If the Lords-Appellant had proved themselves brave and
resolute in an action where they had rightly interpreted the feelings of the people and
had secured the people's support, it is difficult to understand how they failed to
appreciate the character of King Richard II, or failed to foresee the tactics he would use
to out-wit them. By now they had had many examples of the devious and vengeful nature of
the King, of his inability to forget or forgive any slight, of his refusal to learn from
his mistakes, and of his absolutist view of his kingship. There can be no excuse for their
failure to understand that Richard would be bent on revenge for its own sake, and in the
meantime would do something that he was supremely good at; he would bide his time. A
glimmer of hope for Richard was raised when Parliament met in Cambridge in September 1388.
It critisized the Lords-Appellant for failing to protect the Country from the recent
Scotch invasion, and angrily demanded an end to the private armies which the great
magnates maintained. There were already laws against 'livery and maintenance' to prevent
the common abuse of pillaging and robbing the countryside and even of intimidating juries,
and they should be strengthened and enforced. It seemed that the power-base of the
Lords-Appellant was beginning to melt away.Those who know how to bide their time are
also good at chosing the right time to strike, and Richard's sense of timing was perfect.
In May 1389, at a meeting of all the great magnates in Westminster, Richard swept in to
the chamber and demanded to be told how old he was. Everyone knew he was 22, and said so.
The King then continued:-
"By that y may conclude that y am of fulle age to governe my selfe, my howseholde,
and my realme, for me thenke hit is not ryzhtefull that y scholde be of moore vile
condicion then eny person in my realme. For every heire of my realme havynge xxti yere in
age after the dethe of his fader is permitte to governe hymselfe and his londes..."
[Subsequently the Chancellor, William of Wykham, Bishop of Winchester, made a similar
announcement in Parliament]
This was uncontrovertibly the concept of medieval kingship, and there was nothing the
Lords-Appellant, speachless with fury as they may have been, could do to prevent
their summary dismissal from the Council. The King had an absolute right to choose his
Counsellors and to dismiss them, and Richard was doing no more than he was entitled to do.
But Richard was not yet ready to strike to the full extent that he intended. John of Gaunt
had just returned from a most successful campaign in Spain, and he was a political force
to be reckoned with. Richard may have welcomed his supporters back to Court, apart from
those who dared not return just yet, and over the next few years he may by degrees have
brought back the Lords-Appellant themselves with grace and fair words to the Council. He
may have lulled everbody into a sense of false security with the charm of which he
possessed ample measure. He had not however abandoned his purpose; he was just not yet
ready to strike. Even so, Henry of Bolingbroke still felt it was safe for him to leave the
country and go on his travels, first to the Teutonic Knights, and then on a pilgrimage in
Europe and the Holy Land, where he reached Jerusalem as a humble pilgrim.
A peaceful period
King Richard II meanwhile found a new way of raising money to pay for the vast expenses
of his Court, and this without any Parliamentary sanction. Under a law of 1354, the City
authorities could be fined if they did not keep order. London was a turbulent city in the
late 14th-century, and there was soon the riot which the King had been waiting for. In May
1392, he imprisoned the Lord Mayor and the Sherriffs and appointed his own nominees in
their place.The City had to pay a huge fine, and this, coupled with the indignity to their
officers, created lasting resentment in those Richard needed as friends. There is no sign
that Richard knew this, or if he did know it, that he cared. There were several other
untoward incidents where Richard made himself needlessly unpopular with his subjects, but
we can regard the trouble with the City as typical of them, and turn to the international
scene, where, if some of Richard's ideas were fanciful, others were far more soundly
based.
Richard considered that a formal peace with France was an absolute necessity even
though there had been no serious fighting for some time, and to this end he made a
proposal that Acquitaine should be returned to the French King, although John of Gaunt
should hold it as his liegeman. This idea was not so strange as it might at first sound,
because Acquitaine was slipping towards France in any event, and it was only a question of
time before England would have to realise that it could not be held without a military
effort she was in no position to make. The French King warmly welcomed the proposal, even
offering to extend its boundaries. Peace with France would open the way to a joint effort
to resolve the scandal of the two popes, called by the lampoonists who flourished in this
age, Maleface and Maledict, and to securing the election of one proper Pope in Rome. This
in turn would open the way to a joint expedition into Eastern Europe to quell the Turks
who were threatening to become a dangerous nuisance. If Richard's aspirations to become
Holy Roman Emperor were a bit far-fetched, his basic desire for peace in Europe, war torn
and ravaged as it was, must have been sound. The key to everything was peace with France
and, in 1393, an embassy, headed by John of Gaunt, was dispatched to negotiate its
terms.
