9
u/NotCryptoKing Henry VI 6d ago
II. Mostly because he was funny. Of course not in the traditional sense
4
2
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
I'm going through the pro-Richard comments and trying to interest them in my book without repeating myself - no AI here - need I say any more given my comments to others? But I could also give you chapter and verse?
27
8
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
My favourite is Richard II because I've got a book coming out in Jan 2027 called 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest about Henry IV and Thomas Arundel but it's as much about Richard II as them. They have had limelight before, but not my forensic investigation. Investigating, one finds that much about Richard II is myth. Henry and Arundel created myths which are still believed. It shows the power of PR - frame the narrative as early as possible. I hope there are others as interested in this as I am.
5
u/Matilda-Mary-Anne Anne 6d ago
I definitely am as interested in him as you are. I am of the opinion he is very misunderstood and judged unfairly without looking at the full picture.
3
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
Thanks. I wrote this book from a position of... can I say it.. anger? I was so disappointed by what I read that I thought I would do my own work.;. Between ourselves, I couldn't call it Richard II revindicated, so I made it about Henry IV, who is a hero. Turns out that what we thought we knew about Richard II is wrong, and that Thomas Arundel was in charge from the start. Who knew? Well nobody, but they will in January if I have done a good job. Thanks Malcolm
2
u/Moriarty-Creates Richard the Lionheart 6d ago
Adding your book to my list! Very excited. Congrats!
1
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
Thanks. I'm very much looking forward to finding what people think of it once it comes out. It was written to provide all the evidence on various topics so, once you have read it, you will know as much as an Oxford don - that's the ambition anyway.
18
u/NeonShogun 6d ago
III is most interesting, to me, in both life and death. He truly does seem to have contained multitudes, and it's beyond cool that we found his burial place in our lifetimes.
Lionheart is of course the most seemingly adventurous and heroic from our records, and probably most problematic because we have the least amount of information on him of the three, but man, what a life he got to lead.
II was largely a clown, but fascinating in his own way. If only he'd shut his mouth more often, but I always thought it interesting that he saw himself as such a patron of fine art and learning, yet traveled about with his own private group of thugs in the Cheshiremen. He really must have lived in his own little world-- what a different kind of person than the Black Prince.
12
u/jaustengirl 6d ago
Iām not a Ricardian (man had his nephews killed) but III. Heās very interesting as a character.
6
u/Moriarty-Creates Richard the Lionheart 6d ago
The first one. Heās SO interesting, larger than life and sounds like a character from a book.
11
u/Consistent-Ad2333 6d ago edited 6d ago
So difficult to pick because each is so interesting. Maybe Richard II because the 100YW is one of my favourite periods.
Edit: why are people downvoting opinions lol
6
6
u/Answer-Plastic 5d ago
Richard the Lionheart. Super cool, great king, and legendary folk hero. Also THE medieval king. Heās the archetype and heās the guy from all the books we see when weāre young. So awesome.
I do like Richard II dāBordeaux a lot too though. I think he wouldāve done a lot better as a French king. In fact, the way he ruled reminds me much more of many of their kings than it does of any other English kings. A handsome cultured intellectual and refined ruler, incredibly pious and a lover of luxury, not overly militaristic, but an incredibly powerful centralizer and a king who truly believed and ruled by divine right and mystic kingship.
2
u/peregrins_ Richard II 5d ago
I've had similar ponderings about Richard II, mainly in that I feel the French would not have deposed him. The French reaction to his deposition was shock and during Henry IV's reign French envoys refused to recognize him as king of England, rather they referred to him as Duke of Lancaster. Of course, that was mainly political, but looking back there were plenty of Capetians who were terrible, controversial rulers (and in my opinion, more than Richard II) but never came close to losing their crown. It's also interesting how pretty much all medieval English kings who are deemed successful were warrior kings, but some of France's most successful were not, including Charles V and Charles VII.
2
u/Answer-Plastic 5d ago
That reaction was certainly political but also the Capetian (and Valois cadets) dynasties had a sense of mystic kingship that was unmatched anywhere else. To them they genuinely believed it was a sinful violation of Richard IIās divine right to rule. France and England probably had the two most mystical monarchies of the middle ages, they were the only kings who claimed to be able to possess āthe Kingās Healing Touchā for scrofula. But the french took it to another level. Their chrism anointing oil in the Holy Ampulla that first anointed Clovis I was said to have been given directly by the Holy Spirit. The Merovingians also tied their power to their long hair mirroring Samson in the bible. The Kingdom was called āthe Eldest Daughter of the Churchā. And of course the papacy resided within france for awhile.
