WI John of Gaunt claims the Crown of Castile

[Bronze Centurion]

In 1371, John of Gaunt the third surviving son of Edward III of England married Constance of Castle. Constance was the illegitimate daughter of Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile and Leon. Pedro had been usurped and murdered by his illegitimate half brother John of Trastamara, who ascended to the throne as John I. Thus by marrying Constance, John of Gaunt gained a claim to the Crown of Castile jure uxoris.

John of Gaunt launched an invasion of Castile in 1386. He landed in Galicia (startling John I who had believed he would invade through Portugal and amassed his forces accordingly) but only received lukewarm support. He allied with the King John I of Portugal and together they launched an invasion of central Castile. By this point the English army had been devastated by disease and possessed a fraction of the strength it had set out with. John of Trastamara followed a policy of non-engagement, denying the Anglo-Portuguese forces a decisive battle. The allied armies made slow progress and were weakened by a series of desultory sieges, which saw the army wracked by further illness and mass desertion. Eventually John of Gaunt and Constance cut a private deal with the King of Castile, abandoning their claim to the throne in exchange for a large cash payment and a marriage between John Trastamara’s heir Henry and their daughter Catherine.

But what if things went differently. Maybe John of Gaunt invades through Portugal and is able to force an early decisive battle, maybe John of Trastamara becomes overconfident upon learning of the dire straits of the Anglo-Portuguese army and is defeated on the field. Or maybe the King of Castile is simply thrown from his horse leaving his seven year old son as King, which in turn causes the Galatian nobility to commit to the cause of John of Gaunt creating a domino effect. But, whatever the reason it ends with John of Gaunt as the King of Castile & Leon. What happens next?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

But, whatever the reason it ends with John of Gaunt as the King of Castile & Leon. What happens next?

Firstly, 1386 is way too late. But if that's our jumping off point, in all likelihood? Probably not much different to OTL, given that John had no surviving son by Constance (and the fact that there weren't more kids afterwards, as well as only two for the duke of York and her sister, suggests there may have been a fertility problem). Which means that Katherine of Lancaster likely ends up married to either Enrique de Trastamara (as OTL) or to Juan I of Aragon (if he's available - Juan was pro-French, but his dad and brother were pro-English). The former seems more likely, to me, and so, we wind up with the Trastamaras still getting Castile.

Maybe @Kurt_Steiner and his dislike for the Trastamaras can give a better response

 

[Prince of Permsia]

Another option is to marry her to one of her double first cousins, Edward of Norwich, or Richard of Coinsburgh. That or if the Plantagenants were feeling really ambitious, she could marry Richard II, and attempt to basically re create the Western Roman Empire sans Italy.

 

[CaptainShadow]

Another option is to marry her to one of her double first cousins, Edward of Norwich, or Richard of Coinsburgh. That or if the Plantagenants were feeling really ambitious, she could marry Richard II, and attempt to basically re create the Western Roman Empire sans Italy.

Edward of Norwich was in negotiations for marrying Beatrice of Portugal at this time so pretty unlikely that he's giving up Portugal for Castile IMO.

Richard of Conisburgh is too young to marry Catherine. He was likely born in the 1380s, I favor the 1385 DoB myself.

And also I think Gaunt would want a son to succeed him. IMO Catherine of Lancaster born male is what you need if you want a Lancastrian/Plantagenet Castile.

 

[Prince of Permsia]

Well obviously.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

John may began to do it way better than IOTL and to win support from the Castilian nobility, disgruntled after the Portuguese fiasco, otherwise he's a sitting duck. In case that he manages to get the support of most of the Castilian noblemen (who became quite powerfuls by the gifts of lands and offices made by Juan's father, Enrique II), he's going to remain in Castile for quite long, to the detriment of the position of Richard II at home.

In any case, with the Castilian noblemen owing his fortune to a weak throne, they are not going to like an energetic foreigner arriving to tell them what to do. John of Gaunt should focus more in France in forget about his Castilian dreams.

