longer.blue

Richard II and the 1397 plot - yet another myth. Modern myths – let us count them: the one giving a male entail, the one ignoring the Lancastrian Myth; and sub-myths: the one whereby the Lancastrian Myth was discounted by Adam of Usk’s panel of learned doctors, and the Thirning myth, whereby Henry was not a conqueror. Happily, all can be easily refuted. Here’s another one. The myth of Richard the Revenger. The entire miasmic panolply of bad vibes that surround Richard II are based on his arrest of the earl of Arundel, uncle Gloucester and timorous Warwick. This was a wanton act that betrayed his nutty nature and initiated his Nebuchadnezzarian tyranny. You read the histories carefully – was he or wasn’t he justified? He wasn’t justified they all agree, hello tryranny. For historians who are not shy of knowing something, here is a list of the sources that explicitly describe a conspiracy in 1397: 1) two Close Roll proclamations dated July 1397 2) Adam of Usk 3) Eulogium Continuorum (Malmesbury) 4) Annales Ricardi Secundi (St Albans) 5) Chronica Maiora (Walsingham) Other Froissart (10,500 words) though he was a foreigner, so we ignore it. Gloucester’s interrogation – though he denied it. Warwick’s confession – though he disputed it. The updating of the treason statutes in September 1397, post trials, to include conspiracy My favourite is the Annales’s one as the chronicler has let something slip: Warwick, when asked about whether he could deny that he had rode with Gloucester and Arundel, replies: ‘The earl said that he could not be infected (with treason) just because he had ridden with them.’ This can’t be talking about Radcot Bridge etc as Usk tells us that Henry and Warwick led the vanguard which entered Oxford in triumph after the battle. Clearly Warwick was riding then, so his admission of non-treasonous riding in 1397 has to point to the conspiracy everybody was talking about, except historians.