Lapsley, Gaillard, 'The Parliamentary Title of Henry IV (part 1 of 2)', The English Historical Review 49 (1934), 423-449

-

Quick Summary

The official record of parliament and pro-Lancastrian chronicles are ‘haunted by doubt’ over the manner of Richard II’s deposition

  • Uncertainty exists over whether the “assembly” of 30 September 1397 was a parliament
  • The official rolls of parliament indicate that the assembly was not a parliament
  • Parliament had no power to judge a legitimate king
Key Conclusion

Lapsley compares the official account of Richard II’s deposition to accounts found in several chronicle sources. In particular, Lapsley explores the doubt and uncertainty relating to the “assembly” at Westminster on 30 September 1397 – the date of Richard II’s deposition – and whether contemporary observers believed this assembly was a parliament. Lapsley concludes that chronicle sources expressed disapproval at the the manner of Richard II’s deposition before an assembly ‘irregular in composition and character… which refused the king the common justice of a hearing’ (p. 449). Even pro-Lancastrian sources, when closely examined, reveal an ‘underlying doubt’ about the manner in which Richard was deposed.

Content Overview

Lapsley begins by summarising the narrative provided by the official record in the rolls of parliament. The assembly of 30 September was not entered on the rolls either as the last parliament of Richard II or as the first parliament of Henry IV: ‘It was not, indeed, recorded as a parliament at all.’ (p. 430). Rather, the proceedings of the assembly were recorded as the ‘Record and Process’ of Richard’s deposition – and the regular features usually recorded for a typical parliament are absent. Lapsley proceeds to explore how a range of chroniclers reported the meeting of 30 September. Thomas Walsingham did not refer to the assembly as a parliament, in contrast to the monk of Evesham and Adam Usk.

Further Findings

The official account of the assembly of 30 September is recorded in the ‘Record and Process of the Renunciation of King Richard the Second after the Conquest and the Acceptance of the same Renunciation together with the Deposition of the same King’. Lapsley identifies ‘doubt that haunts even the official account and the orthodox Lancastrian historians and is more openly expressed by hostile English writers’ (p. 449). The essence of this ‘doubt’ is neatly summarised:  ‘parliament, even in its capacity as supreme tribunal, has no power to judge a legitimate king, but if it under-took to do so, it should in common justice at least hear him in his own defence’ (p. 449).

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