Talk:Richard II of England
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
[edit] question
Why was Richard chosen to be king when both the Dukes of York and Lancaster were still alive at Edwards death?
- He became king because that's the way the inheritance works. If Prince Charles dies today, and Queen Elizabeth II dies a week from now, it'll be Prince William that becomes king, not Charles's brother Andrew. If someone in the line of succession dies, his heirs take his place in line, they don't just get skipped. You don't exhaust one generation before proceding to the next... Hope that makes it a bit clearer... -- Someone else 00:53, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall
How come Richard could be created Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall? On Prince of Wales the title is stated as explicitly restricted to the eldest son of the sovereign. I would assume this rule was not yet in effect back then, but if so, Prince of Wales should really mention it, to avoid looking inconsistent.
Are you sure about that? For example George III was created Prince of Wales when his father died in 1751.
- On the page it does not state that Richard was Duke of Cornwall; what gave you this idea? Also, consider that by the end of his life, after being decrowned, he still was royal: it _might_ be that he became Duke of Cornwall only then, as a consequence of being who he was but not king. -- NicApicella 13/Jun/2005
Kings/princes can hold duchys etc if they are part of their inheritance.
Also he was given the title of Prince of Wales following the death of his father the Black Prince (Prince of Wales) before the death of Edward III to ease tensions over who would be Edward's successor. (ie in 1376)
[edit] Handkerchief
Richard II did not invent the handkerchief like the article says; that was the Black Prince, his father
-Actually, it is widely agreed by scholars that Richard DID in fact invent the handkerchief. See the most recent biography, which received excellent reviews, by Nigel Saul (17/Jun/2005)
[edit] Neutrality
In its current form, this page portrays Richard II almost entirely negatively and Henry IV almost entirely positively. I think that scholars are actually much more divided on the two of them, and we should rewrite the page to bring more balance and state both sides (for example, Richard's peace with France was unpopular with the barons who stood to profit from war, but was it unpopular with the population in general?). David 01:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- I'm currently reading Simon Schama's "History of Britain" and I note that the article, in it's current form, reflects almost entirely the events and opinions put forward on Richard II by that author. I have another book on the Plantagenets at home which offers some different opinions - I'll edit the article and add the reference once I've had a chance to have a look.MattDP 18/July/2005
[edit] Robert de Vere
I just got done reading The Crucible trilogy written by Sara Douglass, (there is a lot of scence tweaked to suite her but...) there is a scence in the second book where Richard and De Vere fondle each other... So my question is was Richard heterosexual?
- Alison Weir, in Lancaster & York - The War of the Roses says, of de Vere "there were strong indications that his relationship with Richard was of a homosexual nature" (and some contemporary quotes - "obscene"). We don't have good coverage of this in the article right nwo - indeed it points the other way by talking about his devotionto his first wife (which I don't dispute, but which tells perhaps halof the story. --Tagishsimon (talk)
The subject is an ongoing debate and will never be settled I'm afraid.
[edit] Army?
Bolingbroke landed "with an army provided by the King of France to reclaim his father's lands"...
This seems somewhat misleeding. The force with which Henry landed varies depending on the chronicle, however Nigel Saul (a man of superior knowledge in the subject than I) has accepted the figure is probably around 60. The army Henry fought with was largely provided by the earls of Northumberland and Westmorland (Percy and Neville)
Also
"Bolingbroke had originally just wanted his inheritance and a reimposition of the power of the Lords Appellant, accepting Richard's right to be king and March's right to succeed him. But by the time Richard finally arrived back on the mainland in Wales, a tide of discontent had swept England. "
this point is debated by scholars... some suggesting (plausibly) that power was Bolingbroke's aim all along. Also not sure about the Lords Appellant even if you do go with the argument, what with the 3 Appellant leaders dead (Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick)..
