Was Richard II a precocious tyrant? (I)
- Created by: Alasdair
- Created on: 31-05-18 12:35
View mindmap
- Was Richard II a precocious tyrant?
- The Art of Kingship Richard II, 1377-1399 (according to Caroline Barron)
- Violent, angry and unpredictable
- In 1383, heard of faulures of Bishop Dispenser's expedition to Flanders
- Rushed southwards to lead an army across the Channel, only to abandon idea a few hours later
- In 1385
- Had to be physically restrained from running his sword through distinguished Archbishop of Canterbury, William Courteney
- Archbishop had remonstrated with him about violent activities of hotheads in his court
- Had to be physically restrained from running his sword through distinguished Archbishop of Canterbury, William Courteney
- In 1383, heard of faulures of Bishop Dispenser's expedition to Flanders
- Anthony Tuck
- Demonstrated Richard's adolescent distribution of patronage, most important of all tools at disposal of medieval kings, was capricious and ill judged
- he made enemies needlessly and promoted those who could him comparatively little support
- Demonstrated Richard's adolescent distribution of patronage, most important of all tools at disposal of medieval kings, was capricious and ill judged
- When Richard was 20, independence of royal household received a parliamentary check
- In 1385, Parliament had attempted to control what it saw as extravagance of royal household by imposing certain conditions and restraints on royal spending
- Richard and his household servants ignored restraints
- So when Parliament was again summoned in 1386, both Lords and Commons assembled in truculent mood
- led by Richard's uncle, Thomas, Duke of Gloucester and powerful Bishop of Ely, Thomas Arundel, the Lords and Commons attempted to impeach Chancellor Michael de la Pole
- So when Parliament was again summoned in 1386, both Lords and Commons assembled in truculent mood
- Richard and his household servants ignored restraints
- In 1385, Parliament had attempted to control what it saw as extravagance of royal household by imposing certain conditions and restraints on royal spending
- Impeachment of Michael de la Pole
- To thwart impeachment, Richard stayed away from Parliament
- since in absence of King, Chancellor was in loco regis, he could not be impeached
- Finally, Gloucester and Arundel led deputation to Richard who was staying at Eltham Palace and demanded de la Pole should be removed from office
- Richard angrily retorted he would not remove meanest scullion from his kitchen at their request
- Richard's retort roused Gloucester to remind Richard of fate of Edward II and from this time onwards spectre of earlier deposition casts shadow over events of Richard's reign
- Edward II was forced to relinquish throne after his regime alienated his subjects
- After being reminded of Edward II
- At Eltham in 1386 threat served its purpose:
- Richard came to Parliament, Michael de la Pole was successfully impeached and deprived of office
- At Eltham in 1386 threat served its purpose:
- To thwart impeachment, Richard stayed away from Parliament
- After impeachment, Parliament imposed upon King a commission of eleven men who, together wit officers of state, would in effect, control spending and patronage of Crown for next year
- Richard felt check upon freedom very acutely
- Decided to pursue policy of non-co-operation with new commission
- Richard felt check upon freedom very acutely
- Policy of non-co-operation with new commission
- deliberately ignored it and while commission did its work at Westminster, Richard travelled (as one chronicle wrote 'gyrated') around country, staying at abbeys and royal castles, particularly in North
- Richard doing more than ignoring and obstructing commission
- 1386 had brought Richard to his senses and he was not merely content to ignore and obstruct commission
- Richard was determined to attack assumptions and attitudes which had made it possible for such a curb in royal autonomy to be imposed
- Richard decided to question legality of commission and of acts of Parliament which had imposed it, and for support he turned to judiciary
- Two chief justices, Sir Robert Belknap and Sir Robert Tresilian ruled it was prerogative of King to summon and dismiss Parliament and so controls its business
- No convincing evidence they were coerced
- Royal ministers, in judges' opinion could not be impeached without King's consent, against his will, a commission in effect which usurped royal powers
- Those who perpetuated, or urged such actions should be punished as traitors
- Two chief justices, Sir Robert Belknap and Sir Robert Tresilian ruled it was prerogative of King to summon and dismiss Parliament and so controls its business
- Probable Richard intended to keep judges' answers to questions secret
- a weapon to be used when need arose
- Such secrecy was to become a common feature of Richard's policy in later years
- Dealings with opposition after receiving judges' answers
- News of judge's questions leaked out and those hwo had been ringleaders in Parliament of 1386 (Arundel, Gloucester, Warwick) decided to act before they could be acted against
- Feared accusations of treason
- Oppostion launched appeal of treason against five of Richard's closest supports, including Micheal de la Pole and Robert de Vere
- Richard astutely accepted appeal but moved it from Court of Chivalry to Court of Parliament (highest court in land) in February 1388
- Gloucester presided over Court of Chivalry
- Would make it easier for opposition to get verdict in their favour
- In Parliament, Richard could hope for less prejudiced hearing
- Difficult for Appellants to secure convictions in Parliament against de la Pole and the others
- Gloucester presided over Court of Chivalry
- De Vere was allowed to escape from confinement in whcih he was supposed to be awaiting opening of Parliament
- travelled North to Cheshire to call King's retinue to arms
- Overthrowing opposition by force proved unsuccessful leaving Richard in vulnerable situation
- De Vere, whilst leading Retinue south, encountered retinues of Glocuester, Arundel and Warwick joined by Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk, and Henry Bolingbroke
- De Vere and King's troops were scattered at Radcot Bridge in Oxfordshire on 15th Dec 1387
- Richard retreated to Tower of London
- De Vere and King's troops were scattered at Radcot Bridge in Oxfordshire on 15th Dec 1387
- De Vere, whilst leading Retinue south, encountered retinues of Glocuester, Arundel and Warwick joined by Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Norfolk, and Henry Bolingbroke
- Overthrowing opposition by force proved unsuccessful leaving Richard in vulnerable situation
- travelled North to Cheshire to call King's retinue to arms
- News of judge's questions leaked out and those hwo had been ringleaders in Parliament of 1386 (Arundel, Gloucester, Warwick) decided to act before they could be acted against
Comments
No comments have yet been made