Inevitably, the King's actions were misconstrued by his subjects, and the peace
proposal was intensely unpopular. There was a dangerous revolt in Cheshire, where men
could omly remember the past military glories of King Edward II1 and the Black Prince in
which their forefathers had played a considerable part. John of Gaunt had to be recalled
to put it down. It leader, Sir Thomas Talbot, was treated with great leniency by the King,
and ugly rumours were heard that King Richard II was working towards the downfall and
death of the Lords-Appellant. Richard strongly denied this, even in public proclamations
whose effect on their listeners can be imagined. Outwardly the Lords-Appellant basked in
the sunny glow of the King's favour. Had they hung together, he could not have dared to
touch them. As it was, they had fallen out among themselves, and Richard must have felt
some satisfaction in thinking they would soon hang separately.
[The Talbot family were later Earls of Shrewsbury and were prominent Lancastrian
supporters. At the time, they had the reputation of being rowdy and rebellious]
The first signs of trouble among them arose in the Parliament of January 1394 when the
draft peace treaty with France was read out. It was all too much for Richard, Earl of
Arundel, consumed with jealousy of John of Gaunt as he was, and he rose in his place with
a scathing denunciation of the Duke of Lancaster in which he fully lived up to his
reputation of being rude and tactless. John was, said Arundel, guilty of many things, such
as embezzeling public funds in his expedition to Spain, and overwheening ambition on
Acquitaine. He was an interested party in the peace treaty, and it was no wonder that he
had negotiated terms so favourable to the French. Richard rebuked him, pointing out that
his uncle had gone no further than he was authorised to do by the Council, and ordered him
to apologise. Arundel growled something akin to an apology before being ordered out of the
chamber by the King. There were other signs that the monolithic solidarity of the Lords
Appellant was not quite what it had once been. Gloucester was livid that Mowbray had been
given his old and lucrative sinecure as Justice of Chester, and hated him for it. Mowbray
and Warwick had fallen out over a land dispute. No doubt Richard thought, a little more of
this, and it will be impossible for them to combine against the Crown ever again.
The year 1394 was a black one for the wives of the great of the Land. Constance, the
Duchess of Lancaster died. John of Gaunt had never loved her and, her purpose now
fulfilled with the realisations of his ambitions in Castile, she could go to another world
without any unnecessary show of mourning. The indecent haste with which he married his
mistress, Katherine Swynford, shocked the nation and added to his unpopularity among
nobles and commoners alike. Henry of Bolingbroke's beloved wife Mary died in childbirth,
and he grieved her deeply. He was not to re-marry for another 10 years. The Queen, Ann of
Bohemia, also died, probably of the Plague. Richard was crazed with grief, and even
ordered the Palace of Sheen, where she had died, to be razed to the ground. He ordered an
elaborate funeral, which all the nobles were required to attend without excuse. Arundel,
with his usual tactlessness, failed to do so, and when he did turn up he proffered an
explanation which was itself a studied insult. Richard in a fury knocked him to the ground
and sent him off to prison. Popular sympathy was, for once, very much with the King.
Even so, Richard was not yet ready to strike. His marriage to Ann had been childless,
and Henry of Bolingbroke was effectually next in line to the Throne. [For the doubts
surrounding the position See Appendix ] The idea of handing Acquitaine back to the French,
with John of Gaunt holding it as the liegeman of the King of France, fell through due to
the oposition of the Gascons, who, then as now, had no love for the French. Richard
however was in a strong position. He had shown great goodwill to the House of Lancaster,
but was now not to be called on to meet his promises. There was another way to secure at
least a long truce with France, this time without any concessions to the House of
Lancaster. In 1396, he proposed marriage to the 9 year old Pricess Isabel of France, and
King Charles accepted him as a son-in-law. Given time, there was every prospect of his own
heir, and Henry of Bolingbroke could forget any ambitions he might nurture. A better way
to test the tempreture of the waters did however present itself at the Parliament which
met at Westminster in January 1397, when one Sir Thomas Haxey presented a petition
critisizing the expense of the Royal Household. The Records show that the King complained
that Haxey's petition touched upon the Royal Regalia and the King's State and Royal
Liberty, matters well outside the concerns of Parliament. From the pure theater which
followed, it has been suggested that Richard himself may have instigated the petition
simply to test the opposition. Even if he did not do so, the opportunity was too good to
miss.