[edit] Why not more discussion of Richard's homosexuality
The article discusses little about Richard's sexual orientation. If he was, in fact, gay, wouldn't that have been a significant factor in his personal history as well as the success or lack of success of his reign? If he was gay as a number of modern biographers, such as Alison Weir, (I've read her book but like her discussion of the Princes in the Tower better) and others suggest, and many of the other magnates thought ill of Richard's personal life, wouldn't the evidence for this be a topic for more elaboration within the article.
Given the medieval Catholic proscriptions against homosexuality, if Richard was, in fact, gay, this would have been negative "ammunition" to be used against him by his enemies among the British magnates. I've read a lot of books on him (and I mean this in no negative way), but Richard did seem to have that so-called "artsy-fartsy" artistic/music-loving decorator type temperment. Many gay men have incredible artistic gifts that can be seen in a host of fields where they contribute to society. Stereotypical analysis or supporting evidence for a gay king's artistic temperment? You be the judge. Richard certainly was a patron of the arts and spent lavishly on art-related projects. To what degree did his apparent homosexuality intefer with is role as a medieval monarch. Why did he leave no children? Was it related to his homosexuality or was he just unable to have children?
Exactly what historical evidence do we have for the claims of a homosexual affair with Robert de Vere and/or Michael de la Pole? How well was Henry IV able to use Richard's sexual orientation to marshall political and military opinion and force against his rival? Please no charges of homophobia, I just want this to be discussed. thanks. SimonATL 03:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- From my limited reading, there is some more we could say on this aspect of Richard's life; but there is more we could say about most aspects. I'm not sure now that we're all that lacking ... I think there was a reference to Richard being like Edward II of England which could be added. I'm not sure that it was the gayness, so much as the favouritism, which annoyed the other magnates. But I advise that we are maybe in a limited position to "discuss" the issue, for a number of reasons such as available space in the article; unwillingness to speculate; paucity of sources; and perhaps the need to move discussion of sexual orientation in the middle ages to a new article. --Tagishsimon (talk)
-
- You raise good points. I'm not at all in favor of a "let's talk about Richard's gayness" but rather I'd like to know just what the magnates might have known about the extent of Richard's affairs. I mean was he just showing favoritism to which his medieval rival magnates attached the the "g" word, or was he openly flaunting his affairs with an "I'm the King - DEAL with it attitude, or was he being discrete or what." Unfortunately, for non-Latin speaking folks, the one on-line souce document that I located and added to the notes, Walsingham's Historia Anglicana is in Latin, but with English captions. I took 2 years of High School and 2 years of College Latin, so I'm wearily trying to find the parts referred to by Weir's Wars of the Roses book that I bought a couple years back and heavily made notes in the margins. Unfortunately, she didn't footnote the book, so I'm going to look at other sources. Personally, though a yank, I'm a real nut on British kings from Edward I through the Restoration of Charles, but so many of the modern books, like Weir's are more pop-history, like as opposed to being scholarly. Their's interesting, in that they often tell the story quite well. My other objection to a newcomer to this age is Weir constantly shifting her terms for the magnates. In one sentence she'll call a duke by his title, like Lancaster, and in the next sentence, she'll call him Henry, and then in the next sentence, she'll call him Derby, as in the Earl of Derby. While SHE may be familiar with all this, its like gobbly-gook to a newcomer. But back to Richard, bottom line for me, I'm just interested in what we "really" know about the man as opposed to bits and pieces, malicious gossip by the rival magnates, ect. I'll continue to wade through those 2 Latin PDF files looking for the Latin word "scelerus" which means obscene. Oh yes, those PDFs are actually scanned pages, so you can't search on an individual word, you just have to read thru it. It's actually well documented with marginal commentary and footnotes. If anyone can find an English translation, that would be great. SimonATL 16:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I, too, seem to be turning, if not into a king nut, at least into a anglophile late middle ages nut. At least I live in Northumbria, not some undiscovered soon to be colony across the atlantic :) There seems to be to be lots of info in Weir's book that could be decanted into various wiki articles; and yes, it's a shame about the lack of footnotes in her book. I hazard a guess that I'll go back through her book once I've finished it, and start making notes. I, too, was musing on whether there were any original texts online - well done on the PDF find; bad luck on the latin / scanned not OCRd problems. Trouble is, I now live in that 2% of the UK which does not have broadband (or, occasionally, running water) and so have much less time to play on the interweb than once I did. Suffice it to say that we should continue to add facts bit by bit & see what we come up with. Meanwhile quite what the magnates & others thought of homosexuality, and the sexuality of their kings, is a fascinating question. Someone must have covered it; let's hope they chip in sometime. Our homosexuality article has this to say at #Europe: "Throughout all of Europe, fierce conflicts, dating back to the early Middle Ages, raged between proponents and opponents of same sex love". I've left a note at Talk:Homosexuality on the off chance someone there has a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk)
