Fletcher, Christopher, 'Manhood and Politics in the Reign of Richard II', Past & Present 189 (2005), 3-39

-

Quick Summary

Richard II doesn’t deserve his reputation as the most ‘unmanly’ of medieval kings even though he failed to lead a military expedition to France

  • Richard II failed to prove himself in war against the French
  • He struggled to challenge the perception he was a youth who could be overruled
  • Historians have wrongly portrayed Richard II as being fundamentally opposed to war
Key Conclusion

Fletcher explores the medieval concept of ‘manhood’ and how it can be applied to Richard II. Among medieval kings Richard II holds ‘perhaps the most unmanly reputation’ (p. 4) – his ‘delight in clothing and courtly culture’ differed from the martial ‘masculinity’ of earlier kings (p. 3). Fletcher concludes that Richard was not the ‘abstainer from contemporary values of manhood he has been represented as being’ (p. 37). However, he was perceived as unmanly by his contemporaries because he never proved himself in war against the French – attempts to secure funding for a royal expedition to France in the 1380s failed. Ultimately, it was through ‘fighting activity’ that a king proved his manliness in fourteenth-century England.

Content Overview

Questions were raised about Richard II’s manliness by his contemporaries. For example, at Richard’s deposition in 1399 Archbishop Arundel of Canterbury delivered a sermon comparing him to a ‘boy’, whereas the usurper Henry IV was described as a ‘man’. They were both 32 years old (pp. 4-5). Arundel’s criticism tapped into ‘complex ideas about manhood, youth and virtue’ that were commonplace in medieval England (p. 26). These ideas of manhood were tied to being an adult male who engaged in ‘energetic’ and ‘usually violent’ activity (p. 16). Crowned at the age of 10, Richard struggled throughout his reign to challenge the perception that he was still a youth who could be overruled.

Further Findings

Despite Richard II’s leading role in military campaigns to Ireland in 1394-5 and in 1399, and Scotland in 1385, historians have ‘habitually portrayed [him] as fundamentally opposed to war’ (p. 30). For example, they have questioned the king’s role in military preparations against a French invasion in 1386 without any specific evidence. In contrast, Fletcher argues that proposals in August 1386 for Richard to lead an expedition to France should be taken as a serious attempt to make war on the enemy. The expedition – which failed to secure the backing of parliament – would have allowed Richard to assert that he was an ‘adult male, and thus ought to be allowed to enjoy his full authority as such’ (p. 37).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
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 h...
Read more

Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-
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...
Read more