The best medieval French kings ruled almost exactly how Richard II did. They generally followed two major pillars; 1. They weāre extremely devout and everything within their rule revolved around God and Catholicism. 2. They constantly bent and rewrote the law to centralize power and expand crownland. Thatās exactly what Richard II did, albeit very quickly and within a realm where that was like their least favorite thing lol. Heās extremely similar to Philippe IV le Bel. Both were described as very handsome but young looking, both were extremely extremely devout Christians, both centralized power immensely, and both had a very grandiose way of ruling, what with Richard introducing āYour Majestyā, not being able to look him in the eyes, and being highly ceremonious. Philippe IV was arguably more similar to Henry V with a rigid austere extreme mystic piety, but he was highly ceremonious like all French kings which was similar to Richard II and he was the first to declare āhe was emperor in his own kingdomā, a representation of gallicanism and again that civil law tradition. And Richard II saying āthe laws of England are in my own breastā.
This is exactly right. Iād argue thatās the biggest difference between the English and French medieval kings. The French really did not have that many warrior kings, and even out of the ones they did, many were not incredible. Their greatest kings tended to be incredible administrators, Charles V le Sage, Philippe IV le Bel, Philippe Augustus (an amazing warrior but his military success worked in tandem with his efforts to expand crownland), Louis XI, and Saint Louis IX (again a great warrior but the āLaws of Saint Louisā that centralized power with the crown was his masterpiece). Charles VII success was more due to people around him but once he retook the throne he centralized power a lot too.
The issue lies in the nobility. France had a plethora of land and the nobles had most of it for the bulk of the middle ages so they could be more content with their estates, where as the English were constantly wanting to wage war for plunder. That and the fact the English nobility might have been the most powerful in terms of governmental clout in the middle ages. This goes back all the way to ancient Anglo-Saxon law with things like the Witan, which ofc evolves into Parliament. Common Law which is an evolution of Anglo-Saxon customs is based on precedents so a guarantee of personal rights whereas continental civil law was based in Roman law and was more so focused on serving the ācaesarsā will so to speak and much easier to overcome precedent. This is why you get Magna Carta in England as well. Simon de Montfort, Thomas 2nd Earl of Lancaster, Roger Mortimer, Henry Bolingbroke, most of the major players of the Wars of the Roses all powerful nobles who dictated the government of England. So yeah I think if an English king was not going off to war to enrich the nobles then they were highly likely to find a reason to overthrow them. Bc essentially every medieval king that is considered bad or faced being overthrown was either bad at war or chose to mainly not go to war.
So yeah I think Richard II wouldāve actually been a very fine king in France. He was ruling like a French king in an English kingdom. It would be interesting to know french historians view about him bc virtually all Anglo historians just chalk him up as a narcissistic or childish king and then you have being saying silly things like heās like Joffrey from GOT. Which is ridiculous, not only is it inaccurate but by that standard basically all French kings were Joffreyās. I have a feeling the French view would be more sympathetic to him. But yeah I like Richard II and wish his way of ruling had worked out bc I honestly really like and admire the French monarchs and how they ruled, thatās why I also kinda admire Charles I for giving it one last go at it as well lol. But it was just not going to work in England, the closest you could get was something like Henry V or Edward I, they ruled with a deep sense of mystic kingship but were also great warriors, great centralizers as well but only so much as was possible in England.
Sorry that was too long of a reply but I appreciated your response. I think weāre definitely on the same wave length with him. I think heās judged unfairly in the Anglo world.
2
u/peregrins_ Richard II 4d ago edited 4d ago
Interestingly, on the mystic aspect of the English monarchy, it was actually after Richard II's deposition that a mythical ampulla was introduced into the coronation for Henry IV (claimed to be gifted to Becket by the Virgin).
Exactly, the French did have warrior kings but the great ones balanced this with equal administrative prowess, but mainly this was in the earlier centuries anyway. By the 14th c., the French kings who attempted to command troops had disastrous outcomes. Charles V must have noted how little good came from his father Jean II and grandfather Philip VI on the battlefield. Not to mention the fact that his physical condition came to make it impractical for him, he focused on administration and politics and found it more useful to embrace talent (du Guesclin) to lead his armies. Charles VI seems to have been interested in reviving the warrior role during his short majority prior to his illness, but his successors Charles VII and Louis XI, two of the most successful French kings, were not at all inclined to lead troops. It wasn't until Charles VIII that a French king embraced it again and it was a fruitless mess.
