Study Guide

The History of Richard II: Digital Study Guide

The Good Parliament, 1376

Political tensions caused by weak government had been growing for decades when Richard became king in 1377. In the Good Parliament of 1376, the communities of England represented by members of parliament – collectively known as "the commons" – made a stand against corruption in government. The commons were unhappy about mismanagement of the Hundred Years War against France, particularly the recent surrender of English strongholds in Northern France due to bribery. Ultimate responsibility for this recent failure lay with the duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt – uncle of Richard II – but he was too powerful for the commons to attack directly. Instead, they brought to trial William Latimer, who had been a commander of English forces in France. Latimer was impeached in parliament – a development in English law of disputed significance – fined, imprisoned, but subsequently pardoned.

The Good Parliament also confiscated the lands of Alice Perrers. Perrers was the mistress of King Edward III and by 1376 she had become one of the wealthiest landowning women in medieval England. Perrers had accumulated her wealth through good business sense rather than by taking advantage of her relationship with the king. In the Good Parliament, however, she found herself without allies among the English nobility. Politically isolated, she fell victim to the commons in the charged political atmosphere.

Despite their efforts to hold government to account and combat corruption, the commons were criticized by contemporaries for not being more radical in the Good Parliament and for their failure to adequately represent the mood of the broader political community. This mood was one of political despondency, and it set the scene for the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. It was in this challenging political context that the young Richard II succeeded to the throne on 22 June 1377.

Popular rebellion – Peasants’ Revolt, 1381

In the summer of 1381, there was a popular uprising of unprecedented scale in England. The decades leading up to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 had seen increased living standards for peasants and labourers. In many places, peasants and labourers had negotiated a better deal from their landlords following the Black Death in 1350. It was in this context of improved economic fortunes that there was national outbreak of violence triggered by high taxation and failure in the ongoing Hundred Years War against France.

The scale of the Peasants’ Revolt was unprecedented in England, although it's important to note that there had been uprisings before 1381 and the revolt did not emerge from a previously passive population. Indeed, just a few months before the Peasants’ Revolt there had been an outbreak of violence in York also caused by discontent over taxes and concerns about corrupt officials.

The Good Parliament of 1376 had taken some steps to combat governmental corruption. However, the rebels from London and Kent were particularly united in their common hatred of John of Gaunt, the king’s uncle. As we have seen, Gaunt was too powerful to be challenged directly in the Good Parliament, but in 1381 the rebels demanded his beheading when they put forward a series of grievances to the king on 12 July.

Richard II was ‘fearless’ when he confronted the rebels at Mile End on 14 June. That is according to the account of Jean Froissart, which has been shown to be unreliable. Much more reliable is the eye-witness account documented in the Anonimalle Chronicle. Possibly written by a clerk of parliament who had a good knowledge of London’s geography, the Anonimalle Chronicle provides a vivid and detailed narrative. This narrative is available at Fordham University’s Medieval Sourcebook. Overall, Richard II’s government was characteristically ‘insecure, hesitant and mediocre’ in its response to the Peasants’ Revolt, although some important steps to improve public order were taken.

Many contemporary writers who observed the events of 1381 established a conviction that the Lollard heresy was responsible for the revolt. Or, at the very least, they believed that the revolt had been a manifestation of God’s displeasure at the teachings of John Wycliffe. In fact, there is no substantive evidence that the Peasants’ Revolt was connected to Lollardy. John Wycliffe himself did not personally advocate rebellion. The rebels were, however, clearly hostile to the wealth and power of the church. The archbishop of Canterbury, who also held the governmental position of Chancellor, was murdered by the rebels during the uprising. Furthermore, in 1381 many of the rebels chose not to celebrate Corpus Christi Day – a festival dedicated to the worship of the Eucharist which the Lollards opposed as idolatry. Such actions weren’t necessarily inspired by Lollard teachings but it was relatively easy for contemporary observers to formulate a plausible hypothesis about the link between Lollardy and revolt.

Ongoing fears about Lollardy and rebellion resulted in the introduction of the death penalty for heretics in 1401 under Henry IV. The government of Richard II, however, resisted pressures to introduce the death penalty and exercised restraint in the repression of heresy.

