Medieval England #1

Medieval England 

#1 

Taylor Speer-Sims

Medieval England

May 30, 2013

            Richard II has many different views on his personality. Many have said that he was a tyrant. Others have said the opposite. Some said that he was crazy. Again, there are opposing arguments. Henry was his opponent and was supposed to have been perfect, and Richard was not. Henry won the crown. It was inevitable, not because Richard was a complete tyrant, but that it was inevitable. Richard was a difficult man to pin down. This paper shows that he may not have been a true villain, but he was an enigma.

Crazy tyrannical Richard II may not have been so bad after all. There are arguments that support this argument, as well as those that appose it. There is very little contemporary evidence that supports this claim.[1] Most claims were made after the Ricardian Empire had fallen. There is, on the other hand, interesting evidence that supports this idea in a round about way. Historians are always expected to use explicit proof via documentation. They are also encouraged to create a theory that can be substantiated. In the past, the only reasons were to be made upon hard-core evidence. New fields of history include other types of evidence, such as personality-psychological review.

            Taking into account the fact that Richard has no contemporaries stating that he was indeed mentally incapacitated, there are still clues to instability. Harris noted, “Richard had always feared and resented his contemporary” and was consistently inconsistent.[2] Richard was duplicitous and willful, and found it difficult to trust. Stow quoted Stubbs in saying that Richard’s character was hard to understand because of the change that it had taken place, from non-independent actions to his “surprising inconsistencies”.[3] Then, there is the idea that his true personality is not at all easy to differentiate from the recorded impressions. Because it is not easy to understand the man, could it really be that easy to understand if he actually were tyrannical as well?

            Just as in the points above, there are inconsistencies as to whether Richard was indeed a true tyrant. Henry Plantgenet told the English world that he had been “wronged by the king through his [Richard’s] vindictive policies towards him [Henry].”[4] As Henry had been considered the “perfect knight” because of his nobility and being an accomplished jouster, he used his star quality to promote his ideas.[5] Could this be the reason behind Richard’s notorious notoriety? This could certainly be one reason. However, there are other points, as well. One such reason was personal revenge. Richard destroyed men because of fear of men that had greater territorial and military resources, according to Harris.[6] Richard refused to repay loans “made at Easter 1398 as promised and the loan figured among the charges of tyranny brought” at the king’s deposition.[7]     

Richard had examples opposing the tyranny argument. He was kind to those in his personal circle, his own courtiers.[8] Most of the antagonistic arguments were written after the man had died.  Richard gave his uncle, Edmund of Langley, the governorship of the land on four different occasions when he was out of the country. He trusted his uncle, even though this man was not considered very adequate in management.[9] If he had been truly kind to Edmund, why did he turn toward Henry instead?

The answer to the above question is that it was inevitable. Richard was a great man with a large personality. He had a famously bad temper in the later years of his reign. His great queen had died, and she was the person that had the influence to any type of moderation.[10] He was duplicitous, and had used his physical presence to instill his positioning with “harsh and determined looks”.[11] Henry was handsome and magnetic. With Richard’s position of Crown and authority, the king recruited many men for his military. This large retinue of men, Richard took with him to Ireland. However, Richard did not foresee the time of Henry’s approach for his throne.[12] Why was this the case when he had so many military men on his council? This is unknown. Without being able to understand that others could attack at a time that he was away, Richard was to be the one to lose the fight for the throne.

Richard II had been in Ireland when Henry came to England, staying in the king’s uncle’s castle. It was inevitable because of Henry’s timing of deliverance, not because the king was a compete villain. Richard held great traits, such as being a strong personality. True, he held bad, as well. Richard was duplicitous and vengeful. Richard was severe, while Henry was magnetic. However, there has not been any type of contemporary documents that have shown Richard to be the tyrant of legend. Richard had many followers that went with him to Ireland. He was very good to his couriers. Opposing views were written after Richard’s death to promote the Plantagenet line. Richard had good traits and bad, just as any man. He was no true tyrant, but he remains the enigma of the age.