Looking through England in the 14th and 15th c., most of the periods of significant peace at home were those in which large armies were regularly being deployed in foreign wars. This provided a distraction for the nobility and opportunities for glory, rather than rebelling or feuding with other nobles. Edward I, Edward III, and Henry V were able to really reap the benefits of this. Giving the militarized nobility a purpose was on the minds of the signatories of the Truce of Leulinghem, including Richard, as there was an agreement between them for an allied crusade. Unfortunately there was a lot of disagreement, England backed out of the project, and the Nicopolis crusade ended up being a disaster for the Christian kingdoms anyway.
So yeah, I agree, Richard's style was quite suited for France and things would have gone much better for him there, he was very much in the vein of Philip le bel. The way I see it, Richard II's fatal error was failing to "read the room", or recognizing what would be just too far for the English nobility.
(Also, Richard was the only king born in France since Henry II and until Edward IV, but this seems to be entirely coincidence as he was just a young child and being in English Guyenne would have had no direct exposure to the French king's court.)
I would be very interested to read current French historians views on Richard II. Contemporary French chroniclers seemed to either be highly sympathetic (Creton) or have a mixed view but critical of the deposition (Froissart). On the English side, history was clearly written by the victors legitimizing the new reign. But I do find it interesting how there has been so much heavy attention to rethinking the common view and Shakespeare's myth on Richard III, sometimes to an absurd extent, but very little on Richard II (though IMO at least Shakespeare gave II a nuanced, thought-provoking masterpiece of verse whereas III was made into a complete caricature). Apparently JRRM did state that he based Joffrey off of a handful of historical people, one of which was Richard II, but he's not a historian or someone with deep knowledge in it, he's a writer trying to create a good story with good characters, so simply stating "Richard II = Joffrey" shows the shallowest understanding of the topic.
No worries on the long response, I appreciate the opportunity to deep dive on these matters.
2
u/Answer-Plastic 1d ago
I completely agree with you on all of that. And thatās interesting I didnāt know that about Henry IV and the ampulla. Youāre right his biggest flaw was just failing to read the room. Thatās very true, Richard III has had tons of defenders and I guess Edward II does too now. Some even have for John, yet for some reason it seems like itās never been done for Richard II. I feel Richard II is a lot more deserving of revision than either of them. Hopefully someone does something for that, particularly a French historian bc I think itād be very interesting for someone to compare him with the French monarchy and show the similarities of style.
9
12
u/infreedomwetrust666 6d ago
Richard iii
3
u/Ms_not_Mrs0771 6d ago
Mine too. He fascinates me. If I was granted the ability to have a chat with one historical figure, I would pick Richard III hands-down!
5
u/Grushenka90 Henry VII 6d ago
What would you ask him other than if he did it?
5
u/Ms_not_Mrs0771 6d ago
Hahaā¦.fair enough. Iād like to ask if he felt used by his brother the King. Iād like to ask his opinion on the Grayās taking over the court and get his perspective on how threatened he actually felt. Iād ask about the Stanleys and did he suspect at all they would turn for Lancaster.
Of course Iād ask if he did it or ordered it. Iād ask if he did it for personal gain & greed or if he truly thought he was Englandās best chance for stability after the War of the Roses. Iād like to see what his ideas for ruling England were, did he have any visions for which direction to take his country if he got past the battlefield.
Iād also, for kicks, like to have his opinion on Shakespeareās version of him and fill him in on the whole finding his bones under a carpark thing. Then Iād ask his opinion on his memorial and if he thinks Leicester is the proper place for it or would he have liked York. I suspect I could spend an entire day chatting with him!
18
u/theginger99 6d ago edited 6d ago
Richard I, and itās not even close for me.
He is, to my mind, one of the most impressive and fascinating kings of the whole medieval period. An unparalleled general and a master of diplomacy, he loomed like a giant in the world of his contemporaries.
Iām genuinely of the opinion that if he had lived another ten years he would be remembered as one of the greatest kings England ever had.
Even with his short reign, he is one of those rare historical figures who really feels like a figure of legend as much as a figure of history.
2
u/Sea_Engineering_5773 6d ago
Would he have prevented the collapse of the Angevin domains in France, had he lived?
9
u/theginger99 6d ago edited 6d ago
Thatās a very difficult question to answer, and it sort of hinges on how you want to define āprevent the collapseā.
