Sorry for the scratchy voice on this one, but the show must go on. As always, thank you for your interest in the channel, and I hope I can continue to create relevant and interesting videos. Cheers!
Love how these Brief History episodes are becoming less and less brief. Thanks for putting in all the work involved in researching, recording and editing these documentaries for us.
It's TERRIFIC to be able to get such an idea of who he was and the times he was dealing with in less than an hour... THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DO!!!!!!!
Richard II: "Your talking to a King!" *Slap* John of Gaunt: "And now I just struck a King......did my hand fall from my wrist?" I love the Plantangent dynasty and was super excited to find this channel.
I was searching around for a good overview of Richard II but most of the top results were "dramatized" or highly-speculative storytelling rather than a concise historical overview. Your video is great and was exactly what I was looking for.
Excellent video :) I work for Sir John Soane's Museum. It was lovely to see "The Landing of Richard II at Milford Haven" by William Hamilton in your show - we have that at the museum :)
This was good, thank you. However, I heard that Bolingbroke reported his conversation with Mowbray to his father, Gaunt who advised Henry to tell the king, as anyone witness to a possible treasonous conversation must report it otherwise he himself could be accused of treason. Because of this also, Gaunt asked that Henry would be still be able to inherit the Lancaster lands after his exile and this promise was inscribed in law, which makes Richard's act of seizing Henry's lands after Gaunt's death even more disturbing. But I pity Richard in a way, he was 10 when he came to the throne and although he knew he had the royal prerogative, was never really taught how to use it. When he did try, he got it all wrong, hence his demise. He had been kept on a tight leash by all his councillors for a long time, and he was chafing at the bit to rule, but did not know how.
You do really good work! Your presentation style is consistent across your videos, your narration is clear and at a good pace, and your visuals are well-curated, informative, and well-placed. I hope you have a profitable and productive career in videography.
I’ve been loving your mini docs about the English monarchs! The English monarchy (and the Plantagenets specifically) are a big interest of mine currently and I was so excited to find your channel.
Excellently done, Bravo. You bought out a lot that others have never spoken of. But you did forget one aspect of Richard's downfall. The reason so many sided with Bolingbroke upon his return to England after being exiled. The fact that Richard forced many of the Earls in the land to sign and place their seals on blank sheets of parchment. Which Richard intended to use whenever he needed money. Knowing that he could take whatever he wanted from them, they of course feared the worst and so when Bolingbroke returned they joined him and when in London declared him King. Richard thought himself above the law, that he was God's anointed so no one could oppose him. This of course was not true, as you pointed out, the King ruled only by the grace of an appointed council of Nobles of the land. I believed Richard refused food and water, believing that his cousin would take pity upon him and release him from his prison. Unfortunately, Richard lived in a dream world and so died from his thoughts of grandeur. Still, you did an excellent job, thank you for uploading this and I hope to view more of your videos.
So sad an ending to a brave young King. I wonder how he would have been if his Father had lived longer. He was obviously a man capable of deep feelings as his Love for his Queen shows.
Really, really good work. Compliments from Dartington, rural Devon estate of Richard's half-brother, John Holand, Earl of Huntingdon and Duke of Exeter. Richard II had an artistic sensibility before there was such a thing; his cultural patronage is largely overlooked and worth investigating.
There was a great flourishing of literature in the English vernacular at this time, but Richard himself had very little to do w/ it. If you liked Chaucer, thank his uncle John of Gaunt; he was the one actually patronizing artists. Richard much preferred all things French to anything English.
@@jeandehuit5385 That is true. But Richard did patronize the arts and literature. English and French culture was very much linked up until the 16th century. A lot of Chaucer's work is also translations of French literature. Medieval England and France were culturally very similar.
@@romanticlady8157 Cultural similarities, sure, but linguistic ones not so much. But there would be little temptation to translate something if Middle English was considered either unfit as an artistic language or not widely read enough to justify the effort. Or, in short, you don't translate French into English if you think everyone's just going to read the French anyway. And if Richard II had his way, you can be damn sure you *would* be reading it in French. And Chaucer mainly took influence from the Italians. I mean, he took influence from everywhere, but the Decameron is RIGHT there and Italian writers of the time were doing a lot of work at turning their vernacular into a prestige language of sorts. Chaucer wouldn't be inspired by that dynamic in French b/c French already *was* a prestige language in France, England, & a bunch of other places at the time.
