This post is prompted by a remark in another place by someone who thinks Richard III was a tyrant; it fits the chronology of this blog because historians often refer to Richard II's period of reign between 1397 and 1399 as his 'tyranny.'
What does this actually mean? Medieval monarchs were all dictators. In England they were limited only as far as custom and Parliament could bind them. It isn't sensible to expect them to behave with the scrupulous regard for the law exhibited by modern elected officials. (Pause for hollow laughter.)
I would argue that no medieval English monarch had the technology or staff available to be a 'tyrant' in the sense that Hitler or Stalin were tyrants. Medieval government worked largely through the voluntary effort of local gentry, or it didn't work at all. The king could command what he liked, but he didn't have a standing army, a police force or a large supply of bureaucrats to enforce it. (Well, Richard II did have a sort of standing army but it was really more of a body guard. Similar to the Yeoman of the Guard started up by that nice un-tyrannical Henry VII.) So even the worst oppression had moderating influences if the king did not have enough support down the food chain.
The medieval definition of a tyrant was a ruler who reigned for his own benefit rather than for that of the community - the community in this sense being principally the nobles, gentry and other powerful men. If you want a working example, check out the Viscontis of Milan. Now they were tyrants - you could be executed just for walking through their private garden. No Plantagenet comes close, in fact they were pussy cats by comparison. Hell, most of the Tudors were pussy cats by comparison.
'Tyrant' is a word that gets passed around quite a lot - often it means no more than 'authoritative ruler I don't like.' Some people describe President Lincoln as a tyrant - when you consider his extra-judicial imprisonment of sundry Maryland legislaters and various newspaper editors, you can see where they are coming from. The defence for Lincoln is 'necessity'. It's an old tradition that in exceptional times, rulers may use exceptional measures. This was well-established in England - as late as the 17th Century a court of law held that only the Sovereign could judge what was 'necessary' when the realm was under threat. It certainly was OK to temporarily appropriate the property of subjects and impose special taxation. (It took a civil war to take some of these things out of the Prerogative.)
In the case of the third Richard, England was faced with war with France, Brittany or Scotland for all or most of his reign. He also faced internal rebellion. In the circumstances, he was entitled to use what we would now call 'emergency powers'. His reign was far too short for us to know how he would have behaved under normal circumstances, as opposed to clear and present danger. I suspect, at the lowest, no worse than Edward IV or Henry VII.
As for Richard II - well, most of what he did was under the authority of Parliament. If he was a tyrant, so were the Appellants when they used the Parliament for their ends. What was dodgy was the arbitrary life banishment of Bolingbroke and seizure of the Lancastrian inheritance. The threat to property implicit in this decision scared the hell out of the landed classes and this is certainly one of the issues that tipped the scales against the king.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
Richard v Henry Fan Clubs
Dr Given-Wilson provides the following interesting details of the dukes, marquises and earls of England in 1399:
Richard II's supporters
York
Exeter (John Holland, the King's half-brother)
Surrey (Thomas Holland the King's half-nephew.)
Oxford (Aubrey de Vere)
Wiltshire
Worcester (Thomas Percy)
Aumale (Edward of York)
Salisbury
Suffolk
Dorset (Henry's half-brother, John Beaufort)
Gloucester (York's son-in-law.)
Neutral or not influential
Norfolk (In exile, later dead.)
March (Minor)
Richmond (Abroad.)
Devon (Ill health)
Stafford (Thomas Woodstock's son-in-law)
Henry's supporters
Northumberland
Westmorland (Ralph Neville, Henry's brother-in-law)
Henry himself.
Not quite the analysis of voting intentions one might have expected! The obvious conclusions are a) That if you are a medieval king of England you should not piss off the Percies and the Nevilles at the same time. b) That Henry himself was enormously powerful, and had an exceptional level of support among the English gentry and the lower levels of the peerage.
Henry had of course inherited the enormous Lancastrian following of retainers and officials. Many of these had originally been recruited to put Gaunt on the throne of Castile, and so the total number was far greater than would normally have been expected. Although many/most of these men had had their pension rights stamped by Richard, they not unnaturally preferred Henry, who was certain to keep them in the fees they had grown to know and love.
