Richardson, H. G., 'Richard II’s Last Parliament', The English Historical Review 52 (1937), 39-47

-

Quick Summary

The coronation roll of Henry IV clearly states that Richard II was deposed in parliament

  • The language of the coronation roll is clear and precise
  • No evidence that the coronation roll was designed to be propaganda
  • If we accept the coronation roll then Richard II was deposed in parliament
Key Conclusion

Richardson explores the role played by parliament during the deposition of Richard II in 1399, and questions historian Gaillard Lapsley’s reluctance to call the assembly of 30 September 1399 a parliament. Richardson concludes that since Henry IV’s coronation roll ‘gives to the assembly of 30 September 1399 the title of parliament’, this evidence is sufficient to be ‘decisive on the question of the name by which to call it’ (p. 47). Richardson asserts that the language of the coronation roll is clear and precise: ‘in the parliament summoned to Westminster by command of king Richard II… his cession and resignation were publicly notified to the prelates, lords and commonalty of the realm and accepted by them’ (p. 45).

Content Overview

Richardson argues that Lapsley overlooked the coronation roll of Henry IV, which documents the services performed at the coronation on 13 October 1399. Indeed, Richardson argues that the coronation roll is likely to have been created earlier than the parliament rolls dealing with the parliament of 1399, which wasn’t written until 19 November. On the basis of this, Richardson argues, ‘according to an official document as nearly contemporary as we could hope for’, Richard II’s ‘cession and resignation’ took place in parliament (p. 45). Furthermore, in contrast to the propagandistic ‘Record and Process’, there is no evidence that the coronation roll was ever intended to serve any other purpose than to record the coronation proceedings.

Further Findings

The main premise of the article is that if we accept the statement contained on Henry IV’s coronation roll, then ‘we must accept the assembly of 30 September as a parliament’ (p. 45). However, Richardson also makes a couple of additional points. First, that there was a ‘good deal of similarity’ between the events surrounding the deposition of Edward II in 1327 and the deposition of Richard II in 1399, even if proceedings were not directed by a ‘coherent political or legal theory’ (p. 46). Richardson also highlights an inconsistency in the summons to the first parliament of Henry IV, which illogically refers to the assembly of 30 September both as a parliament and not a parliament (p. 47).

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