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
- a practice common to medieval English kings in C14th and C15th
- 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
- Perhaps most striking difference between later kings and monarch who policies so closely resembled theirs, is that Richard lacked sense of 'popular address'
- 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 was not unpopular
- 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
- Had Lancastrians brought in true parliamentary democracy or limited monarchy it might be possible to share Whig enthusiasm for Richard's deposition
- It cut off first English Renaissance Prince and blighted welcome flowering of English court culture
- In short, Lancastrian monarchy was an aberration which interrupted inevitable development of royal power in England and out monarchy back sixty years
- Long-term costs of foreign war further weakened monarchy and ensured inevitable collapse under Henry VI
Comments
No comments have yet been made