Henry was also able to secure the support of a number of barons who were not usually particularly active in politics. The names of Grey de Ruthin, Willoughby, Fitzwalter and Morley spring to mind. The latter two were attached to Thomas of Woodstock, and gave a great deal of stick to Edward of York in Henry's first parliament, blaming him for the duke's murder. After which they sank back into the political obscurity from which they had briefly emerged.
Despite that, when you look at Dr Given-Wilson's analysis, it does beg the question whether Richard had really cheesed off his nobles to the extent that is usually painted. Or whether Henry was simply the most over-mighty of over-mighty subjects.
Richard II's supporters
York
Exeter (John Holland, the King's half-brother)
Surrey (Thomas Holland the King's half-nephew.)
Oxford (Aubrey de Vere)
Wiltshire
Worcester (Thomas Percy)
Aumale (Edward of York)
Salisbury
Suffolk
Dorset (Henry's half-brother, John Beaufort)
Gloucester (York's son-in-law.)
Neutral or not influential
Norfolk (In exile, later dead.)
March (Minor)
Richmond (Abroad.)
Devon (Ill health)
Stafford (Thomas Woodstock's son-in-law)
Henry's supporters
Northumberland
Westmorland (Ralph Neville, Henry's brother-in-law)
Henry himself.
Not quite the analysis of voting intentions one might have expected! The obvious conclusions are a) That if you are a medieval king of England you should not piss off the Percies and the Nevilles at the same time. b) That Henry himself was enormously powerful, and had an exceptional level of support among the English gentry and the lower levels of the peerage.
Henry had of course inherited the enormous Lancastrian following of retainers and officials. Many of these had originally been recruited to put Gaunt on the throne of Castile, and so the total number was far greater than would normally have been expected. Although many/most of these men had had their pension rights stamped by Richard, they not unnaturally preferred Henry, who was certain to keep them in the fees they had grown to know and love.
Henry was also able to secure the support of a number of barons who were not usually particularly active in politics. The names of Grey de Ruthin, Willoughby, Fitzwalter and Morley spring to mind. The latter two were attached to Thomas of Woodstock, and gave a great deal of stick to Edward of York in Henry's first parliament, blaming him for the duke's murder. After which they sank back into the political obscurity from which they had briefly emerged.
Despite that, when you look at Dr Given-Wilson's analysis, it does beg the question whether Richard had really cheesed off his nobles to the extent that is usually painted. Or whether Henry was simply the most over-mighty of over-mighty subjects.
Greyhounds Again
On the subject of abused racing greyhounds there's a petition to the Prime Minister here.
If you're a UK citizen or resident, you may care to sign up.
If you're a UK citizen or resident, you may care to sign up.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Evil King Richard and the Evil Cheshire Archers
One of the most popular themes of the Chroniclers, and the modern historians who have followed them is the 'oppression' caused by King Richard's Cheshire followers. These men were retained by the King as a permanent army, and this was a Bad Thing. (Whereas for the various nobles to retain followers to serve them in peace and war was a Good Thing, as the nobles were all progressive liberals and their retainers never oppressed anyone, being specially chosen for their people-skills.)
I have been re-reading the excellent The Royal Household and the Kings Affinity by Dr Chris Given-Wilson, and find therein that Richard's annuity bill in June 1378 (when he had just taken over and was probably having decisions made for him by his elders) was around £14300. This is quite a lot, and increased in 1397-98 by over £5000, mostly spent on employing the men of Cheshire. Not only archers, but knights and squires as well. Given-Wilson reckons that by 1399 the total budget must have risen to about £25000 a year. This was certainly a fair chunk of royal revenues - I'll throw in my guess at about 25%.
Of course that splendid fellow Henry IV scrapped the policy and the English nation was free once more to dance under May poles, as there was no longer anyone to oppress them.
Except Henry just changed the personnel - not the policy. Get this - within two years of his accession he was spending £24000 on annuities from the royal revenues, and a further £8000 from the Duchy of Lancaster. Given-Wilson estimates an increase to £35000 by 1404-05.
