The History of Richard II: Digital Study Guide

Follow @drmattphillips The short summaries of journal articles on this website are designed for university students revising for exams, A-Level students writing essays, and anyone else interested in reading detailed and specialist research into late medieval England. Start by reading the  digital study guide , which provides a short introduction to the reign of Richard II. Then follow the links within the text to read more detail about specific topics. Each link takes you to a summary of a journal article. What is a journal article? A journal article is a specialist essay written by a professional historian – usually a lecturer or researcher at a university. Before being published they are peer-reviewed. This means that they are read and critiqued by other professional historians – sometimes articles are rejected and not published on the basis of this peer review. This helps to ensure that the research is of a high quality. Journal articles

Quick Summary The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane Key Conclusion Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against J

Quick Summary Parliament did not have the authority to depose Richard II in 1399, merely the ability to ratify actions already taken by the nobility Henry IV would never have accepted election by the people in parliament He was much more concerned with powerful rebels than he was with constitutional issues The deposition of Edward II provided no precedent for parliamentary deposition Key Conclusion Wilkinson offers a revisionist perspective of the deposition of Richard II, arguing against the notion that Henry IV could have derived his title to the English crown from parliament in a form of ‘elective monarchy’. Wilkinson concludes that the ‘title to the throne was outside the practical possibilities offered to a successful rebel by the constitution of 1399’ (p. 239). Parliamentary deposition would have been ‘contrary to all that we know of the nature, the composition, and functions of parliament in the fourteenth century’ (p. 220). Furthermore, had Hen

Quick Summary Richard II probably had a beard and moustache from around 1386, indicating that the famous Westminster Abbey portrait of him without a moustache was produced c. 1385 Doubt remains over the chronology and dating of the portraits of Richard II Depictions of Richard II with a beard in 1390 suggest he had a moustache by that date Richard’s tomb effigy is his most important surviving depiction that can be dated Key Conclusion Whittingham explores the portraits of Richard II that were produced during his reign. By examining how the king is depicted in these portraits, especially with regards to his facial hair, the article attempts to establish a chronology for when the images were produced. Whittingham concludes that some doubt remains over the chronology of the portraits that survive, and that the date of the famous Wilton Diptych must be left for a subsequent study. However, from a study of about twenty contemporary portraits of Richard II,

Quick Summary The Statute of Praemunire (1393) was a ‘political manifesto’ designed to warn the pope not to meddle with the English legal system Historians have been uncertain about what the statute was supposed to achieve The statute was issued after complaints from the commons in parliament about the pope In its application, the statute had very little legal significance Key Conclusion Waugh re-examines the Statute of  Praemunire  (1393) in light of the ‘perplexing variety of opinions’ among historians about what the statute was designed to achieve (p. 173). Referred to as the ‘most anti-papal Act of Parliament passed prior to the reign of Henry VIII’ by some historians, others have denied it served any anti-papal purpose at all. Waugh concludes that the statute was intended primarily to impress upon the pope the ‘unanimity of the English nation’ in opposition to his recent moves to challenge an aspect of the judicial system in England. As such, Waug

Quick Summary The importance of a formal royal council during reign of Henry VI provides evidence of the king’s weakness A formal ‘council’ only existed during abnormal political circumstances To the nobility, counsel was perpetual stream of advice flowing freely to the king The term ‘council’ has lacked definition and this has led to misunderstandings Key Conclusion Watts explores the role of ‘counsel’ (advice) in the politics of late medieval England. Watts concludes that a fixed, formal ‘council’ (advisory body) could only exist during abnormal circumstances in late medieval England. This was because formal councils could only be effective if they ‘monopolized the dialogue between the king and his greater subjects’ and no competent king would be willing to accept such a monopoly. That the council played such a large role during the reign of Henry VI, therefore, is ‘testimony to his devastating weakness’ (p. 294). Content Overview Counsel cou

Quick Summary Simon Sudbury was an architect of cooperation between the church and the English crown Sudbury was killed during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 while serving as chancellor of England His poor reputation is due to the chronicler Thomas Walsingham He was keen to preserve the trend of co-operation between Church and State Key Conclusion Warren revises existing assessments of Simon Sudbury’s ‘primacy’ (time as archbishop of Canterbury), and challenges the notion that he was ‘weak but well-intentioned’ (p. 141). The ‘low evaluation’ of Sudbury can be attributed to the chronicler Thomas Walsingham, who was ‘ignorant’ of many of the facts (p. 142). Warren concludes that, ‘contrary to the impression conveyed by Walsingham’, Sudbury was not merely a ‘pliant tool of the crown’ (p. 141). The fact that he lost his life during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 while serving as chancellor ‘should discredit the customary view of him as timorous and pusillanimo