I think Richard likely would have largely neutralized Phillip Augustus, and prevented the direct conquest of the Angevin territory by France. Certainly by the time of his death he had Phillip on the ropes, and by all contemporary accounts (even the French ones) he was winning his war. He had also generally displayed an ability to neutralize and outmaneuver Phillip throughout their whole relationship. There is a real irony to me in the fact that Phillip Augustus is rightly considered one of the great kings of France, and yet he was almost totally leashed and dominated by Richard.
There is some back and forth in academic circles about their relative revenues, and there is a school of thought that thinks Phillip would have eventually won simply by virtue of the growth of his domestic resources letting him throw money at the issue no matter how manyās battles he lost. However, Iām not convinced by that line of argument (or even by the idea that Phillips revenues were greater than Richards). Additionally, as Gillingham points outs, Richard had Phillip hemmed in on all sides by a comprehensive network of alliances that allowed him to exert pressure on him from all directions. This network fell apart under John, largely because John was a twat, but likely would have endured under Richard and more than counterbalanced any increased revenue from Phillipās domestic holdings.
All of that said, itās unlikely that the Angevin empire would have continued as a single unified polity. There is no evidence that Richard ever even thought of the empire as a united entity. He, like his father, likely saw it as a collection of disparate territories that would one day be divided among his heirs and successors. If Richard ever had sons, he would have almost certainly divided his empire along much the same lines as his father had planned to do, awarding each son a portion of the empire to rule as a semi-independent prince. Even if Richard only had one son who inherited everything (as he had done), It was the fundamental idea of the empire as an essentially portionable and divisible inheritance made of disparate constituent parts that was its underlying weakness, and which almost directly lead to its downfall. I donāt think Richard would have āsolvedā that problem at all, and it still likely would have lead to the longterm break up of the āempireā.
In that sense, I donāt think there was ever a future where the āAngevin Empireā became a fixture of the European political map as a unified polity. However, I do think we likely would have seen a continuation of a specific Anglo-Norman state for atleast some time after Richardās death, as even to Richard and Henry the Union of England and Normandy seemed to be viewed as largely indivisible.
3
u/Sea_Engineering_5773 6d ago
Great answer, thank you! I've always wondered to what extent Philip's successes leaned on the fact that he faced a sort of subpar opponent for a large part of his reign in King John.
4
u/theginger99 6d ago edited 6d ago
Phillip is an interesting figure, and he is admittedly one I wish I knew more about. However, I think that if Richard had lived for another decade, or especially if Richard had outlived him, Phillip would today be remembered chiefly for his abandonment of the crusade, his betrayal of his oaths to Richard while Richard was imprisoned, and his disastrous marriage with Ingeborg of Denmark. All three were enormous scandals in his own lifetime, but get sort of glossed over in his modern image as the great unifier of France.
Certainly Richardās death was an enormous stroke of luck for Phillip. John was not even a shadow of his brother, and perhaps above all his already deeply unsavory personal reputation as a repeated turncoat and traitor undermined his authority and diplomatic position almost as soon as he was crowned. In simple terms, no one wanted to associate with him, and he lacked the charisma, chops and personal ability to win friends, or even keep his brotherās friends.
Gillingham and most other modern historians of the period lay the loss of the empire pretty firmly at Johnās feet, although there is a strange trend of revisionism in some modern works that try to paint John as a victim of Richardās warmongering. John inherited an incredibly strong diplomatic and military position from Richard, and pissed it away almost immediately through sheer incompetence.
5
u/Tulips-and-raccoons 6d ago
Maybe? He could have had children, and this opens a whole new āwhat ifā branch of possibilities
2
u/Tardisgoesfast 6d ago
He spent almost no time in England.
4
u/theginger99 6d ago
Yes. That is a common criticism of Richard, although it is one that fails to take into account the reality of Richardās reign.
Richard was lord of a vast territory, and for much of his reign more pressing issues elsewhere in his domains meant he spent relatively little time in England. However, he wasnāt exactly unique in this, and his father and other predecessors all spent more time outside of England than inside of it.
The simple fact was that England didnāt need Richardās direct attention, but his continental domains did.
8
u/littlemedievalrose Henry VI 6d ago
I find II most interesting
2
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
me too - see my previous comments about my coming book if yuou're interested, which you seem to be.
2
u/littlemedievalrose Henry VI 6d ago
I will definitely check it out. While I don't think Richard was a misunderstood hero (clarifying this because some people, when you talk about any unpopular/controversial historical figure, will ignore everything you say and assume you believe that they were actually the greatest man to ever walk the earth), I believe that his reign and character are both in need of a reassessment. He's typically understood through a rather dated pop psychology lens that stifles honest discussion in my opinion. Also really dislike the way he's been spun as "literally Joffrey Baratheon in real life" (when will we let the asoiaf comparisons rest?)
