Richard II

Moderator: Moderators

Soren
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 10:01 pm
Location: Redwood Falls, Mn
Contact:

Richard II

Postby Soren » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:34 pm

I've got a rather deep question for ya'll. I've been a huge fan of Edward the Black Prince and have done a lot of research on him. Recently I started to read about his son Richard II. The overall question is: Where did Richard II go wrong?

Was it the absence of being raised by his father? Was he coddled too much as a toddler? Did being the son of a legend go to his head? Was he given so much without earning it that he upset the fine balance of giving who was important their due respect and keeping the 'lesser' nobility on the wings instead of fore and center? He seemed, at least in his youth, an arrogant young man, one who knew how to talk the talk but behind the scenes with his friends was an immature coniver. Do you think his royal uncles shook their heads and said to each other: if only his father were here.

Also, the uprising of the peasants. After the plague many things changed in England regarding how they were treated. They were, to a point, kept in check by a strong central govt. But do you think that the laurels and victories that the nobles gained in the early years of the HYW helped to keep that in check? Was it intimidation, fear, respect that kept them in check? During RII reign it seems that there was no respect for the nobility, or at least a lesser degree of respect, and lacking a stong, proven war machine at this time it seems the common people felt it was their time to be heard. Was it when the spoils of war kept coming from France, the commons were happy, but when things turned for the worse they became unsettled? Or was it that since there wasn't a busy, standing army like there was before which took quite a few men to France and now the citizens were bored and this revolt came up?

Just some thoughts. Anxious for some input.



Nigel
Post Knight
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:45 am
Location: Pontefract
Contact:

Postby Nigel » Sun Apr 12, 2009 8:14 am

took a day trip to Pontefract ?


There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.

Stuart Quayle
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Contact:

Richard II

Postby Stuart Quayle » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:21 am

Hi Soren

From what little I have read about Richard II (who BTW I find a truly fascinating figure), I think there were a few factors which helped to form the final character of this king, for better or worse. Sorry if this is too simple or inaccurate, it's just my humble take on the matter:

1 He was removed from a settled environment in France where he was initially raised as a very young child and deposited into England which for him would have been a totally new and unusual place for him to adjust to and make close friendships;

2. Richard was then raised with a number of other children, one of whom was to turn out to be his biggest rival for the throne of England and arch nemisis - Henry IV. Possibly, deep down in his mind Richard II grew to knew he was only ever going to be half the man Henry IV was capable of being, e.g. Henry IV was lauded for being a champion jouster from a yound age when Richard II showed no interest in this knightly pursuit. Henry had gone on crusade in Lithuania against 'the pagans' and was applauded for his bravery, Richard chose not to prefering most modest achievements like 'a pursuit of the arts, the invention of the kerchief and hosting a lavish courtly scene. Richard's best weapons were to be his mercurial character and cunning intelligence mind. He preferred favourites who would massage his ego and who he could reward accordingly;

3. To compound things, I agree, the thought of trying to live up to his father's (The Black Princes) heritiage of Battle victories and warlike leanings, made this task in his own mind impossible before he had even started.

4. The Pheasant's revolt, where Richard one the one hand - had showed great personal courage in going out to parley with the rebels (at 13 years old?) had unsettled him in seeing so many leading figure including his own family dispoiled, or dragged out and murdered by the mob;

5. Richard's coronation had been a deeply profound experince for him, he literally believed his religious annointment had raised him to divine status second only to God himself, after all this is what he was being told and he believed it;

6. The Lords Appellant and the parliament of 1388(?), Richard had seen his royal authority questioned and his favourites deposed and dealt with like traitors, he found this unforgiveable and lay in wait to strike back.

Finally, the 'nature or nurture' arguement, I believe he was what he was, just a deeply insecure, flawed individual who for all his faults remains a truly fascinating individual.



User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:44 am

"The Pheasant's revolt,"

From a Mr Quayle, that is very amusing ;-)


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

Stuart Quayle
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Douglas, Isle of Man
Contact:

Pheasant's

Postby Stuart Quayle » Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:23 pm

Hee hee, oh no! I've got pheasants on the brain as we currently have a hen pheasant nesting in one of our trees :lol:

Can be nasty birds though if you oppress and over tax them :wink:



Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Sun Apr 12, 2009 2:39 pm

It's the name-Richard I, II and III were all crap kings.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

Nigel
Post Knight
Posts: 1675
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:45 am
Location: Pontefract
Contact:

Postby Nigel » Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:35 pm

oi the first and third one swrent bad


There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.

GuyDeDinan
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 6:53 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Postby GuyDeDinan » Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:16 pm

The first one was a shifty bastard who only saw England as a cash cow, bled the place dry he did. Oh wait, that's most Royalty.