Baronial rebellion – Lords’ Appellant, 1385 - 1388

In the years following the Peasants’ Revolt, Richard II and his government attempted to assert royal authority. They prevented the execution of the will of Edward III as a measure to prevent the loss of royal income. They attempted, unsuccessfully, to have Edward II canonized – a politically motivated move designed to symbolise God’s support for medieval kings against rebellious subjects. They summoned an army through the feudal levy – an outdated method of raising an army that called upon lords to provide military service without pay. And in 1386, Richard changed the order of succession – to the disadvantage of Henry Bolingbroke (the future King Henry IV) – by naming an heir in the event that the king died childless.

Richard, support by his advisors, was trying to exert his authority as king. At the same time, the commons in parliament were seeking to consolidate their power. In 1385, the commons put forward a series of radical demands that sought to constrain the financial independence of the king. Furthermore, they did not trust the government of Richard II to implement these reforms. Instead, in the Wonderful Parliament of 1386 the commons empowered a baronial council to carry out the reforms. Formal royal councils such as this existed only in abnormal political circumstances, and the appointment of a baronial council in 1386 demonstrates Richard II’s ongoing struggle to take the reins of power.

The appointment of a baronial council to carry out reforms against his will was intolerable to the king. Richard challenged the legality of the Wonderful Parliament through consultation with legal experts. These legal experts concluded that the action taken against the king was punishable by death. A royal army was assembled by Robert de Vere, a close friend of Richard II. However, this ill-fated attempt to give Richard the military backing he needed to break free of the baronial council soon fell apart. In December 1387, de Vere found himself trapped at Radcot Bridge on the upper Thames by baronial forces. Realising he’d been outmaneuvered, de Vere abandoned his army and little fighting took place at the “battle” of Radcot Bridge.

Reprisals followed. In the Merciless Parliament of 1388 the leading baronial opponents of the king – known as the Lords Appellant – enacted revenge against the king’s friends and allies. Using a legal procedure known as an appeal, the Lords Appellant passed harsh penalties against their enemies. So harsh, in fact, that they were more severe than English law actually permitted. Or so it has been argued – this is a matter of dispute between historians.

Having achieved their objective of destroying the king’s allies in 1388, the Lords Appellant quickly ceased to concern themselves with the government of England. They voluntarily handed power back to the king the following year. Initially, the Lords Appellant seem to have enjoyed widespread support throughout England in 1388. The punishment of the king’s friends appealed to a broader sentiment that these individuals had failed to step up to their martial duties as English noblemen in the war against France. However, popular opinion was already turning against the Lords Appellant when parliament met later that year as the commons realised they were uninterested in pursuing political reforms.

Foreign policy – Ireland, Scotland and France

In 1394 Richard II landed in Ireland at the head of the largest army to ever land there during the Middle Ages. By 1394 the situation in Ireland had deteriorated to such an extent that Richard needed to act if he wanted to maintain the English held territory in Ireland. The English colony in Ireland had been dealt a blow back in 1381 with the death of Edmund Mortimer. The Mortimer family were strategically best placed to take a lead in Ireland, but when Edmund died he left a seven year old boy as his heir leaving a vacuum of power. Richard’s decision to grant the lordship of Ireland to his friend Robert de Vere had not helped the situation. De Vere showed little interest in Irish affairs and never went there in person, despite having been subsidised by the king for the re-conquest of English lands that had been lost.

During the Irish campaign of 1394-5 Richard showed himself to be a good soldier and strategist. He succeeded in forcing the Irish rebels to come to terms. However, his departure from Ireland in 1395 left a fragile peace which needed an investment of time, money and men to maintain. Such an investment was not forthcoming. Instead, the Anglo-Irish lords entrusted by Richard to maintain the peace quickly alienated the Gaelic Irish by pursuing their own territorial ambitions. By 1399 the situation had deteriorated so much that another royal expedition to Ireland was necessary.