 

[material_boy]

I like this scenario, but I agree generally with @Kellan Sullivan that 1386 is too late a departure point. To be honest, though, I don't know how far back one would need to go to make this a reality. The Caroline War, Edward III's mental decline, the death of the Black Prince, Richard's minority, the invasion of Scotland -- the 1370s and early-1380s really do not allow Gaunt an opportunity to press his claim any earlier.

Constance was the illegitimate daughter of Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile and Leon.

This is a complicated issue. Some sources say Pedro married María de Padilla and simply lied about it when he was forced into the Bourbon match, and he did successfully convince the cortes to recognize his son by María as prince of Asturias.

Probably not much different to OTL, given that John had no surviving son by Constance (and the fact that there weren't more kids afterwards, as well as only two for the duke of York and her sister, suggests there may have been a fertility problem).

I think this may have more to do with unhappy marriages than fertility problems. John had a separate and happy family with Katherine Swynford throughout this era, and his relationship with Constance was distant to the point of great embarrassment for her. (Though apparently she was quite popular with Bolingbroke and her other stepchildren.) Edmund and Isabella's marriage seems equally unhappy, with Isabella having a longtime affair with one of Richard II's half-brothers.

And also I think Gaunt would want a son to succeed him.

Would a possible point of departure be the survival of John of Lancaster? I don't see how it would change the outcome of the 1386 campaign, but it could possibly motivate Gaunt to leave England for the Iberian peninsula earlier than in OTL?

 

[Bronze Centurion]

Firstly, 1386 is way too late. But if that's our jumping off point, in all likelihood?

It doesn’t have to be the jumping off point, I just used it because that is when the OTL campaign happened. If an earlier invasion would lead to a better chance of success then by all means discuss that.

given that John had no surviving son by Constance

Yes but he did already have sons from his first marriage. I did some research into jure uxoris claims in the Middle Ages and apparently once the guy had the title he had it. There are examples of men who gained their titles through their wives keeping them after the marriage was annulled, or after the wife died, and children from previous or latter marriages ended up inheriting titles they had zero claim to.

 

[CaptainShadow]

I like this scenario, but I agree generally with @Kellan Sullivan that 1386 is too late a departure point. To be honest, though, I don't know how far back one would need to go to make this a reality. The Caroline War, Edward III's mental decline, the death of the Black Prince, Richard's minority, the invasion of Scotland -- the 1370s and early-1380s really do not allow Gaunt an opportunity to press his claim any earlier.



This is a complicated issue. Some sources say Pedro married María de Padilla and simply lied about it when he was forced into the Bourbon match, and he did successfully convince the cortes to recognize his son by María as prince of Asturias.



I think this may have more to do with unhappy marriages than fertility problems. John had a separate and happy family with Katherine Swynford throughout this era, and his relationship with Constance was distant to the point of great embarrassment for her. (Though apparently she was quite popular with Bolingbroke and her other stepchildren.) Edmund and Isabella's marriage seems equally unhappy, with Isabella having a longtime affair with one of Richard II's half-brothers.



Would a possible point of departure be the survival of John of Lancaster? I don't see how it would change the outcome of the 1386 campaign, but it could possibly motivate Gaunt to leave England for the Iberian peninsula earlier than in OTL?

Keep TBP/Edward of Angouleme alive if you want him to embark early.

Yeah I agree with you on the marriage issue. Richard of Conisburgh got his wife pregnant every year of their marriage and her grandson had a ridiculous amount of kids which suggests to me that neither Langley/Holland had any fertility problems nor did Isabella. The same case can be made for Constance.

I don't see how, or why John surviving would make Gaunt leave his political ascendancy.

It doesn’t have to be the jumping off point, I just used it because that is when the OTL campaign happened. If an earlier invasion would lead to a better chance of success then by all means discuss that.

Yes but he did already have sons from his first marriage. I did some research into jure uxoris claims in the Middle Ages and apparently once the guy had the title he had it. There are examples of men who gained their titles through their wives keeping them after the marriage was annulled, or after the wife died, and children from previous or latter marriages ended up inheriting titles they had zero

Not sure that works in this case. What examples are you referring to? Any Castillan ones?

 

[Bronze Centurion]

Not sure that works in this case. What examples are you referring to? Any Castillan ones?