SCA Thamesreach (London) - www.thamesreach.org

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:33 am

And he couldn't speak a word of English, couldn't manage his estates, was a dreadful politician, had his head full of chivarlric nonsense completely FAILED to retake the Holy Land (something his spin doctors like to gloss over) and died in a pointless skirmish over a pathetic castle.
The other one was a just a traitor, an incestuous and child murder who was a dreadful politican, an even worse judge of character, had his head full of chivlric nonsense and comletley FAILED to win the in the only battle he ever commanded an army in.
At least Ricard II had style. He was a carp King but his fashion sense was well ahead of the field.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Andy T
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:47 am
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Postby Andy T » Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:01 pm

Marcus have a deathwish?????? :twisted:


Infamy, infamy, infamy they've all got it in for me...
http://s3.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=211216

User avatar
Sir_John_Thomas
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:16 pm
Location: Boston, in the Shire of Lincoln

Postby Sir_John_Thomas » Mon Apr 13, 2009 7:16 pm

Richard III was not that bad, I think someone has been reading too much Tudor propaganda :)

OK he was not the best King we have ever had, but by the standards of the day, he was alwright. And how many Kings over the years have seized the throne in a similar manner? quite a few.


"God said love thy neighbour as untoo thy self, unless they are Turkish, in which case, KILL THE B**TARDS!"

Richard IV before leaving on crusade

http://community.lincolnshire.gov.uk/Th ... fSkirbeck/

User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:20 pm

"Richard III was not that bad, I think someone has been reading too much Tudor propaganda "

Or maybe, you fell into a cunning trap.

Well done Marcus, score one to you, you did miss out the hunched back and being born with all his teeth and loads of hair, you are slipping ;-)


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:47 am

I've belonged to two re-enactment Households-the Balck Maunch (Lord William Hastings) and the Woodvilles (Lord Anthony Woodville). Richard the Turd killed both of them.
I don't go along with the Tudor propaganda line (Richard was a spin doctor who had no problem slandering the good name of his own mother and brother) as I have no doubt that the first thing Henry VII would have done had he discovered the princes alive and well would have been to arrange their deaths, but I certainly don't hold the notion that Richard III was a supreme leader, fantastic general and a brilliant King who should be Sainted as a number of publics and re-enfolk do.
If he was such a good king how did he manage to unite most of the nobility and gentry of England behind the banner of an obscure Welsh blow in?


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Richard II

Postby Fox » Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:16 pm

Soren wrote:Where did Richard II go wrong?


He got removed as King.

The bloke that comes next always gets to write things out the way he wants.

He wasn't brilliant as a king, but he probably wasn't that awful either.

It's worth remembering we have very selective recollections of Kings, as pointed out by Marcus' account of Richard I.
Edward III just faded out towards the end of his reign, for instance, but nothing terrible happened in that period, so he "got away with it".

And my two pennyworth on Richard III: damned if he did, damned if he didn't; I blame that Woodville bitch.



User avatar
wulfenganck
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:54 am
Location: Seligenstadt, Germany

Re: Richard II

Postby wulfenganck » Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:13 pm

Fox wrote:
Soren wrote:And my two pennyworth on Richard III: damned if he did, damned if he didn't; I blame that Woodville bitch.
Okay, I'm not english, so I'm looking upon this as a complete outsider. But what irritates me is the certainty of dissmissing Elizabeth Woodville and her family as dirty rotten scoundrels of almost subhuman nature, although it seems to me that she did exactly the same as Richard of York, Edward IV, Henry Tudor, Warwick, Margaret of Anjou, Buckingham, Hastings, Somerset and all the others....that is to gain an maintain power, control, wealth.



User avatar
Andy T
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:47 am
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Postby Andy T » Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:29 pm

come on Richard III was depressed-lost all his family, lost his kid and wife inside the same year-was in a pit of despair-heard of suicide by Police? Methinks his charge was suicide by Stanley....


Infamy, infamy, infamy they've all got it in for me...

http://s3.gladiatus.com/game/c.php?uid=211216

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Re: Richard II

Postby Fox » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:24 am

wulfenganck wrote:Okay, I'm not english, so I'm looking upon this as a complete outsider.

Yes, and there's a logic[?!?] to my point of view that won't make sense to some modern Englishmen.

wulfenganck wrote:she did exactly the same as Richard of York, Edward IV, Henry Tudor, Warwick, Margaret of Anjou, Buckingham, Hastings, Somerset and all the others....that is to gain an maintain power, control, wealth.

Agreed. But she was getting above her station.



Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:53 pm

Elizabeth Woodville was descended from the Counts of Pol and the Dukes of Luxemburgthrough her mother.

Squire William Hastings of Bunting-hmm, that must be a lineage going back to the time of Charlemagne.

As a historian who teaches children the importance of context and bias in the reporting of history it makes me despair that someone can ask if I have read too much Tudor propaganda about Richard III while taking at face value the propganda of Clarence (a traitor), Gloucester (a traitor) and Warwick (a traitor twice over)!