Back home across the Irish sea, the defence of the Anglo-Scottish borders was largely left to the powerful Warden of the Marches in the north who maintained a private army at the king’s expense. Changes to the contractual arrangement made by the Lords Appellant in 1389 turned the Warden of the Marches into a highly profitable office. This created discord between the two powerful northern families – the Percy family and the Neville family – both of whom coveted the office.

On the continent, the Hundred Years War had been going badly for the English for some time. Richard II sought to bring the conflict to an end. In 1393, Richard was prepared to accept as a cost for peace that the duchy of Aquitaine would become part of France. The key condition here being that the duchy itself would be held by John of Gaunt. However, the Gascons – Richard’s subjects in Aquitaine – opposed the plan and the negotiations came to nothing. A formal treaty for lasting peace therefore remained elusive for three more years. In 1396 Richard and Charles VI of France established the Truce of Paris – a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France.

Richard’s apparent dedication to peace with France has been questioned by some historians. He actively sought to limit the advance of French influence on the continent, and he may have been motivated to maintain the truce primarily so that he continued to receive dowry payments from the French following his marriage to Isabelle, daughter of Charles VI. It has also been argued that peace with France was a tactical decision by Richard. It gave the king the freedom to focus on destroying his old enemies – the Lords Appellant.

As something of an aside to Richard II’s foreign policy, it has been proved that he did not – as previously believed – send a contingent of soldiers to join a crusading army that fought at the battle of Nicopolis on 25 November 1396. 


Settling old scores - Richard the tyrant, 1397 - 1399
Having struggled to assert royal authority against parliamentary and baronial forces earlier in his reign, between 1397 and 1399 Richard made a renewed effort to take on the mantle of kingship.

In 1397 Richard did something unexpected. He suddenly arrested and brought to trial in parliament three former members of the Lords Appellant who had opposed him ten years earlier. Richard’s motivations are unclear, and there is a debate between historians about whether he believed there was a new plot against him, or whether he was merely taking revenge. It is clear, however, that Richard manipulated the law to secure the destruction of the duke of Gloucester.

That Richard brought his enemies to trial in parliament at all is significant. Evidently, the old legal principle – last used by Edward II – that the king’s personal judgment of a man’s guilt was sufficient for an instant conviction was no longer accepted. Richard needed parliament. However, this did bring some advantages. By proceeding in parliament Richard II could change the law of treason. As a result, not only were those found guilty of treason stripped of their titles and possessions (as per the existing law), but also any member of the traitor’s retinue was also stripped of incomes received from the guilty party.

Having destroyed three of the former Lords Appellant, Richard proceeded to exile the remaining two members of the baronial group – Henry Bolingbroke (the future Henry VI) and Henry Mowbray, duke of Norfolk. Then, when John of Gaunt died 1399, Richard II went even further and confiscated the whole duchy of Lancaster. This brought into the possession of the English crown huge landed wealth. Henry Bolingbroke, who was Gaunt’s son, was consequently disbarred from his inheritance. Henry returned to England in rebellion against Richard II to reclaim the duchy of Lancaster.

At variance with the interpretation of events just outlined, a revisionist analysis argues that Richard II didn’t actually confiscate the duchy of Lancaster per se. Rather, he left open the possibility that Henry Bolingbroke could claim his inheritance when his ten year sentence of exile came to an end. In this interpretation Richard’s action is less severe and Henry Bolingbroke had less of a cause to rebel.

In another important political development around this time, Richard had parliament grant powers to a ‘parliamentary committee’ in 1398. This essentially gave the king the freedom to make political decisions without the need for a parliament. The development caused some contemporary writers to speculate that the king meant to do away with Parliament altogether. Historians have considered this unlikely, but it is significant that the committee exceeded the powers that had been agreed in parliament. Furthermore, it appears that Richard had the record of parliament from 1398 retrospectively altered to make it appear as if the committee had not exceeded its remit. One of the charges made against Richard II during his deposition was that he had falsified the records of parliament – a charge that appears to be borne out by the evidence.

Two further developments illustrate how Richard II was developing the character of his kingship during these years between 1397 and 1399.

