The History of Richard II: Digital Study Guide

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

Quick Summary The retainers of the duke of Lancaster did not significantly contribute to public disorder in the palatinate of Lancaster The lack of lords in Lancashire other than the duke of Lancaster was problematic The commons in parliament complained that magnate affinities disrupted public order The duke of Lancaster suffered, rather than profited, from the corruption of his men Key Conclusion Walker explores the state of law and order in the palatinate of Lancaster under John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster. Walker concludes that John of Gaunt’s affinity (retinue) did not cause excessive disruption to public order in Lancashire. Any disruption caused by Gaunt’s retainers was offset by their ability to provide a means of resolving local disputes in Lancashire. A key problem in Lancashire was the lack of lords other than the duke of Lancaster offering patronage and protection to members of the gentry (social elites beneath the rank of the nobility). Ano

Quick Summary The Lords Appellant who seized power from Richard II in 1388 quickly ceased to concern themselves with the government of England The primary objective of the Lords Appellant was the destruction of the king’s friends and favourites Once this objective had been achieved they yielded power back to the king In the Cambridge Parliament of 1388 popular feeling was growing against the Lords Appellant Key Conclusion Tuck explores why the commons who attended the Cambridge Parliament of 1388 were so critical of the Lords Appellant – a group of rebel barons who had seized control of government from Richard II and held power in England from January 1388 until May 1389. Tuck concludes that the Appellants achieved their main objective in the Merciless Parliament (February – June 1388) when they brought down ‘the most prominent favourites of the king and sentenced them to death, imprisonment and exile’ (p. 225). After this, the Appellants ceased to con

Quick Summary The death of Edmund Mortimer in 1381 caused serious problems for the English government of Ireland The Mortimer family were by far the most suitable noble family to take a lead in Ireland Edmund Mortimer died in 1381, leaving a seven year old boy as his heir Richard II granted the lordship of Ireland to Robert de Vere in 1385 Key Conclusion Tuck explores Richard II’s arrangements for the government of Ireland (an English colony centred on Dublin in the fourteenth century). Tuck concludes that the death of Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in December 1381 threw the Irish government and English policy into disarray. March’s heir was only seven years old, yet the Mortimer family was by far the most suitable amongst the English nobility to undertake government in Ireland. Not only did the Mortimers possess lands in Ireland when many other noble families did not, but they also held great resources, power and influence – in England and Wales the

Quick Summary Richard II did not send an English contingent to join the crusading army that fought at the battle of Nicopolis on 25 November 1396 No Englishman was involved in Western Europe’s last major crusade Chronicle references to ‘the English’ referred to English members of the Knights Hospitaller The English government was in no way involved in the crusade Key Conclusion Tipton provides a revisionist interpretation of England’s participation in the crusade that culminated in defeat at the battle of Nicopolis on 25 September 1396. Tipton challenges any notion that ‘the chivalry of England constituted a force of considerable dimension in Western Europe’s last major crusade’ (p. 528). Tipton contends that ‘no Englishman whatsoever can be identified as positively among the crusading army’ (p. 533). Rather, ‘the English’ reported by chroniclers as present at Nicopolis referred to a group of English knights belonging to the military-religious order of

Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research has m

Quick Summary Richard II unsuccessfully attempted to have his great-grandfather, Edward II, recognised as a saint Richard II’s attempt to have Edward II canonized was politically motivated Politically motivated canonization was a way of gaining and maintaining political legitimacy Richard wanted a symbollic representation of God’s support against his rebellious subjects Key Conclusion Theilmann explores how ‘political canonization’ – securing papal recognition that a particular political figure was a saint – was used by kings and rebels in late-medieval England to legitimise their actions. Theilmann focuses on Richard II’s unsuccessful attempt to have his great-grandfather, Edward II, canonized. Richard II was successful, however, in preventing the growth of a popular saints’ cult centred on Richard FitzAlan, earl of Arudel, who was executed in 1397. Theilmann concludes that political sainthood benefited the crown more than baronial rebels because the

Quick Summary The myth of Richard II insanity was popularized by Anthony Steel in 1941 but its origins but can be traced back to the late 1860s According to one popular interpretation, Richard II’s insanity led to his deposition in 1399 The description of Richard’s character is traced to work of William Stubbs in 1868 Steel’s depiction of Richard’s insanity in 1941 became the standard depiction of the king Key Conclusion Stow explores the historiographical tradition that Richard II suffered from insanity in the last years of his reign. According to this tradition, defects in Richard’s character led to his deposition and downfall in 1399. Despite the enduring popularity of this interpretation, ‘depictions of Richard II as insane are unsupported by fourteenth century accounts of Richard’s character’ (p. 603). Portrayal of Richard II as insane first achieved ‘notoriety’ following the publication of Anthony Steel’s  Richard II  (1941), but the ‘historiogra