Another brief but brilliant history lesson on the English monarchy! 😀 Thanks again for posting these videos. I’ve been counting down the days for your Henry IV vid, the only English Crusader King to reach Jerusalem 😉
Well done! I've seen a lot of videos about Richard II but I still learned quite a few new things here. I enjoy your style and content. I've heard theories that his wife helped curb some of Richard's worse tendencies (like his leaning toward revenge and rage). Small wonder things went sour after he lost her..
Richard was certainly paranoid and unpopular, however, I think depending on the timing of events, he *could* have averted his own downfall had Henry of Bolingbroke died of natural causes prior to 1398. Richard had many collateral relatives who could have taken up the succession. The trouble is which one; Richard was too paranoid to nominate an heir (tho. he probably did name his uncle Edmund heir when he left for Ireland; he'd undertaken an elaborate ceremony adopting Edmund's son Edward as his 'brother' only a short time before, emphasizing his favour for this branch of the family), and Parliament hated Richard too much to tacitly accept any heir he chose. The trick, then, is replicating the feat of Richard's early reign, where he managed to survive only b/c people hated the idea of John of Gaunt becoming King so much that they found themselves content with Richard. With Bolingbroke alive, this would never happen; he's just too appealing a candidate. But Richard never had a personal enmity to the Lancaster lineage; he was actually quite fond of Bolingbroke's son Henry of Monmouth. He just had a beef with Bolingbroke specifically. With Bolingbroke dead, Richard would have been free to adopt Monmouth as heir without fear he was honouring the head of the potentially-traitorous Lancasters too unduly. Parliament would have been forced to accept, b/c while Monmouth is an heir they can get behind, he was still a child, and Richard could threaten Parliament w/ yet another royal minority if any serious attempt were made to depose him and replace him with Monmouth.
I believe John of Gaunt fathered 9, not 15, children of record: 3 , including Bolingbroke, with first wife Blanche of Lancaster; a daughter with second wife Catherine of Castile; and four (the Beauforts) with his mistress and later third wife Katherine Swynford. There was also an illegitimate daughter he sired with one of his mother's ladies-in-waiting when he was still in his teens, and before his first marriage. I do love your channel, and especially like the subtle but perfect accompanying music. Great work, and thank you!
Another great video. I never knew before that at the time they claimed that Edmund Crouchback was older than Edward to justify Henry Bolingbroke’s claim. I thought previously it was a matter of him essentially being more powerful and influential than Edmund Mortimer as he was very young. I’ve also read that Edward III wrote something that the Lancastrians should inherit if Edward of Woodstock’s line failed because he wanted it to only pass through the male line.
Hello. Glad you enjoyed the video. All you have touched on is accurate, but henry was still advised to find some sort of legal justification when the time came. Cheers!
@@mbgal7758 Yeah, it was mainly Bolingbroke who came up with the Crouchback idea (Gaunt never claimed anything like that & even if he had heard the rumour, he would be in a position to know it was a complete lie). The problem Bolingbroke had justifying his kingship was that only so much could be done to to advance his claim. His line had precedence by the entail made by Edward III and... that's about it. Agnatic Primogeniture *was* all the rage those days, so that certainly made things a bit easier, but it was hardly the only form of succession available. The argument he probably *should* have made was that he was the rightful heir by proximity-of-blood; Edward III had living sons when he died (namely Gaunt) and those sons would take precedence over grandsons in a proximity-based succession (this is what Gaunt was aiming at when he tried to get himself named heir to Edward III). Gaunt actually had some legal basis for his claim, too. John Lackland inherited via proximity over his nephew Arthur in very similar circumstances. Edward III also claimed the throne of France by male-preference proximity-of-blood, too. Gaunt was unsuccessful b/c Parliament didn't like him personally, but it was hard to deny the legality of the claim. Bolingbroke could have easily claimed that his father had been unlawfully passed over on Edward III's death. The reason he didn't was b/c that apparently by 1399 and the 15th century more generally, proximity-of-blood had *really* fallen out of favour as a method of determining succession in England. Exactly how this changed in so short a period is up for debate, but it probably had something to do w/ England's xenophobia and a general squeamishness towards female-line inheritance that proximity-based successions opened up. Agnatic succession didn't carry that problem, which is why it became so popular.