So good King Henry was spending more on oppressing people than evil King Richard, and not just a bit more. An increase of 40% I make it.
Now it may be that Henry's followers were a different breed to Richard's - that they confined themselves solely to rescuing damsels and slaying giants and dragons, and were all saintly sorts like Sir Galahad. But knowing what I do about the medieval English gentry, I somehow doubt it.
I have been re-reading the excellent The Royal Household and the Kings Affinity by Dr Chris Given-Wilson, and find therein that Richard's annuity bill in June 1378 (when he had just taken over and was probably having decisions made for him by his elders) was around £14300. This is quite a lot, and increased in 1397-98 by over £5000, mostly spent on employing the men of Cheshire. Not only archers, but knights and squires as well. Given-Wilson reckons that by 1399 the total budget must have risen to about £25000 a year. This was certainly a fair chunk of royal revenues - I'll throw in my guess at about 25%.
Of course that splendid fellow Henry IV scrapped the policy and the English nation was free once more to dance under May poles, as there was no longer anyone to oppress them.
Except Henry just changed the personnel - not the policy. Get this - within two years of his accession he was spending £24000 on annuities from the royal revenues, and a further £8000 from the Duchy of Lancaster. Given-Wilson estimates an increase to £35000 by 1404-05.
So good King Henry was spending more on oppressing people than evil King Richard, and not just a bit more. An increase of 40% I make it.
Now it may be that Henry's followers were a different breed to Richard's - that they confined themselves solely to rescuing damsels and slaying giants and dragons, and were all saintly sorts like Sir Galahad. But knowing what I do about the medieval English gentry, I somehow doubt it.
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Greyhounds
Edward, Duke of York, was a writer, his principal work being The Master of Game, written during a well-deserved spell in prison. (He is also reputed to have been a poet, though the one work I have seen attributed to him suggests he was not exactly up there with Chaucer.)
The Master of Game is a fascinating book, covering most aspects of medieval hunting in great detail. Much of it is a translation from an earlier work by Gaston Phoebus Count of Foix, but Edward did add five chapters of his own. One thing that becomes clear from Edward's writing is his regard for greyhounds. He classes them as 'fit for a knight or his lady' - in effect dogs for the nobility. Hunting was, of course, the preserve of the landed classes in the middle ages, although it was common for monks and other clergy to take part in the sport. (Monks often got in trouble for keeping unauthorised greyhounds.)
The reason I mention this is that greyhounds in our modern world are a much-abused breed, and need as much of our help as possible. If you can find it in your heart to give one a home, please do so - you will be rewarded with a loyal and loving companion, albeit one who may need to be watched while it learns not to chase cats and other small animals! Contrary to what you might think, they don't need a lot of exercise, and are more likely to wear out your sofa than your legs.
If you can't have one at home, why not sponsor one of the many rescue centres? You could do a lot worse than join me in supporting Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue. They do a great job for these aristocratic animals!
The Master of Game is a fascinating book, covering most aspects of medieval hunting in great detail. Much of it is a translation from an earlier work by Gaston Phoebus Count of Foix, but Edward did add five chapters of his own. One thing that becomes clear from Edward's writing is his regard for greyhounds. He classes them as 'fit for a knight or his lady' - in effect dogs for the nobility. Hunting was, of course, the preserve of the landed classes in the middle ages, although it was common for monks and other clergy to take part in the sport. (Monks often got in trouble for keeping unauthorised greyhounds.)
The reason I mention this is that greyhounds in our modern world are a much-abused breed, and need as much of our help as possible. If you can find it in your heart to give one a home, please do so - you will be rewarded with a loyal and loving companion, albeit one who may need to be watched while it learns not to chase cats and other small animals! Contrary to what you might think, they don't need a lot of exercise, and are more likely to wear out your sofa than your legs.
If you can't have one at home, why not sponsor one of the many rescue centres? You could do a lot worse than join me in supporting Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue. They do a great job for these aristocratic animals!
