longer.blue

1399: The Lancastrian Conquest - Henry IV and Thomas Arundel's campaign to build a new England. Published by Pen and Sword in January 2027. Synopsis What 21st century historians think happened in 1399 is easy to understand: Richard II deserved his fate and Henry IV, a man of destiny backed by the will of the people, did England a favour by taking his place. However, this personality-based account is undermined by the evidence, and falls: Richard II’s infamously neurotic character is an invention of the last 80 years; there was political hostility to his peace with France and there was a conspiracy against him in 1397. If Henry’s triumph can no longer rest squarely on Richard II’s deficient character, then other explanations need to be found and the key question is: who was the architect and prime mover, Henry or Arundel? In partnership from the very first, one crowned the other to make themselves joint masters of church and state, but was it Thomas Arundel’s ambition to regain his lost archbishop’s throne, more than Henry’s to take Richard II’s, which gave their enterprise such energy and direction? The cavalcade of kings and queens progressing through the years chapters the past into reigns, and this natural focus on monarchs will always put Henry to the fore, but could king Richard II’s overthrow have been engineered by a churchman with a vision of spiritual and national renewal. Thomas Arundel’s vision of a new England? All-new research, all the evidence is presented within the text without recourse to footnotes or exterior references, this series of essays reconsiders what we think we know about this consequential year in English history. Chapter summary 1) An overview of the sources and the principal participants: short. 2) An overview of the main events from 1386-1399: short. 3) Peace was a problem: evidence for factional opposition to Richard II’s peace policy is compared to modern interpretations which downplay antagonism to the rapprochement with France. 4) The Thomas Haxey affair of January 1397: the evidence of concerted agitation in parliament steered by the faction hostile to Richard II’s peace policy. 5) The St Albans plot: that there was no plot against Richard II in 1397 is the foundation for his characterisation as a spiteful revenger. However, there is plenty of evidence for a plot. 6) The Henry/Mowbray spat of 1398: a strange episode which historians struggle to explain. It’s worth noting that the parliamentary records for 1398 are remarkably prescient of coming events as most of those accused by Henry of having murderous intentions were liquidated in February 1400. 7) Henry’s Parisian exile: a discussion of events which might lead Henry to believe he was never going to be allowed back to England. 8) The challenge of Lancaster: why Henry’s character and track record might have led others to conclude that he should never be allowed back in England. 9) Thomas Arundel: his career, his links to the hostile faction and his outlook and options when he joined with Henry. 10) The tipping point: at some point in Henry’s Parisian exile, he ventured to risk his life by returning as a rebel. What might have brought him to this decision? 11) Political promises: the evidence for what Henry claimed to offer the country, how he presented himself to the public and at what point he made the crown his goal. 12) Alliance with a London faction: their support would allow him to operate freely when it came to organising the deposition of Richard II, his parliament and his coronation. It had a lot to do with the price of fish. 13) Henry as Steward of England: Henry gave himself supreme executive authority by way of this title until he gained possession of Richard II, whereafter he governed in the king’s name until taking the throne. 14) Original sin: the creation of a politically correct ‘truth’ which transposed Henry’s first meeting with Richard II from Flint castle to Conwy castle. The Lancastrian backstory required Richard II to be free, and an appropriate story was faked to show that he was. 15) Milestones to the throne: the period from the king’s capture to his deposition is examined for evidence revealing at what point Henry made his intention to take the throne explicit. 16) Henry the Conqueror: not a revolution and not a coup d’etat, Henry’s own words refer to his takeover as a conquest as do others, including Chaucer, and this was how it was perceived in the new regime’s early years. 17) The Lancastrian Myth: this legend - in which Henry was the dispossessed true king come to take what was rightfully his - was confected to justify the conquest. Modern historians are uncomfortable confronting Henry’s bizarre origin myth despite it being well represented in the sources. 18) Historians and the Lancastrian Myth: how historians have dealt with the Lancastrian Myth over the last 150 years is explored to discover how, as it does not accord with the ‘Henry the Hero’ narrative, it has been explained away, or ignored. 19) The Holy Oil of Lancaster: the significance of this magical oil might be passed over in the literature but careful examination of the faked elements in the oil’s backstory tells us how symbolism was manufactured for political ends. 20) Thomas Arundel at the centre: Arundel should be regarded as the mastermind and he was paramount in Henry’s first parliament as king on 6th October, the records for which would prompt many to conclude that Henry was Arundel’s puppet as the new king is silent and only Arundel’s voice is heard declaiming on how Henry will be governed by the advice of others, i.e. himself. 21) The inevitable aftermath: the final chapter explains how the new regime was quickly free of internal enemies and opens discussions on Henry’s personality to counterbalance the current obsession on Richard II’s supposed personal weaknesses. It goes on to evaluate Arundel’s role and his relationship with Henry. Conclusion: Thomas Arundel was the dominant partner in the Henry/Arundel joint venture.