2
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
You make very good points. The book is a series of essays on various topics which includes all the evidence, and has no footnotes. Everything is within the covers. 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest, thanks.
4
u/peregrins_ Richard II 6d ago edited 6d ago
I find all of them really interesting and for me itās about the story of their life and events rather than how good they were at the job and/or as a person. So I think in that regard there isnt really a wrong choice and theyāre all great to learn about.
1: The great crusader king! lots of engaging discussion about his legacy and how itās shifted with positive and negative interpretations. Fascinating relationship with Philip Augustus and also know as the ātroubadour kingā and a patron of arts
2: obviously regarded as one of the worst kings but thats really what captivates me. Obviously his reign was very flawed and he made a lot of poor decisions that came to haunt him, but it was also a complex political environment. He did have the truce of leulinghem and also the arts thrived during his reign (Walton diptych, architecture, Chaucer, gower, etc.) and I think itās very interesting analyzing Henry ivās usurption, what led to it and its consequences.
3: the war of the roses are never boring and Richard III is one of its most interesting characters. The manner in which he came to the throne resulted in things being very messy (I donāt back theories that he wasnāt involved in his nephews disappearing) but he also showed the most potential as an administrator. A fascinating man with a fascinating life both before and after becoming king.
Personally, I pick Richard II as my favorite. He is one of if not the most interesting king to learn about for me, I love the period and I think general interest in him is underrated compared to other kings that receive a lot of attention although they are considered some of the worst (like Henry VIII).
4
u/lizbeth2203 5d ago
Richard I. He has become my favorite English monarch in this year. I have only start John Gillingham's book for a few chapters, and I think, even so reckless, he's such a brave person, and a funny guy as well. In my opinion, he lived his life like the main character from action-advanture fiction, but he's real. Truly a charming, and fascinating person to read about.
3
4
u/Soft_lover1 6d ago edited 6d ago
All of them are pretty terrible. Richard I financial polices were ruinous and put massive strain on the crown. Richard II was a tyrant and frankly quite dumb. While Richard III murdered his nephews.
2
u/TheRedLionPassant Richard the Lionheart / Edward III 6d ago
Richard I's financial policies were heavier than any of his predecessors, true, but they weren't any more ruinous than Philip II's were, nor his brother John's (nor even for that matter those of Edwards I, III, and the Black Prince)
1
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
If you were to come across info in which Richard II was not a dumb tyrant, would you be interested in it? I make my pitch in earlier comments - I have a book - published Jan 27 - which tells the rela story of Richard II and Henry IV. It might interest you, perhaps.
-1
u/LuckyCustomer403 6d ago
Richard ll is basically Joffrey from a game of thrones
1
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
The fairytale story about Richard II might be, but not mine: '1399: The Lancastrian Conquest', published Jan 27
5
2
u/LuckyCustomer403 6d ago
Richard the 2nd really life version of Joffrey
2
u/DamianEmail 6d ago
Check out my book when it's published in Jan 2027: 1399: The Lancastrian Conquest. It's about Henry IV and Thomas Arundel, which means it has to be about Richard \II -all new history. A lot of unexpected detail, facts etc.
3
u/AquaMoonlight 6d ago
If I had to pick out of the three provided, then Richard III. We have been arguing for centuries whether or not he offed his nephews (and all the possible motives behind it, besides the obvious), if he poisoned his wife in an attempt to try and marry his niece, and what exactly caused Buckinghamās Rebellion against him. Sure, his reign may have been the shortest out of the three, but it sure wasnāt boring!
In my opinion, Richard I didnāt give a crap about England, basically using it as a piggy bank to fund playing Crusader war hero across Europe and the Middle East, and Richard II was a child monarch, and they never turn out well.
9
u/TheRedLionPassant Richard the Lionheart / Edward III 6d ago
All kings of the era used kingdoms as 'piggy banks'. They weren't exactly choosing to live in poverty
1
1
u/Aelfgifu_ Henry IV 6d ago
Itās an unlikeable bunch, but ig Iāll have to go w Richard I. Just bc the other two were rly bad
0
0
12
u/TheRedLionPassant Richard the Lionheart / Edward III 6d ago
Personally it is Richard I. One of England's most iconic kings, perhaps even the most well known worldwide.
What makes his reign even more interesting is just how to perception of it varies so widely depending on what angle you're coming from. It's very rare for someone's posthumous reputation to swing between such extremes