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 has moved away from the label of ‘tyrant’ and recast Richard as an absolutist monarch, ultimately they have reached the same conclusion as Stubbs: ‘Richard was a tyrant’ (p. 121).

Content Overview

A minor revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy can be seen in the work of Anthony Steel (1941) and May McKisack (1959) who recast Richard II as ‘flighty and capricious’ and suffering from madness, rather than ‘coldly calculating’ (p. 110). A more significant revision is provided by R. H. Jones’s The Royal Policy of Richard II (1968), where it was argued that Richard was not a tyrant. Rather, the king sought to reintroduce an ‘earlier medieval idea of regality’ and rule as an absolute monarch (p. 121). Anthony Tuck’s Richard II and the English Nobility (1973) adopts a similar line, but concedes that Richard’s policies ‘turned to tyranny in the last years of his reign’ (p. 122).

Further Findings

Theilmann asserts that ‘there is still no satisfactory history of Richard II’ (p. 123). He observes that historians have moved on from the Stubbsean Orthodoxy and a preoccupation with the idea that Richard wished to destroy parliament. Yet the reign of Richard II continues to be characterised by tyranny. The problem, as Theilmann sees it, is that existing research remains fixated on the ‘constitutional’ aspects of the reign. Although some historians had found reason to praise the king’s advocacy of peace with France, aspects of the reign such as foreign policy and religious policy had, Theilmann highlighted, ‘received scant attention’ (p. 123).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 prese
Read more

Waugh, W. T., 'The Great Statute of Praemunire', The English Historical Review 37 (1922), 173-205

-
Quick Summary The Statute of Praemunire (1393) was a ‘political manifesto’ designed to warn the pope not to meddle with the English legal system Historians have been uncertain about what the statute was supposed to achieve The statute was issued after complaints from the commons in parliament about the pope In its application, the statute had very little legal significance Key Conclusion Waugh re-examines the Statute of  Praemunire  (1393) in light of the ‘perplexing variety of opinions’ among historians about what the statute was designed to achieve (p. 173). Referred to as the ‘most anti-papal Act of Parliament passed prior to the reign of Henry VIII’ by some historians, others have denied it served any anti-papal purpose at all. Waugh concludes that the statute was intended primarily to impress upon the pope the ‘unanimity of the English nation’ in opposition to his recent moves to challenge an aspect of the judicial system in England. As such, Waug
Read more