him with the Duke of Gloucester and his friends; and commissioned at the same time Sir Thomas Molineux de Cuerdale, Constable of Chester, a man of great influence in Cheshire and Lancashire, and the Sheriff of Chester, to raise troops, and to accompany and safe conduct the Duke of Ireland to the King's presence. Molineux executed his commission with great zeal, imprisoning all who would not join him. Thus was raised an army of 5,000 men. The Duke of Ireland, having with him Molineux, Vernon, and Ratcliffe, rode forward "in statelie and glorious arraie." Supposing that none durst come forth to withstand him. Nevertheless, when he came to Radcot Bridge, 21 miles from Chipping Norton , he suddenly espied the army of the lords; and finding that some of his troops refused to fight, he began to wax faint-hearted, and to prepare to escape by flight, in which he succeeded ; but Thomas Molineux determined to fight it out. Nevertheless, when he had fought a little , and perceived it would not avail him to tarry longer, he likewise, as one despairing of the victory, betook himself to flight ; and plunging into the river, it chanced that Sir Roger Mortimer, being present, amongst others, called him to come out of the water to him, threatening to shoot him through with arrows, in the river, if he did not. "If I come," said Molineux,"will ye save my life?" "I will make ye no such promise," replied Sir Roger Mortimer, "but, notwithstanding, either come up, or thou shalt presently die for it." "Well then," said Molineux, "if there be no other remedy, suffer me to come up, and let me try with hand blows, either with you or some other, and so die like a man." But as he came up, the knight caught him by the helmet, plucked it off his head, and straightways drawing his dagger, stroke him into the brains, and so dispatched him. Molineux, a varlet, and a boy were the only slain in the engagement; 800 men fled into the marsh, and were drowned ; the rest were surrounded, stript, and sent home. The Duke of Ireland made his escape to the Continent ; and the King returned to London
Made the queen beg on her knees and still didn't back off for one.
He didn't refuse AFAIK, he just didn't do it.
Makes sense, doesn't it, that March was sent to arrest another Mortimer who comitted treason at the same place this guy says March comitted treason? I this dude has confused Thomas Mortimer with Roger.
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)
But Roger was close to Thomas, so I think both could be present at Radcot Bridge, and therefore the confusion.
Richard might want to attaint Roger Mortimer to revoke his status as his heir.
Do you seriously think Richard would send March after he (according to you) did treason to arrest his own accomplice?
He might also want him under his supervision, which is a far more likely assumption than yours.
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.
Unlikely, as Roger was married to Richard’s half-niece and was still young. And if Richard wanted remove him from the succession he needed only to get Edward III’s entail reconfirmed and then attaining both Bolingbroke and Gloucester for their treasons, putting York’s line before that of Mortimer and taking away his enemies from succession.
Exactly. Pretty likely who Surrey was sent to control or replace March and to arrest Thomas Mortimer (who likely was the true reason behind any trouble Richard had with Roger 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.
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.