Giancarlo, Matthew, 'Murder, Lies and Storytelling: the manipulation of justice(s) in the parliaments of 1397 and 1399', Speculum 77 (2002), 76-112

-

Quick Summary

Richard II and Henry IV both manipulated the law when it suited them: Richard II in 1397 to confiscate the lands of the duke of Gloucester, and Henry IV in 1399 to legitimize his rebellion

  • Richard II and Henry IV both manipulated the law to serve their own ends
  • The confession of the duke of Gloucester was doctored to be more favourable to Richard II
  • Henry IV falsely claimed that a certain judge had overseen the deposition of Richard II
Key Conclusion

Giancarlo explores the manipulation of legal proceedings by Richard II in 1397 and by his successor, Henry IV, in 1399. Giancarlo concludes that both kings manipulated the law to serve their own ends. In 1397, Richard II ordered the arrest of the three senior members of the Lords Appellant who had opposed him earlier in his reign. The duke of Gloucester was confined to captivity in Calais. Here he made a confession that was later read out in parliament, but only after it had been doctored to elicit less sympathy for the duke. Meanwhile, in 1399, Richard II made a number of reservations when renouncing the crown. Henry IV sought to cover up these reservations to strengthen his usurpation.

Content Overview

The first half of the article explores the confession made by the duke of Gloucester while in captivity in Calais (pp. 81-82). When it was read out in parliament by William Rickhill, justice of the Common Bench (judge of common law), the confession was doctored to be more favourable to Richard II. Although Rickhill initially attested to the truthfulness of Gloucester’s confession, after Richard’s had been deposed Rickhill went back on his word and reported ‘stark irregularities’ in the handling of the case (pp. 85-88). The second half of the article presents evidence that Henry IV sought to legitimize his usurpation by falsely claiming that a justice named William Thirning had been present and overseen the deposition proceedings.

Further Findings

Giancarlo notes that we are only able to see through Richard II’s ‘dark glass of the deception’ because his successor, Henry IV, was ‘determined to reveal all of his misrepresentations’ (p. 93). However, Giancarlo also highlights how Henry IV emulated Richard II and ‘produced his own set of misrepresentations that survived as official record’ (p. 93). For example, evidence survives that Richard II attempted to hand power to Henry IV without really renouncing the crown. A document known as the ‘Stowe Manuscript’ records how Richard sought to place himself under a regency government, such as the one imposed on him in 1386. Essentially, Richard wanted to remain king but leave the work of government to Henry IV.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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