-
- Oh to live in northern England for a year! My daughter and I plan to walk the entire length of Hadrian's Wall in a couple years. Speaking of broadband, after 10 years of 56KB modems, but now switched to 8000k broadband, in the NORTHWEST USA, we were able to download a those 30 meg PDFs in less than a minute. Truly amazing for this kind of study and work! Over here in the primitive colonies, we no longer have to go to a university for this kind of research! Thanks for that info on the Wiki article on homosexuality. I mean what did those bigshoot aristocrats "really" think about those things? I mean, were they so dang powerful, arrogant and bullet-proof, (OK, English long bow arrow-proof) that they didn't even care about what others thought? Apparently, even a king like Edward II discovered, in the end, (no pun intended) that there were limits, in terms of acceptance by the magnates, to what even he, a king, could do. SimonATL 17:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I read the section in Weir's book this evening dealing with Margaret occupying, then losing, gaining & losing Dunstanburgh, Bamburgh, Norham, Alnwick, Warkworth ... all more or less my neck of the wood - the first one being a regularish cycling destination. Not that I want to rub it in or anything ;) I reckon Henry VI would have been well familiar with my route home as he tramped from one Northumbrian refuge to the next. So that's nice. And I have dialup! And that's nice too. But I suspect, sadly, that most of the primary sources listed in Weir'll not be avalable on the internet, which is a great pity. Maybe in ten years or so. --Tagishsimon (talk)
-
- OK, OK, your beautiful northern England is rivalled only by green of the American North West and the local volcanos, Mt. Saint Helens, I can see, crowned with white snow and giving off steam as I watch it outside one office window, and Mt. Hood out the other window in Vancouver, WA - the "OTHER Vancouver" This is the view of Mt. St Helens from the shores of Vancouver Lake http://englishriverwebsite.com/LewisClarkColumbiaRiver/Images/vancouver_lake_mount_st_helens_2004.jpg and about 45 minutes from our offices, Mt. Hood from "Lost Lake." http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/1472/mthoodlostlakex800.jpg
-
-
- Volcano schmalcano :) --Tagishsimon (talk)
-
Hi Tagishsimon. You were looking for some information about homosexuality during the Late Middle Ages. I am not an expert in that particular field, but perhaps the following might help a little bit :)
Apart from the interpretations of verses from the Old Testament (including the notorious Sodom exegesis) Christianity’s main theological argument against sexual relations between two men goes back to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 1, 26 and 27 ("…change the natural use into that which is against nature"). By reference to Aristoltle the high and late mediaeval scholasticism understood nature to be an independent phenomenon which commits husband and wife to reproduce in order to contribute to the God-given process. So the mediaeval dichotomy naturaliter (according to nature) and contra naturam (against nature) doesn’t correspond to the modern dichotomy of gay and straight, i.e. no man was ever persecuted because he was a homosexual, but due to his acts aginst nature: Any extramarital sexual activity was considered a sin (peccatum contra naturam). As women were thought to be inferior and insatiably libidinous 1) a man was rather the victim of a seductress (see original sin) and 2) same-sex encounters between women were not defined as a crime, but rather seen as an expression of their inferiority. Thus Prostitution was widely tolerated, even (and especially) in Rome. Any other male form of nonprocreative sexuality was more problematic: According to Thomas Aquinas zoophilia (bestialitas), masturbation (immunditias) and sex between two men (peccatum sodomiticum) were severe crimes against nature, though generally the usage of peccatum sodomiticum could cover all varieties of "unnatural" sex. With the gradual reception of the Roman law and the Inquisition gaining power in 13th Century continental Europe (allowing torture since 1252) "sodomy" became a capital offence on principle again (as it was under Justinian I) and male "sodomites" were systematically persecuted ex officio by church or state. If found guilty, the poor sinner was exiled (mostly noblemen), bodily punished or burned at the stake in many (but by no means all) cases. In Venice a special collegium sodomitarum terrorised the male populace and thus the Signoria had a simple tool to tame the discontented ones. In Florence about 10,000 men were accused of sodomy from 1432 to 1503 and 2.000 were executed. It is needless to say that such accusations were often a very comfortable way to destroy someone’s reputation or even to get rid of unpleasant people (e.g. see Knights Templar). As the witchhunt was an existential menace for every woman the search for sodomites theoretically threatened every man’s life.