@@jeandehuit5385 the thing that confuses me about that is Henry’s Crouchback decent was through the female line as well. It really just seems like something made up in the moment to give him precedence over Richard II and other claimants even though everyone knew it was bs. That’s probably why I never heard that before. It was known to be a lie even then so why bring it up now 😆 Just like later when Richard III tried to disinherit Edward IV’s children by saying not only was he precontracted when he married Elizabeth Woodville but was also himself illegitimate because their mom was banging an archer supposedly.
@@mbgal7758 The Lancaster descent was by a female line, but Bolingbroke was its uncontested claimant (Henry of Grosmont was an only son who left no sons, and Bolingbroke is Grosmont's only grandson), so there aren't any pretenders w/ a better claim than him. But he was certainly smoking something to have turned 'Crouchback' (which may have been a reference to cross-back; Edmund's crusading career) into 'Hunchback.' I think the rumour was also made up to explain why Edmund Crouchback had a royal seal before his older brother Edward Longshanks: The Pope had offered Henry III of England the chance to make his second son Edmund the new King of Sicily, and Henry heartily accepted without consulting his lords. This became a rather large sticking point as Henry had promised to front a large amount of money for this effort which his lords didn't want to pay. Without money forthcoming the Pope ripped up Edmund's paperwork and chose Charles I of Anjou as the new Sicilian king instead. But Henry had made up Edmund's royal seal already, and anybody who didn't know about the Sicilian business would wonder why Crouchback had a royal seal before Longshanks, lending undue credence to Bolingbroke's rumour.
At the time of Richard's deposition/abdication, Edmund Mortimer was a child which would require a regency and had been left behind by Richard in Ireland, so claims of maternal ancestry aside, Henry IV was in the right place at the right time to make his claim.
Plus, Edmund Mortimer was not much of a get-up-and-go kind of guy. When he learned the Earl of Cambridge was part of a conspiracy to place him on the throne, he remained loyal to Henry V and sold Cambridge out (not that he didn't deserve it). So almost nobody took the Mortimer claim seriously (not even the Mortimers themselves). The only reason Richard II turned to them was b/c he was an indecisive, paranoid man who was constantly alienating himself from his allies. Richard had already fallen out with Roger Mortimer (Edmund's father), and he couldn't name Bolingbroke heir b/c he hated his guts, and Bolingbroke being alive meant Richard couldn't name Monmouth or Somerset his heir b/c Bolingbroke took precedence over the both of them. That left Richard's options fairly limited. He probably favoured Edmund Mortimer b/c he was a minor and thus Richard was threatening Parliament w/ another royal minority in the event they deposed him. But this was never realistic when Bolingbroke's still around. Perhaps if Bolingbroke weren't around Richard could have succeeded (or done the same thing only w/ Monmouth instead of Mortimer), but that's getting into 'what if' territory. Richard may have also named Edmund of Langley his heir when he departed for Ireland (he gave Edmund some powers and also had adopted Langley's son as his 'brother' prior to this). Richard had no deep love for the Yorks; they were just the only relatives he hadn't managed to alienate yet. Parliament probably didn't take these nominations (if that is what they were) seriously, since by this point they hate Richard's guts and won't blindly accept any heir he nominates. It's Bolingbroke or bust.
As with King John,Edward 2 and Charles 1,Richard 3. These Kings overstepped the bounds of Kingsship. Even though they perceived themselves as not having any. The political isolation they created in their own country by mistreatment of the nobles. And not having a sense of being bound by law even to Kings. Is what ultimately lead to these men's down fall. And I believe we have to take some of historical accounts of Richards 2 personality into account. Like King John when you have a distrustful,narcissistic persona you will be left alone in the palace with enemies closing in like Nero found himself. Well done sir!
Hello, glad you are enjoying the videos. I have a few things in mind, but will have to play my cards close to the vest for now as I have not fully decided at this point.