First, he expanded his personal bodyguard and recruited an additional private retinue of several hundred archers from his earldom in Cheshire. Richard apparently used this force to intimidate parliament in 1397 in a way that appeared tyrannical to some contemporary observers. However, Richard’s private army does not necessarily mean that he was developing an absolutist form of kingship, and there is no evidence that Richard’s personal bodyguard were engaged in the tyrannous activities of which the king was later accused.

And secondly, Richard took an interest in the use of language as a way of strengthening the power and authority of the crown. He encouraged subjects to address him as ‘your magnificence’ and ‘your serene highness’. This policy has been labelled ‘kingship of distance’, and it was reversed by Henry IV.

The Lancastrian Revolution, 1399

By 1399 the fragile peace in Ireland had broken down. Having taken revenge against the former Lords Appellant, Richard II returned to Ireland hoping for a repeat of his success in 1394. However, his military campaign ended prematurely. In July reports reached the king that Henry Bolingbroke had returned to England, in breach of his exile, with the purpose of reclaiming his inheritance to the duchy of Lancaster.

Evidence of Richard’s actions in Ireland is limited and we are largely reliant on an account provided by Jean Créton. It appears that Richard II faced logistical difficulties when trying to arrange for the return of his army from Ireland. This strengthened Bolingbroke’s hand, but Richard also appears to have underestimated the threat that Bolingbroke posed. The king’s decision to leave treasure, horses and military equipment in Dublin indicates that he was not anticipating the need to meet Bolingbroke on the battlefield.

In hindsight Richard’s response to Bolingbroke’s return appears careless. However, it has been argued that Bolingbroke had not planned to depose the king. Upon his return to England, Bolingbroke swore an oath that he merely planned to bring Richard II under control. Furthermore, one of Bolingbroke’s key supporters gave Richard assurances that there were no plans to depose him. However, as events unfolded Bolingbroke was opportunistic and gained a strong enough position to replace Richard as king.

The Deposition of Richard II, 1399

After being outmaneuvered by Henry Bolingbroke, Richard II tried to hand power to Bolingbroke without renouncing the crown. He was unsuccessful, and after his deposition, Bolingbroke – now King Henry IV – sought to cover up Richard’s proposals to continue as king.

As for the deposition itself, there has been debate between historians about whether or not Richard II was deposed in parliament. The historical significance here lies in whether Richard II’s deposition in parliament set a legal precedent - could parliament now depose a king?  Evidence from the coronation of Henry IV states that Richard was deposed in parliament, which assembled on 30 September 1399. However, this has been disputed on the basis that the clerk who produced the coronation roll didn’t overthink the terminology or care too much about its inaccuracy. The official rolls of parliament indicate that the assembly where Richard was deposed was not a parliament. Chroniclers were uncertain. If Henry Bolingbrook and his supporters had originally intended to use parliament to depose Richard II, the evidence suggests that they had second thoughts on establishing a precedent that parliament could replace the king.

Legacy and Reputation

Richard suffered from insanity during the last years of his reign according to one prevalent interpretation dating back to historians of the 1860s. This view became prevalent following the publication of Anthony Steel’s Richard II (1941) but has since been debunked.

Richard’s reputation as a tyrant yet persists, despite a revisionist trend that has raised questions about the reliability of contemporary writers and their criticism of Richard. For example, the chronicler Thomas Walsingham altered earlier versions of his chronicle following the succession of Henry IV to convey a more negative impression of Richard. The reliability of the Eulogium Historiarum has also been questioned, undermining an important passage describing Richard II’s fascination with royal absolutism.

Somewhat paradoxically, Richard holds a reputation for being both a tyrant and one of the most ‘unmanly’ of medieval kings. His failure to prove himself in battle against the French has won him this accolade, but his poor military reputation has also been challenged. 

Whatever we conclude about the character of Richard II, we have the privilege of being able to look him in the eye before making our final assessment. The famous Westminster Abbey portrait of him was probably produced around 1385. Aged eighteen years old, perhaps around the time he consulted legal experts about the Wonderful parliament. One cannot help but search in those eyes for the signs of sadness and resentment. Sadness, for the failure of his friend – Robert de Vere – at Radcot Bridge. Resentment for the constraints imposed his kingship by a parliament growing in political confidence.