Lapsley, Gaillard, 'The Parliamentary Title of Henry IV (part 2 of 2)', The English Historical Review 49 (1934), 577-606

-

Quick Summary

When Henry Bolingbroke realised he had widespread support in England, parliament played a far less important role in his claim to the English crown

  • Henry IV’s supporters intended that the revolution should be achieved through parliament
  • Henry deposed Richard II on the understanding that he had broken his coronation oath
  • Henry avoided setting the dangerous precedent that parliament could replace the king
Key Conclusion

Lapsley explores the legal basis for Henry Bolingbroke’s claim to the English throne following the deposition of Richard II. Lapsley concludes that Bolingbroke could have achieved a ‘complete and technically correct parliamentary title’ (i.e. he could have legitimately claimed the English crown through the legal powers of parliament). Indeed, Bolingbroke’s supporters ‘intended that the revolution should be accomplished in that way’ (p. 606). However, by asserting instead a (highly dubious) hereditary right to the crown superior to that of Richard himself, combined with the right of conquest, Henry IV made himself what parliament could not – a legitimate king with no less measure of power than Richard had enjoyed (p. 596).

Content Overview

Lapsley suggests that the legal principle found in the articles of deposition, if there was one, was that the form of kingship exercised by Richard II amounted to ‘perjury’ – a breach of his coronation oath (p. 577). Lapsley also examines Henry Bolingbroke’s claim to the English throne ‘by right of conquest and/or as the legitimate heir’ (p. 591). Bolingbroke’s assertion of hereditary right rested on the notion that Edmund of Lancaster and not Edward I, was in fact the eldest son of Henry III.

Further Findings

Lapsley sets out his interpretation of events surrounding the deposition of Richard II and the accession of Henry IV (pp. 600-606). Initially, public opinion was encouraged to believe that Bolingbroke’s claim to the crown would be decided by parliament. However, as it became apparent that the country welcomed a prospective change of dynasty, the Lancastrians were free to take a course of action that avoided establishing the dangerous precedent that parliament might replace the king. Sometime between 25 and 29 September Bolingbroke and his supporters concocted the legal formula that the cession of the crown invalidated the parliament that was due to assemble on 30 September.

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