The case of Richard II seems problematic, but I am not at all familiar with the sources. However, though some of his behavior may unmask him as a homosexual in our eyes, we must not apply contemporary terms and ideas to historical societies (the concept of homosexuality originates in the 19th Century). The king’s intimacy with Robert de Vere is not necessarily an expression of "gay" love, but possibly a passionate form of friendship (amicitia) which was held in high esteem. Today’s avoidance of showing same-sex affection for a close friend is a modern reaction to the visible gay minority, because straight men want to distance themselves from gays for fear of being mistaken for gay. In contemporary homophobic societies (e.g. Islam, India) you can watch men walking hand in hand and being quite "touchy". No Western straight man would do that with his best buddy because such a display of affection is reserved for homosexuals. And as for his "artsy" ways, this could also be attributed to class distinction: the high nobility took pride in their highly refined way of life since this distinguished them from the lower ranks. So it is absolutely conceivable that his enemies launched sodomy rumors to sully his reputation.
I hope I could help out a bit. Teodorico 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- The evidence for Richard's being a homosexual is slight at best. The only reference to it is from Walsingham, who can hardly be relied upon in his opinions of Richard. Let's not forget that Walsingham dedicated his Chronicle to Henry V, and a large part of what he was doing was justifying the Lancastrian occupation of the throne. In order to do that, he had to smear Richard as much as possible. Neither Walsingham nor Weir provide anything like proof. In fact, the fact that the charge was not made at the time, when Thomas of Woodstock (Gloucester) and Arundel were doing their best to strip Richard of all his power and friends suggests to me that there is nothing in it. The Appellants objected to the profligacy and influence of Richard's circle, not the fact that he might have been kissing them. --NathanielTapley 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I wish to add that Norman F. Cantor in "The Last Knight" (a study of John of Gaunt and his Age) states flatly that Richard II was homosexual and that his marriage to Anne of Bohemia 'probably' remained unconsummated. He refers to Richard (and Edward II) as being 'openly gay'. It is my impression in general that royalty in that era had as much difficulty in keeping their personal lives lives secret as film stars do in this age. Since, in addition, Richard was born to privilege, he may well have felt that he could do no wrong (as he seemed to feel in the political/government arena, therefore he may have made little effort to conceal his personal life. Cantor's purpose in discussing Richard's homosexuality is to illustrate his contention that the era that brought the beginnings of the Renaissance interest in the Classical Era, also brought a revulsion against those were 'different' - Jews, heretics and homosexuals, for instance. He contrasts the situation of Edward with that of William II (Rufus) who lived a couple of centuries earlier and made no bones about either his homsexuality or his atheism, and who did not suffer therefrom, in an age that was much less concerned with conformity. William's murder seems not to have been because of his sexual preference but politically motivated, possibly at the instigation of his brother who succeeded him as king. --24.214.77.226 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack removed. -- Vary | Talk 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Hasbro 09:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a little side note - It is generally considered that de Vere was not Richard's lover. Also he was exceptional promiscuous(with the ladies) and had a scandalous divorce and remarriage to a chambermaid of low standing. Not the actions of someone uninterested in women (although I will concede it is possible, though highly unlikely,, that he was bisexual) - SamF
[edit] Was Richard II militarily defeated in Ireland in 1399?