Friday, 18 April 2008
Edward, Duke of Aumale
Edward of York had by this time secured a list of titles and offices that must have given his clerks writers' cramp. Duke of Aumale, Earl of Rutland and Cork. Lord Constable, Lord Admiral, Warden of the Cinque Ports, Constable of the Tower and of Dover, Keeper of the Channel Islands, Keeper of Carisbrooke and Lord of Wight, Warden of the New Forest, Justice in Eyre South of Trent - it just goes on and on. He was also customarily referred to in grants and other official documents as 'the King's brother' - not 'the King's kinsman' as was correct.
In his Fears of Henry IV Ian Mortimer suggests that Richard II had chosen Edward as his eventual successor, and there is some evidence for this. Notably Bagot, in his various confessions, claimed that Richard had told him, Bagot, that this was what was in his mind, and that Edward was the most suitable candidate for the job.
What is beyond doubt is that in the period 1396-1399 Edward was extremely high in Richard's favour and was showered with offices, grants of land and responsibilities. In February 1398 he was even appointed Warden of the West March and Keeper of Carlisle, despite having no land or following in the area. It seems likely that this decision of the King was one of the final straws for the Neville and Percy families, who a few months later were to be united in their support for Bolingbroke.
In his Fears of Henry IV Ian Mortimer suggests that Richard II had chosen Edward as his eventual successor, and there is some evidence for this. Notably Bagot, in his various confessions, claimed that Richard had told him, Bagot, that this was what was in his mind, and that Edward was the most suitable candidate for the job.
What is beyond doubt is that in the period 1396-1399 Edward was extremely high in Richard's favour and was showered with offices, grants of land and responsibilities. In February 1398 he was even appointed Warden of the West March and Keeper of Carlisle, despite having no land or following in the area. It seems likely that this decision of the King was one of the final straws for the Neville and Percy families, who a few months later were to be united in their support for Bolingbroke.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
The Loyal Conspiracy by Anthony Goodman
I've been looking for a cheap copy of The Loyal Conspiracy by Anthony Goodman for some time, and the other day I got lucky and found one, in Southport of all places. (Actually, for UKers among you, Southport is a surprisingly good place to go - there are at least three shops with a respectable stock of proper, second-hand books, the sort of business that used to be common but isn't any more.)
As you may have guessed, the book is about the Appellants, and Goodman broadly sympathises with them, as hinted in the title. At one point he refers to the likes of Bagot and Mowbray having to make the sort of choices that were familiar to many in the 20th century - do you know, I think Professor Goodman is almost comparing Richard II to Hitler and Stalin! Well, folks, I know which of the three I'd prefer to deal with, and it certainly wouldn't be any 20th century dictator.
It is a useful book however, and provides a stack of information about the Appellants. One thing I have noticed, already, is how generous Richard II was to Thomas of Woodstock in the 1390s. As late as 16 April 1397, about three months before he was arrested, he was pardoned a debt of £1074, 1 shilling and eightpence farthing that he owed to the Crown. There's more. Goodman reports Froissart saying that in 1395-6 Woodstock was continuously soliciting favours. (My italics). Poor old Woodstock, scraping along on a meagre £2500 a year, easily 1 million in modern money, how he suffered under that brutal regime! Where do I find a government to tyrannise me on similar terms?
As you may have guessed, the book is about the Appellants, and Goodman broadly sympathises with them, as hinted in the title. At one point he refers to the likes of Bagot and Mowbray having to make the sort of choices that were familiar to many in the 20th century - do you know, I think Professor Goodman is almost comparing Richard II to Hitler and Stalin! Well, folks, I know which of the three I'd prefer to deal with, and it certainly wouldn't be any 20th century dictator.
It is a useful book however, and provides a stack of information about the Appellants. One thing I have noticed, already, is how generous Richard II was to Thomas of Woodstock in the 1390s. As late as 16 April 1397, about three months before he was arrested, he was pardoned a debt of £1074, 1 shilling and eightpence farthing that he owed to the Crown. There's more. Goodman reports Froissart saying that in 1395-6 Woodstock was continuously soliciting favours. (My italics). Poor old Woodstock, scraping along on a meagre £2500 a year, easily 1 million in modern money, how he suffered under that brutal regime! Where do I find a government to tyrannise me on similar terms?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)