Bibliography

Barron, Caroline. “The Deposition of Richard II” in Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century

England, John Talor and Wendy Childs, eds. Stroud, UK: Alan Sutton, n.d. http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Barron%2C%20Deposition%20of%20Richard%20II.pdf (accessed May 22, 2013).

Biggs, Douglas. “Historiographical Problems, and Perspectives, and the English Experience

of War in the Late Fourteenth Century.” Quoted in Class Blackboard, Kearney: Blackboard, Unk, n.d.. http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906

/content/_1692789_1/Biggs%2C%20Three%20Armies%20in%20Britain%2C%20Ch%201%268.pdf. (accessed May 22, 2013).

---- “A Wrong Whom Conscience and Kindred Bid Me to Right”, “Albion: A Quarterly

Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol 26, No. 2), The North American Conference of British Studies, (1994) Quoted in JSTOR (2010) http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Biggs%2C%20Edmund%20of%20Langley%20%26%20Henry%20IV.pdf. (accessed May 22, 2013).

Harris, Gerald. The New Oxford History of England: Shaping the Nation, England 1360-

1461.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Stow, George B. “Stubbs, Steel, and Richard II as Insane: The Origin and Evolution of an

English Historiographical Myth”, “Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 143, No. 4”. Dec. 1999, quoted in JSTOR. 2013. http://blackboard.unk.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1692789-dt-content-rid-5235847_2/courses/2013UHIST84906/Stow%2C%20Richard%20II%20as%20Insane.pdf. (accessed May 22, 2013).

Wallace, David. “Writing the Tyrant’s Death: Chaucer, Bernabo Visconti and Richard II”.

1992. Quoted in Class Blackboard, Kearney: Blackboard, UNK, n.d.  http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Wallace%2C%20Writing%20The%20Tyrant%27s%20Death%20%28R%20II%29.pdf (accessed May 22, 2013).

Paper for class at University of Nebraska at Kearney.

---

[1] George B,Stow, “Stubbs, Steel, and Richard II as Insane: The Origin and Evolution of an English Historiographical Myth”, “Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 143, No. 4” (Dec. 1999), quoted in JSTOR (2013), http://blackboard.unk.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-1692789-dt-content-rid-5235847_2/courses/2013UHIST84906/Stow%2C%20Richard%20II%20as%20Insane.pdf. (accessed May 22, 2013).

[2] Gerald Harris, The New Oxford History of England: Shaping the Nation, England 1360-1461  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 483.

[3] Stow.

[4] Douglas Biggs, “Historiographical Problems, and Perspectives, and the English Experience of War in the Late Fourteenth Century.” Quoted in Class Blackboard. (Kearney: Blackboard, Unk, n.d.). http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Biggs%2C%20Three%20Armies%20in%20Britain%2C%20Ch%201%268.pdf. (accessed May 22, 2013).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Harris, 479.

[7] Harris, 485.

[8] Harris, 23.

[9] Douglas Biggs, “A Wrong Whom Conscience and Kindred Bid Me to Right”, “Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, Vol 26, No. 2), The North American Conference of British Studies, (1994) Quoted in JSTOR (2010) http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Biggs%2C%20Edmund%20of%20Langley%20%26%20Henry%20IV.pdf. (accessed May 22, 2013).

[10] David Wallace, “Writing the Tyrant’s Death: Chaucer, Bernabo Visconti and Richard II” (1992), quoted in Class Blackboard, (Kearney: Blackboard, UNK, n.d.)  http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Wallace%2C%20Writing%20The%20Tyrant%27s%20Death%20%28R%20II%29.pdf (accessed May 22, 2013).

[11] Ibid.

[12] Caroline Barron, “The Deposition of Richard II” in Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England, John Talor and Wendy Childs, eds. (Stroud, UK: Alan Sutton, n.d.) http://blackboard.unk.edu/courses/1/2013UHIST84906/content/_1692789_1/Barron%2C%20Deposition%20of%20Richard%20II.pdf (accessed May 22, 2013).