Given-Wilson, C., 'Richard II, Edward II, and the Lancastrian Inheritance', The English Historical Review 109 (1994), 553-571

-

Quick Summary

Richard II exiled Henry Bolingbroke in 1398 as part of a plot to destroy the House of Lancaster and enrich the English Crown

  • Richard II exiled Bolingbroke as part of a policy of territorial aggrandisement
  • Bolingbroke thought his inheritance was secure when he was exiled in 1398
  • Part of Richard’s plan was to reverse a parliamentary judgement made in 1327
Key Conclusion

Given-Wilson explores evidence for a plot by Richard II to destroy both Henry Bolingbroke – the future Henry IV – and also the House of Lancaster itself. Given-Wilson concludes that Richard II’s decision to take revenge against former members of the Lords Appellant in 1397 – the duke of Gloucester, earl of Arundel and the earl of Warwick – this was simply the first step of a broader plan to enhance the power of the crown through a ‘policy of massive territorial aggrandisement’ (p. 571). This, Given-Wilson argues, was the motivation behind Richard II’s decision on 18 March 1399 to confiscate Henry Bolingbroke’s inheritance.

Content Overview

Much of the article relates to a dispute between Henry Bolingbroke and Thomas Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, which ultimately led to both of them being exiled from England in 1397. According to Bolingbroke, Mowbray had warned him that there was a plot to destroy them both, and during this conversation made slanderous remarks about the king. A trial by combat was scheduled for 16 September 1398, but Richard II intervened and exiled both of the dukes. Bolingbroke assumed that his inheritance was secure but when his father, John of Gaunt, died in 1399, Richard confiscated the duchy of Lancaster. Given-Wilson highlights the injustice of Bolingbroke’s sentence of 10 years exile, exacerbated yet further by the confiscation of his inheritance.

Further Findings

Given-Wilson explores evidence of a plot against Henry Bolingbroke in the winter of 1397-8, and argues that Richard II was party to this plot himself. The intended vehicle for Bolingbroke’s downfall was a reversal of a parliamentary judgement made in 1327, which had restored the Lancastrian inheritance to the House of Lancaster and annulled a sentence of forfeiture passed against Thomas of Lancaster in 1322. Given-Wilson also explores Mowbray’s motivation for expressing his fears to Bolingbroke about a plot, and suggests that his ‘nerve broke’ (p. 563) on account of widespread suspicions surrounding his involvement in the death of the duke of Gloucester, who had been placed in his custody following an order for his arrest by Richard II.

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