longer.blue

Thomas Arundel was the mastermind responsible for the deposition of Richard II and the installation of Henry IV. Of course, no one is ever going to find a document in which Arundel claims that he made Henry IV his puppet in order to regain his own throne as Archbishop of Canterbury from which he could restore the church’s stand against Wycliffism and creeping secularisation. And History is a stately succession of kings and queens – there is no place for a kingmaker engineering events for his own benefit, so Henry will always get the credit. However, let’s entertain ourselves with an overview of the circumstantial evidence. Arundel and Henry were together throughout the campaign from the beachhead in Yorkshire to the deposition in Whitehall. Historians make Henry the agent of destiny with Arundel tagging along for the ride, and helping out whenever he can, but it wasn’t like that – the reason they were together from the start is that Arundel had winkled Henry out from Paris with a ‘now-or-never’ scheme. Arundel had been in constant communication with Canterbury throughout his exile and, never having renounced his position as Archbishop of Canterbury, had prepared his allies in the church for his return and re-assumption of the archbishop’s throne. Arundel needed Henry’s Lancastrian military power to secure the government of England and the options from then were a) a parliament in which a humbled monarch would reinstall him in Canterbury or, given the right circumstances, b) the replacement of Richard II by Henry, and his reinstallation as archbishop by Henry the king. Option b) was the preferable option as it would make his re-enthronement more secure. In the sequence of events as laid out in the chronicles and records, Henry’s own voice is strangely absent until he spoke to claim the throne. What Henry must have said at various points to those who flocked to his banner is unrecorded. If he was a wronged aristo come to deliver England from a tyrant, then he never said so. Richard II did not die in battle – the preferred outcome – but possession of his person allowed Arundel to govern in the king’s name, using the mechanisms of government captured at Bristol, until his own man was on the throne. Arundel organised the deposition of Richard II from beginning to end to ensure that Henry, and no other, would become the next monarch using the invented Lancastrian Myth to legitimise his made-man, so excluding existing possible claimants. The coronation, so quick to follow the deposition, saw the use of Arundel’s Lancastrian oil to anoint Henry. This oil was faked, as was Richard II’s statement renouncing the crown, as were the circumstances of his capture, as was the legal basis for his deposition – the articles and the judgement were simply read out loud, there was no trial. Arundel’s public statements are legion but, as they are peppered with biblical references, there is a reluctance to find out what he meant; his Henry was a messiah from an ancient, and displaced line, and Arundel was the priest welcoming his return. The best circumstantial evidence for the primacy of Arundel’s role in his joint-enterprise with Henry is the new king’s first parliament on 6th October. Would one expect a new king who had voiced his claim so self-confidently on 30th September to use this occasion to make his mark in some way? Of course one would, but Henry did not. He must have been present but only Arundel’s words are recorded. Furthermore, every sermon Arundel made underscores the subservience of a king to his elders, i.e. himself. Who managed the mobile secretariat that bombarded the state apparatus with decrees replacing office-holders with Lancastrian loyalists as Arundel and Henry went from Chester to London with the captured Richard II? Not Henry. Who organised the 30th September deposition to ensure that Henry, and no other, became king once the throne was empty? Not Henry. Who had been in contact with Canterbury, and so the church, throughout his exile, and knew that he could get it behind him as soon as he came back to England? Who faked the holy oil of Lancaster used to anoint Henry and who actually placed the crown of England on Henry’s head? Who controlled the media – the Benedictine chronicles – which ensured that Henry’s story was only a march to the throne backed universally by a grateful populace? Henry brought military force to the party. Arundel hired the room, the caterers, invited the other guests and payed off the police to stop them breaking it up if it became rowdy. If the decision as to who was behind the events of 1399 were submitted to a board of independent arbitrators, and they had to choose between Henry and Arundel as the architect and prime-mover, they would choose Arundel because his hand was everywhere and Henry’s is…, is… - was it anwhere? -based on info in 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest, to be published in Jan 2027.