Wilkinson, B., 'The Deposition of Richard II and the Accession of Henry IV', The English Historical Review 54 (1939), 215-239

-

Quick Summary

Parliament did not have the authority to depose Richard II in 1399, merely the ability to ratify actions already taken by the nobility

  • Henry IV would never have accepted election by the people in parliament
  • He was much more concerned with powerful rebels than he was with constitutional issues
  • The deposition of Edward II provided no precedent for parliamentary deposition
Key Conclusion

Wilkinson offers a revisionist perspective of the deposition of Richard II, arguing against the notion that Henry IV could have derived his title to the English crown from parliament in a form of ‘elective monarchy’. Wilkinson concludes that the ‘title to the throne was outside the practical possibilities offered to a successful rebel by the constitution of 1399’ (p. 239). Parliamentary deposition would have been ‘contrary to all that we know of the nature, the composition, and functions of parliament in the fourteenth century’ (p. 220). Furthermore, had Henry been unable to establish a claim by hereditary right of conquest he would not accept ‘election by the people’: ‘He based his claim on designation by God.’ (p. 231).

Content Overview

Wilkinson explores three different aspects of Richard’s deposition: (1) constitutional issues were relatively unimportant to Henry IV, whose attention was primarily focused on a ‘serious and menacing political opposition’ (p. 216) from the Percies – a powerful northern family who would go on to rebel against his rule; (2) the medieval conception of parliament meant that Henry IV would never have contemplated parliamentary authorisation for the revolution of 1399 (pp. 220-223); (3) Wilkinson argues against the work of Lapsley, and suggests that the deposition of Edward II in 1327 did not provide any precedent for parliamentary deposition in 1399 (pp. 220-230).

Further Findings

Wilkinson argues that during the deposition of Edward II in 1327, although parliament was called upon to participate in the deposition, its function was restricted to ‘accepting acts which were performed by magnates [lords]’ in the name of the ‘nation’ (p. 224). Thus, the actual decision to depose Edward II ‘did not come from the general assembly, which was only called upon to ratify and approve an action which had been already determined by a comparatively small body of prelates and lords’ (p. 227). Richard’s deposition followed a similar pattern: the procedure adopted was a ‘trial by magnates, supported by as general an acclamation by the ‘nation’ as it was possible to obtain’ (p. 232).

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