Was Richard II an out of touch autocrat?

  • Created by: Alasdair
  • Created on: 31-05-18 12:42
View mindmap
  • Was Richard II an out of touch autocrat?
    • The Art of Kingship Richard II, 1377-1399 (according to Caroline Barron)
    • In order to rule without Parliament in 1390s, Richard needed his own adequate resources for ordinary business of government
      • Persuaded Parliament of 1398, by devious means, to grant him wool subsidy for life
      • He raised loans and gifts from his subjects
        • a practice common to medieval English kings in C14th and C15th
          • Later raised to policy by Edward IV who extracted 'benevolences' from his wealthier subjects
        • Opposing view: Such policies were rough and ready wealth tax, unwelcome to those who paid but acknowledged by political community to have certain justice
          • Such wealth carried great obligations
    • Did Richard II fail where Yorkists and Tudors succeeded?
      • Perhaps most striking difference between later kings and monarch who policies so closely resembled theirs, is that Richard lacked sense of 'popular address'
        • which came so naturally to Yorkists and Tudors
        • Richard saw no reason to love or woo the common man
          • he never made any attempt to 'sell' his policies
          • None of propagandist literature of reign emanates from pen deliberately inspired by King
    • Contradictions of ideas of out of touch autocrat
      • Richard was not unpopular
        • Idea Richard ruled restless hostile country is one of most persuasive of all Lancastrian myths about King whom they deposed
        • No evidence any substantial group of Richard's subjects flocked to support Bolingbroke
    • Richard's autocratic government could not function without him
      • For example, when Richard delayed returning from Ireland
      • In muddle and confusion following Bolingbroke's arrival at Ravenspur in September 1399, those who would have supported Richard had no one around whom to rally: the centre did not hold
    • Richard's failure and Bolingbroke's success in overthrowing him
      • Being a usurper, Bolinbroke had to buy friends where Richard could command
    • McFarlane
      • The famous constitutionalism of Lancastrians was based on weakness of Crown which had to defer to Parliament because it was politically vulnerable and financially desperate
    • Henry V's brace attempt to secure legitimacy for Lancastrians by judgement of God of Battles
      • Long-term costs of foreign war further weakened monarchy and ensured inevitable collapse under Henry VI
        • In short, Lancastrian monarchy was an aberration which interrupted inevitable development of royal power in England and out monarchy back sixty years
          • It cut off first English Renaissance Prince and blighted welcome flowering of English court culture
            • Had Lancastrians brought in true parliamentary democracy or limited monarchy it might be possible to share Whig enthusiasm for Richard's deposition
              • In fact usurpation brought in weak and ineffective monarchy and, as such, Richard's failure was, in fact tragedy not simply of man but of the nation

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar History resources:

See all History resources »See all Monarchy and Kingship (Introduction to Medieval Period) resources »