No Castilian examples, and after taking a second look, it appears as though all those individuals were powerful enough outside the marriage to enforce their claim.

Would a possible point of departure be the survival of John of Lancaster? I don't see how it would change the outcome of the 1386 campaign, but it could possibly motivate Gaunt to leave England for the Iberian peninsula earlier than in OTL?

Sure, say John of Lancaster survives and John of Gaunt leaves earlier and is successful. What happens then?

 

[Prince of Permsia]

I think this may have more to do with unhappy marriages than fertility problems. John had a separate and happy family with Katherine Swynford throughout this era, and his relationship with Constance was distant to the point of great embarrassment for her. (Though apparently she was quite popular with Bolingbroke and her other stepchildren.) Edmund and Isabella's marriage seems equally unhappy, with Isabella having a longtime affair with one of Richard II's half-brothers.

I was about to suggest this, but I figured that since having a son was so important to John's claim to Castile that he would have sucked it up and done his duty.

 

[material_boy]

Keep TBP/Edward of Angouleme alive if you want him to embark early.

I think the Black Prince would need to not just survive, but be healthy. The survival of the Black Prince likely wouldn't affect change Gaunt's decision to remain in England if the Black Prince were too ill to govern the realm after the death of Edward III. But then, the survival of a healthy Black Prince would have an enormous butterfly effect across English and European history.

I don't see how the survival of Edward of Angouleme affects anything at all with regard to Gaunt. He was only two years older than Richard, and so Gaunt would almost certainly stay in England during the early minority, as he did in OTL.

I don't see how, or why John surviving would make Gaunt leave his political ascendancy.

Honestly, me either. I was just throwing it out there to see if anyone had any thoughts.

Sure, say John of Lancaster survives and John of Gaunt leaves earlier and is successful. What happens then?

As I say above, I don't actually think this matters that much. I was just curious if others had thoughts.

I guess it's possible that Gaunt -- with a male heir -- could be motivate to try and hijack English foreign policy in the Caroline War and raise a proper army for an early invasion of Castile, given that Trastámaran Castile was an ally of France. That seems unlikely, though. I would guess that, at most, the survival of John just complicates the settlement of 1388.

 

[CaptainShadow]

I think the Black Prince would need to not just survive, but be healthy. The survival of the Black Prince likely wouldn't affect change Gaunt's decision to remain in England if the Black Prince were too ill to govern the realm after the death of Edward III. But then, the survival of a healthy Black Prince would have an enormous butterfly effect across English and European history.

I don't see how the survival of Edward of Angouleme affects anything at all with regard to Gaunt. He was only two years older than Richard, and so Gaunt would almost certainly stay in England during the early minority, as he did in OTL.



Honestly, me either. I was just throwing it out there to see if anyone had any thoughts.



As I say above, I don't actually think this matters that much. I was just curious if others had thoughts.

I guess it's possible that Gaunt -- with a male heir -- could be motivate to try and hijack English foreign policy in the Caroline War and raise a proper army for an early invasion of Castile, given that Trastámaran Castile was an ally of France. That seems unlikely, though. I would guess that, at most, the survival of John just complicates the settlement of 1388.

An alive TBP, whether or not he is healthy, is gonna attempt to push John out of power. He did so as a dying man and if he's healthy, the Monsieu d'Espagne can move to Castile earlier.

That's two less years of regency meaning two more years of campaigning for Gaunt.

Actually, given the man's unpopularity, I wouldn't be surprised if Parliament wanted him out of the country so I can see him gathering his supporters and going off to Castile.

@Zulfurium's TL incorporates these scenarios.

 

[material_boy]

An alive TBP, whether or not he is healthy, is gonna attempt to push John out of power.

I'm not following you here. Why would this happen? I don't recall there being any break between the brothers in the final years of Edward III's reign. Gaunt was steadfastly loyal to the Black Prince in both the Castilian and Gascon wars. The Black Prince, as his health collapsed, supported a larger role for Gaunt in royal government as both administrator and ambassador. They disagreed about Alice Perrers towards the very end of Edward III's reign, but the Black Prince was nearing the end of his life by that point.