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

Theotherone
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:07 pm

Postby Theotherone » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:04 pm

Marcus Woodhouse wrote:Elizabeth Woodville was descended from the Counts of Pol and the Dukes of Luxemburgthrough her mother.


Wasn't her mum the highest lady in the land for a while? Isn't there something about Jacquetea helping London by having words with someone?


Because there would have to be three of them.

Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:54 pm

She persuaded Margerite D' Anjoi not to enter the city in 1461 sparing London from her Northern host. (She was part of the Queens household, as was her daughter Elizabeth)


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:55 am

Marcus Woodhouse wrote:blah, blah, blah


Well, as I said, I wouldn't expect you to understand, Marcus.
Getting above your station is nothing to do with lineage.



User avatar
wulfenganck
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:54 am
Location: Seligenstadt, Germany

Postby wulfenganck » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:46 am

Fox wrote:
Marcus Woodhouse wrote:blah, blah, blah


Well, as I said, I wouldn't expect you to understand, Marcus.
Getting above your station is nothing to do with lineage.

So what does it mean then?
I'm seriously asking, because my knowledge of english obviously fails here...



Marcus Woodhouse
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 3337
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 8:35 pm

Postby Marcus Woodhouse » Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:26 am

Give up omae. Its like irish politics. If you understand whats going on then your missing the point.


OSTENDE MIHI PECUNIAM!

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Apr 16, 2009 10:20 am

wulfenganck wrote:I'm seriously asking, because my knowledge of english obviously fails here...


Sorry. I'm prodding Marcus with a [metaphorical] pointy stick, and he knows it.

I appologise; your English is clearly better than my ability to speak another language, and a good deal better than many of my countryman.
It wasn't my intention to confuse by being disingenuous for sake of humour.

We could have got into a conversation about the difference between behaving like a gentleman and simply being born one; to paraphrase the great A. Wellesley, being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. But perhaps we should just leave it there.

[This is another dig at Marcus, but he loves it really].



User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:13 am

"[This is another dig at Marcus, but he loves it really]."

But he wants to be the horse though in the supposed Wellesly comment ;-)


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

User avatar
wulfenganck
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:54 am
Location: Seligenstadt, Germany

Postby wulfenganck » Thu Apr 16, 2009 11:47 am

Fox wrote:
wulfenganck wrote:I'm seriously asking, because my knowledge of english obviously fails here...


Sorry. I'm prodding Marcus with a [metaphorical] pointy stick, and he knows it.

I appologise; your English is clearly better than my ability to speak another language, and a good deal better than many of my countryman.
It wasn't my intention to confuse by being disingenuous for sake of humour.

We could have got into a conversation about the difference between behaving like a gentleman and simply being born one; to paraphrase the great A. Wellesley, being born in a stable doesn't make you a horse. But perhaps we should just leave it there.

[This is another dig at Marcus, but he loves it really].
Thanks and absolutely no reason for an apology. Keep on prodding, I'll sit back and watch, mumbling popcorn and occasionally looking up words in my dictionary.....



User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:00 pm

gregory23b wrote:But he wants to be the horse though in the supposed Wellesly comment ;-)


But Wellesley didn't, which is rather the point.



User avatar
gregory23b
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2923
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Gyppeswyk, Suffolk

Postby gregory23b » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:33 pm

I know, but you used an Irish metaphor for Wellesley who didn't want to be Irish, when Marcus in this case is being born in a stable makes you a horse, ie Marcus is and wants to be Irish, I was pointing out the irony in this instance.


middle english dictionary

Isabela on G23b "...somehow more approachable in real life"

http://medievalcolours.blogspot.com

"I know my place." Alice the Huswyf

User avatar
Fox
Absolute Wizard
Posts: 2652
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:27 pm
Location: Cheshire

Postby Fox » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:44 pm

gregory23b wrote:I know, but you used an Irish metaphor for Wellesley who didn't want to be Irish, when Marcus in this case is being born in a stable makes you a horse, ie Marcus is and wants to be Irish, I was pointing out the irony in this instance.


I know. I understand.

The point of the comment is that Wellesly, a very fine man, with almost no equal, did not want to be thought of as Irish, despite being born in Ireland, and hence the implied snub to the Irish.

Bloody hell, but you're hard word, Jorge.

Of course, perhaps not everyone has the same opinion of 1st Duke of Wellington; Marcus might be quite pleased not to have him as a countryman.



User avatar
Hraefn
Posts: 192
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:16 pm
Location: Concreton

Postby Hraefn » Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:47 pm

No carry on Jorge, get all the spite bile and whatever else out of your system on here so's you're a fluffy wee (flatulent) bunny at the weekend.


That's my score to date. Three. I haven't killed anybody for years, and don't intend to ever again.'


Return to “1100-1500”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests