longer.blue

The downfall of Richard II and the triumph of Henry IV; the revision as presented in 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest. The events of 1399 are currently explained as a drama: a flawed tyrant met his match when a virtuous noble stood up for justice and the spirit of national destiny, hearing his appeal and that of the suppressed nation, scattered his enemies and placed him on the throne. I argue that an obsession with personalities has blinded us to the political factors underlying these significant events. The Revision Personalities: Richard II Richard II is becoming more of a flawed tyrant with each year that passes and soon he will be a full-blown maniac as successive authors amplify a psychological profiling which began with Anthony Steel’s Richard II of 1941. Steel’s amateur diagnosis was seized on as a useful angle by later workers who passed it on uncritically. Richard II was not psychologically flawed. Tyrant? The word pops up in one chronicle only – a hostile Lancastrian one – and it is now the accepted way of describing Richard II. ‘Tyrant’ is a reference to Richard II’s ‘pent up venom’ in liquidating his enemies from 1388 in 1397. However, there is copious evidence for there having been a plot against him in 1397. Henry IV As Richard II’s reputation goes down, so Henry IV’s goes up: he is the ultimate paragon of chivalric virtue. Born to be king, yet denied it by accident of birth, he awaits England’s call, and heeds it when it comes. But there is nothing in Henry’s record to justify his lionisation. If Henry has a personality, it’s a vicious one. Crusader in the Baltic or Trustafarian packed off on two jaunts lasting the best part of three years by his father who wanted him out of the way, troublemaker that he was. Thomas Arundel The one person who can be fairly said to have stamped his mark on these events was Thomas Arundel. He had the experience and skills to run the operation from start to finish. Associated with a political faction hostile to Richard II, personally committed to reenergising the church’s resistance to Wycliffism and encroaching secularism, and never accepting the loss of his position as head of the church in England, Arundel used Henry’s military force to gain control of the government and make Henry king. Henry was Arundel’s puppet. Politics: Peace Looking for discussion as to what the effect of Richard II’s peace policy with France might have been draws a blank. That there might have been opposition by those who might have bemoaned the loss of military glory in France could be anticipated by a modern historian, but it is discounted in the literature. But there was opposition. London Henry and Arundel made a bee-line towards the City as soon as they had Richard II in their possession because they had made an alliance with a political movement in the capitol that assured them control of the streets, control of the oligarchs, and control of Westminster as they could pack it with their supporters. This nameless ‘party’, had been ‘led’ by John of Northampton but somewhat repressed thereafter. Richard II’s biggest mistake was in making a decree just before leaving for Ireland which incensed this ‘party’, a decree which Henry reversed in his first parliament. What did Henry want? The only time Henry said what he wanted was when he claimed the throne, the throne having been declared vacant, so there is chronicular silence (saving Creton) for all of Henry’s return as a rebel - some 12 weeks – until 30th September 1399. Can we infer that Henry was telling those around him that there would be a parliament? A parliament was actually summoned for 30th September. There is an intimation that he said as much at Doncaster, and a further intimation that he said the same at Chester. Creton has Northumberland reporting on Henry’s intention to have a parliament and it is presented as being a tough one – evil councillors will die à la Merciless Parliament. But that’s all there is – intimations. Otherwise there is silence. At some point, being king became the objective but there is no information at all as to when that was, saving his words on 30th September 1399. Henry the special one: Steward of England Henry took Richard II prisoner at Flint castle on 16th August and Henry’s first decree dates from that day. However, Henry used a supreme executive authority (could one say a tyrannical one?) throughout his pursuit of Richard until he had him. Henry believed that, as hereditary Steward of England, he had the judicial power of judge and jury, which explains the executions at Bristol. Legitimacy Modern writers like to emphasise Henry’s legitimacy. Was he actually Richard II’s legitimate successor? Richard II made a will before leaving for Ireland and the word ‘successor’ is mentioned many, many times, although no name is given. But there was a successor, and it could only have been, in terms of strict descent, one of two people. Was it the 7-year-old 5th earl of March, descended from Edward III’s 2nd son Lionel? Or………….. Male entail The male entail ‘tradition’ in which Edward III specified male descendants as inheritors of the crown, which would exclude the 5th Earl of March. It is explained in the literature as a way which made Henry successor by virtue of his father being 3rd son of Edward III. However, male entail was excluded Henry from succession. Male entail passes inheritance to a male ‘closest to the body’ of the deceased. The death of John of Gaunt cut Henry off from a living line to the body of Edward III. The male entail, on the death of Gaunt, passed to Edmund of Langley, duke of York. Something for Ricardians to think about. The Lancastrian Myth Because Henry had no legitimate claim on the throne he, or more probably Arundel, invented one. Bizarre and ludicrous, it is nevertheless a historical truth that Henry made this claim. Henry believed he was the rightful king of England and that Richard II, Edward III, Edward II and Edward I had sprung from a usurping line – the real first-born son of Henry III was Edmund (Crouchback) who’s deformity prevented him ruling, so his younger brother Edward I was given the crown. Fakery It wasn’t true, but the Lancastrian Myth was useful, and so was the faked origin story for the magic Lancastrian oil Arundel used to anoint Henry with. Like the best fakes, there had to be some kind of authenticity to work with and Arundel used correspondence between Edward II and the pope regarding the appropriateness of using an oil brought to him by a mystic. Also faked in the chronicles is the story of how Richard II fell into Henry’s power. Richard II had to be at liberty and able to make decisions freely, and so he was given a meeting with Henry and Arundel in Conwy castle. Here, Richard II declared himself unworthy to rule and asked Henry to be king. More fakery Richard II repeated his desire to give Henry the crown in a demeaning statement. Such an important document but so elusive as it disappeared from history outside the record of the proceedings. Conqueror? It seems lurid to describe Henry as Henry the Conqueror. Historians like to debate as to whether his takeover was a revolution of a coup d’etat. Henry couched his claim in terms of conquest and ‘Conqueror’ was an accepted title in Henry IV’s early years, and it was used as such by Chaucer. Henry being Henry the Conqueror is not the most important part of this revision, but it is a fact all the same. Does it matter? It matters a lot because taking the personality-base fable out of the equation reveals what the historian is really interested in, which is ‘the truth’, however elusive that truth might remain. A more critical understanding of 1399’s events can better inform our ideas of subsequent history. Henry IV was not the champion of Everyman, he was a factional leader who let his faction down by not delivering on military glory and maintaining taxation against his earliest promises. His son had no option but to restart the war in France, knowing that he could not just sit on the throne and react to events as his father had done. Many disputed (silently) Lancastrian legitimacy but many under Henry V - including the former - were happy to get glory and plunder in France. When that dynamic closed down, repressed thoughts turned back to legitimacy, embodied in Richard Duke of York’s challenge to parliament in 1460. Does the obsession with legitimacy also help to explain the disaster of Prince Arthur’s death (maybe even his name) and Henry VIII’s assertiveness – knowing that his flesh united the competing factions, and his desperation for an heir? And what of Thomas Arundel? Arundel’s skilful powerplay gained him everything he wanted but there is a curious paradox. Arundel believed in church exceptionalism along the lines of his mentor, William of Wykeham, but he compromised his beliefs fatefully by seeking support for the church’s response to Wycliffism and secularism from the state. Did this set the ball rolling towards the Reformation? Viva Revisione! ‘Revisionist’ tends to be used pejoratively in history, as if new thinking wants to peevishly spoil the party, but other disciplines have no problem incorporating new ideas. Take Earth Sciences for example; people think one way for a while, but when new information comes along, or when technology offers more accurate insights, then people think another way. They look for revisions, they eagerly seek them out and welcome them when they come, because without revision there is no progress. It is time to revise our beliefs because the new assessment is more critical, more objective, and fits the facts better. It is also more sophisticated and more complex than the orthodoxy in place and, frankly, is a lot more interesting.