It seems his forces were on the way to victory over the Irish rebels when Richard II lost control of England.
Come on! Nobody has answers here?!
[edit] I made these three cuts
I did some routine copy-editing of the article; but I also made three cuts people may wish to discuss, change back, or whatever:
- "However, his tastes were before his time."
I didn't agree with that, having just read some of Froissart's Chronicles. But anyway, my point is that it's a value judgement.
- "Had this policy not been cut short by his usurpation, it is possible that Ireland might have been spared centuries of strife."
This is wild speculation. And it also ducks round the fact that he was usurped after his second, much less successful, visit to Ireland, not the first one mentioned (in rather idealistic terms) in this context.
- "After the death of his queen, Anne, in 1394, he became still more rigid. He commissioned the first royal portrait, a very solemn affair in which he looks downwards unsmiling."
In my opinion, cutting these sentences tightens the paragraph and removes the spurious linking of two uses of "downwards". But the real issue for me was that in the famous portrait of Richard at the top of the article he is neither looking downwards nor unduly solemn. However, intriguingly, there is to be found on the internet a portrait of Richard in which he is indeed looking downwards; to my eyes, this portrait is not contemporary — from Richard's crown and apparel it looks to me like a derivative of the famous portrait, which I'd always thought was the only one of Richard (not counting his depiction in the Wilton Diptych). If I'm right — and I may not be (please help) — then the conceit in this part of the article breaks down.--qp10qp 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Birth date of Richard's queen
Just noticed that there's a discrepancy; this page says 1387, her own article says 1389. I think 1389 is correct but I'm no historian. Can someone confirm this? 84.70.242.125 10:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] comments
The section on Henry's invasion and Richard's deposition needs a good deal of revision. Below are a few statments which need revision, or removal by someone who has time.
Bolingbroke had originally just wanted his inheritance - This is a fairly large assumption. Also recent scholarly activity has suggested that Henry was not actually disinherited. For the precise sentence passed on Bollingbroke see 'Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. C. Given-Wilson et al (Leicester , 2005), Parliament of September 1397, item 87)'
'Bolingbroke, who was generally well-liked, was being urged to take the crown himself' - This needs a reference. Was he really well liked? Think Thomas Mowbray may have said otherwise. Who was urging him to take the crown himself? Any evidence of Bollingbroke being 'urged' to take the crown was during Richard's apparent breif deposition in 1387, but due to Gloucester and Arundel disagrement, Richard was reinstated.
-'where crowds pelted him with rubbish' This needs a reference. I suspect it is Walsingham, who can hardly be trusted on such matters.
'Parliament then accepted Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) as the new king.' -Despite some efforts (See G.T. Lapsley, ‘Richard II’s Last Parliament’ EHR, (1938)), it has not been proven that such a convocation was in fact a parliament, stating it as a parliament is slightly misleading.
'land in Yorkshire with an army provided by the King of France to reclaim his father's lands' - This is complete nonsense. The king of france in no way supplied to army to Henry bollingbroke. Richard had only recently signed an agreement with Charles. Some support may have been provided by the king's uncles, Berry and Burgundy but this is speculative.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.172.32 (talk • contribs) February 22 2007.
[edit] victim or villain
I'm writing a paper on whether or not Shakespeare's King Richard II was a victim or a villain. I can't find any information on this. But I'm leaning towards the idea that because of the stress and power he was given it caused him to be a victim of power itself. Was he, in fact a victim, or is he believed to be the villain of the story? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.89.60 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
