Lapsley, Gaillard, 'Richard II’s ‘Last Parliament’', The English Historical Review 53 (1938), 53-78

-
Quick Summary

The civil servant responsible for drafting the coronation roll of Henry IV incorrectly recorded that the deposition of Richard II on 30 September 1399 took place in parliament

  • Challenges the view that Richard II’s deposition took place in parliament
  • The coronation roll incorrectly records that Henry IV succeeded to the crown in parliament
  • The official record of Richard’s deposition shows greater care over the use of correct terminology
Key Conclusion

Lapsley challenges an argument made by Richardson, namely that the language used in the coronation roll of Henry IV provides evidence that the deposition of Richard II on 30 September 1399 took place in parliament. Richardson’s article itself was a critique of an earlier article by Lapsley, where it was argued by Lapsley that the “assembly” on 30 September was not ‘a true parliament’ (p. 53). In the present article, Lapsley reaffirms this: ‘the coronation roll is certainly wrong in saying that Henry succeeded in parliament’. Furthermore, ‘no contemporary with any knowledge of the course of the revolution could have claimed that all the events of the meeting of 30 September took place in parliament’ (p. 58).

Content Overview

The article provides a counter-argument to each of the main points forwarded by Richardson. In particular, Lapsley argues that the error in the coronation roll should be ‘attributed to the mentality of men who, having been trained to copy what was set before them or to follow precedent, would sometimes distribute their material among the familiar pigeon-holes without asking whether it made sense or not’ (p. 57). In other words, the civil servant responsible for drafting the document knew that a parliament had been summoned in 1399, ‘that the events which then occurred made his roll necessary, and it was not his business to know more or inquire further’ (p. 58).

Further Findings

The civil servants who produced the coronation roll didn’t overthink the terminology they used, those involved in documenting the ‘record and process’ of Richard II’s deposition took greater care over terminology. In this official record of the deposition, Lapsley highlights that the authors ‘dared not say that the meeting was a parliament, but so arranged their narrative that the contrary inference might be drawn’ (p. 75). As a result, any contemporary examining the text could not have failed to see the difficulties evident in the legal process surrounding the role of parliament in the deposition of Richard II and the accession of 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