 

[CaptainShadow]

I'm not following you here. Why would this happen? I don't recall there being any break between the brothers in the final years of Edward III's reign. Gaunt was steadfastly loyal to the Black Prince in both the Castilian and Gascon wars. The Black Prince, as his health collapsed, supported a larger role for Gaunt in royal government as both administrator and ambassador. They disagreed about Alice Perrers towards the very end of Edward III's reign, but the Black Prince was nearing the end of his life by that point.

The English wiki for TBP states:
Prince Edward returned to England in 1371 and the next year resigned the principality of Aquitaine and Gascony. He led the commons in their attack upon the Lancastrian administration in 1376. He died in 1376 of dysenteryhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_the_Black_Prince#cite_note-dysentery-5 and was buried in Canterbury Cathedral, where his surcoat, helmet, shield, and gauntlets are still preserved.

The man didn't like his brother's political ascendancy, nor did he like his supporters like Richard Stury or Richard Lyons. He was politically ambivalent towards Gaunt hence Edward's popularity.

And the brothers' relationship towards the end of TBP's life weren't nearly as good as you say AFAICT.

 

[material_boy]

Prince Edward returned to England in 1371 and the next year resigned the principality of Aquitaine and Gascony. He led the commons in their attack upon the Lancastrian administration in 1376.

I think this sentence from Wikipedia is wrong, though the events of the day are open to interpretation.

First off, the Black Prince was in no state health-wise to be leading anything. He was too ill to attend parliament in 1376 and died during its proceedings.

It is believed that the Black Prince supported (or perhaps even suggested) Sir John Kentwood's attack on Alice Perrers in that parliament. (This is to what I was referring in my last post.) As his health collapsed, though, he disengaged from the business of parliament entirely.

In this same parliament, Sir Peter de la Mare -- the speaker of the commons -- launched an attack on Perrers aimed squarely at dismantling the Lancastrian administration. De la Mare was a close ally of Edmund, 3rd earl of March, and his campaign against Perrers ultimately forced reforms that included the installation of March to the king's council.

I tend to agree with Michael Jones's assessment of these events, as he lays out in his biography of the Black Prince -- i.e. Kentwood (and, by extension, the Black Prince) was not interested in undermining Gaunt's government, just in removing Perrers and her band of vulture's from the king's orbit, and was therefore a separate party from March's.

 

[CaptainShadow]

I think this sentence from Wikipedia is wrong, though the events of the day are open to interpretation.

First off, the Black Prince was in no state health-wise to be leading anything. He was too ill to attend parliament in 1376 and died during its proceedings.

It is believed that the Black Prince supported (or perhaps even suggested) Sir John Kentwood's attack on Alice Perrers in that parliament. (This is to what I was referring in my last post.) As his health collapsed, though, he disengaged from the business of parliament entirely.

In this same parliament, Sir Peter de la Mare -- the speaker of the commons -- launched an attack on Perrers aimed squarely at dismantling the Lancastrian administration. De la Mare was a close ally of Edmund, 3rd earl of March, and his campaign against Perrers ultimately forced reforms that included the installation of March to the king's council.

I tend to agree with Michael Jones's assessment of these events, as he lays out in his biography of the Black Prince -- i.e. Kentwood (and, by extension, the Black Prince) was not interested in undermining Gaunt's government, just in removing Perrers and her band of vulture's from the king's orbit, and was therefore a separate party from March's.

Well I think the ones who were going around attacking Lancaster were being de facto supported by TBP and they sorta proclaimed him their leader. Yes he likely wasn't going around doing anything major but from the POV of a mob, the Prince of Wales as the leader of a revolt is a better option than some random peasant.

So basically IMO the commons thought of him as their leader and had his support.

Not quite sure I agree with that assessment. TBP and Gaunt's policies were different, he didn't like not a small amount of Gaunt supporters, didn't like Lollardy IIRC of which Gaunt was a patron. Their relationship I feel like is not as warm as you state. He had an interest in limiting, if not removing Gaunt's power.

