Watts, J. L., 'The Counsels of King Henry VI, c. 1435-1445', The English Historical Review 106 (1991), 279-298

-

Quick Summary

The importance of a formal royal council during reign of Henry VI provides evidence of the king’s weakness

  • A formal ‘council’ only existed during abnormal political circumstances
  • To the nobility, counsel was perpetual stream of advice flowing freely to the king
  • The term ‘council’ has lacked definition and this has led to misunderstandings
Key Conclusion

Watts explores the role of ‘counsel’ (advice) in the politics of late medieval England. Watts concludes that a fixed, formal ‘council’ (advisory body) could only exist during abnormal circumstances in late medieval England. This was because formal councils could only be effective if they ‘monopolized the dialogue between the king and his greater subjects’ and no competent king would be willing to accept such a monopoly. That the council played such a large role during the reign of Henry VI, therefore, is ‘testimony to his devastating weakness’ (p. 294).

Content Overview

Counsel could take one of three forms:(1) formal bodies called ‘councils’ with fixed membership and binding powers that were imposed upon the king in times of crisis; (2) groupings of administrative officials; (3) an informal dialogue between the king and his leading subjects supplemented by specially-summoned councils for discussion of particular issues. In the minds of the nobility, counsel was a ‘perpetual stream flowing freely to the monarch’ and could only be borne by a fixed group under ‘short-lived revolutionary circumstances or in the absence of an adult king’ (p. 293).

Further Findings

Watts seeks to address the lack of definition of ‘council’ in existing studies, which has led to a misunderstanding of the broader term ‘counsel’ and its role in politics. Watts highlights that although medieval history is largely studied by the examination of institutions, such as King, Parliament and Council, the institution of the ‘Royal Council’ was in fact ‘alien to the normal circumstances of medieval English government’ (p. 280).

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 p...
Read more

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

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