Btw the wiki also states:
The prince's sickness again became very heavy, though when the "Good Parliament" met on 28 April 1376 he was looked upon as the chief support of the commons in their attack on the abuses of the administration, and evidently acted in concert with William of Wykeham in opposing the influence of Lancaster and the disreputable clique of courtiers who upheld it, and he had good cause to fear that his brother's power would prove dangerous to the prospects of his son Richard.[93] Richard Lyons, the king's financial agent, who was impeached for gigantic frauds, sent him a bribe of £1,000. and other gifts, but he refused to receive it, though he afterwards said that it was a pity he had not kept it, and sent it to pay the soldiers who were fighting for the kingdom.[94]

And this is sourced, so yeah.

 

[material_boy]

Not quite sure I agree with that assessment. TBP and Gaunt's policies were different, he didn't like not a small amount of Gaunt supporters, didn't like Lollardy IIRC of which Gaunt was a patron.

No, this is entirely wrong. The Black Prince and Joan of Kent were famously sympathetic toward the Lollards. It was from the Black Prince's household that the "Lollard knights" came into Richard II's service, and it was their influence that led to Richard's generally 🤷‍♂️ policy towards the heresy early in his reign.

Their relationship I feel like is not as warm as you state. He had an interest in limiting, if not removing Gaunt's power.

The problem is that there is just no evidence of this outside of the parliament of 1376, and the Black Prince disengaged from said parliament almost immediately. Walsingham says that, shortly after parliament opened, the Black Prince stopped admitting his own men into his presence and refused to discuss the business of parliament. This doesn't sound to me like a man leading a movement against his brother.

As I said in my last comment, the events of 1376 are open to interpretation. Several things happened in a short period of time. We don't know the Black Prince's intentions or his opinion of March's reform effort. We do know that the Black Prince, like Gaunt, had an extraordinary opinion of royal prestige. Indeed, he based his support for the odious Pedro on the respect owed to an anointed king. As such, I suspect that he would have been repulsed by March's use of parliament to force himself into royal government. This leads me to agree with Michael Jones's take that the Black Prince's party had a singular goal: The removal of Perrers. I recognize that it is easy to see both the Black Prince's and March's anti-Perrers factions as one in the same, or at least see them both as anti-Lancastrian -- and that indeed many do -- but we simply don't know.

Edit: I'll say also that I feel bad for dragging this thread so far off topic, but I'd be happy to discuss more in DM if you want to.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

No Castilian examples, and after taking a second look, it appears as though all those individuals were powerful enough outside the marriage to enforce their claim.

Sure, say John of Lancaster survives and John of Gaunt leaves earlier and is successful. What happens then?

Had an earlier thread about this:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...s-more-kids-with-constance-of-castile.491716/

 

[Fulano]

What examples are you referring to? Any Castillan ones?

Not in Castile, but that's how Ferdinand II of Aragon tried to claim the Kingdom of Navarre. He argued he was King by right of his father (John II) who was himself a King jure uxoris by the right of his wife Blanche I of Navarre, even when Ferdinand was not a son of her, but of Juana Enriquez, John's second wife.

But to be fair John of Gaunt had it easy. The Iberian rulers had to be approved by the cortes, basically if the nobles didn't want you, you didn't become King even if you were the legal heir. That's how Henry of Trastamara gained the Castilian throne, in first place. And there are more examples.

• In Castile, Fernando de la Cerda being shafted by Sancho IV even when Fernando was the legal heir.
• In Aragon you had the Catalan Civil War (which the Catalan cortes elected 3 Anti-Kings in less than 10 years) and the Compromise of Caspe (when the Trastamaras ascended to power even when Fernando de Antequera was barely related to the House of Aragon).
• In Navarre, when Sancho IV was murdered by his siblings, the cortes chose to skip all their relatives and to give the Kingdom to Sancho Ramírez, the King of Aragon, a bastard and unrelated to the previous King.
• In Portugal, all the dynasties after the Burgundians were founded by illegitimate sons elected by the cortes just because the Portuguese nobles didn't want to be ruled by foreigners.

Like I said, Gaunt had it easy, was just a matter of winning the war, bribe the cortes and he was set.