The fact that Richard II came to power as “a boy” is no excuse for his poor rule. Edward III also became King at a similar age but unlike Richard he chose to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors and thus avoid a horrible fate
17:31 this picture is not of the anti Pope named Clement VII in the fourteenth century. It's the picture of a true Pope also named Clement VII 200 years later in the sixteenth century. Looking at his heraldry in the top left corner, we know that he was from the ruling house of Florence, the Medici family. He was canonically elected and elevated to the Throne of St. Peter in 1523 .
I really enjoyed these thumbnails of history, and I'm sorry that they were not available when I was in school. Although I do not have any money with which to support you, I could offer you my services as a proof reader for your text. You have made a few mistakes such as, "Edward was drugging his feet," which should read "Edward was dragging his feet", and, "he was coronated," should be, "he was crowned.". Although these mistakes are not huge, they are significant enough to detract from what I think is the excellence of your work. I would be happy to assist you by casting an eye over your text and making suggestions. Let me know- I would be happy to be of use.
I love this one, I have always wanted to know more about Richard. I like that Henry 5, it also makes me think how in the world Henry 7 got to the throne especially since his lineage tying him to royalty was on his mother's side ( yet they were made by the pope not to succeed)
@@rebeccaherschman1635 So, the reason you can have Henry VII claim the crown is a bit complicated. His claim is shaky b/c it requires resolving a pernicious legal ambiguity, & w/out that his line is probably deemed illegitimate. Fortunately for Henry Tudor, 2nd earl of Richmond, I think the law is probably on his side here (Part One): Edward III made an entail for the succession which (IIRC) went something like this: after Richard II, the crown should pass to the heirs-male of John of Gaunt, then the heirs-male of Edmund of Langley, then the heirs-male of Thomas of Woodstock, then (if the male-line was extinguished), the Mortimer claim via Lionel of Antwerp would take precedence. If this were in-effect, Richard II's legal heir would have been Henry of Bolingbroke anyway. But Richard waffled on his preferred successor; he could have made his own entail to supersede Edward III's, but Richard was too paranoid to appoint a successor that wasn't absolutely loyal to him. At various points John of Gaunt, Roger de Mortimer, Edmund Mortimer, and Edmund of Langley were all probably considered the heir-presumptive, depending on who Richard had fallen out w/. As we all know, Henry IV's nigh-unanimous usurpation attempt rendered that all moot, but forgive me for this digression, b/c the context here is important: Enter Henry IV's half-siblings, the Beaufort children. They had been born illegitimate, true. But as a favour to his uncle, Richard II had declared them fully-legitimate by Act of Parliament (twice, actually) as well as by Papal dispensation. The Act of Parliament declared them able to enjoy all rights and dignities that came w/ being legitimate grandchildren of Edward III. No mention is made of the crown specifically, implying that it is included in the 'rights and dignities' the Beauforts are now entitled to. John, 1st earl of Somerset, was actually quite the favourite of Richard II; Richard made him a knight of his body & gave him lots of fancy titles. Henry IV changes all this; he writers letters patent declaring that his half-siblings are entitled to 'all rights and dignities' except the royal dignity, explicitly removing their inheritance rights. Whether he had any legal standing to do this, however, was debatable; the Beauforts had been legitimized by Act of Parliament, and so another Act of Parliament was needed to change that. Henry IV didn't use an Act of Parliament tho. and letters patent hardly ever supersede an Act of Parliament, legally speaking. This meant that while the Lancastrian kings did not acknowledge their Beaufort cousins as legitimate heirs, their decision to do so probably wouldn't hold up in court, as it were.
@@rebeccaherschman1635 (Part Two): Enter the madness of Henry VI. Henry IV thought he was sitting pretty; he had four sons who all lived to adulthood, only one shy of his grandad Edward III. As a result, in addition to removing his half-brother's children from the succession, he also drafted a new entail declaring only the male-issue of his sons acceptable heirs. But Bolingbroke's lot was a damn slight less fertile than his grandfather's had been. Only one of his kids gave him grandchildren, and only one grandchild at that (that being Henry VI). Who Henry's heir was after his uncles was an open question, as Henry IV's succession didn't allow for it. Who the heir was prior to the birth of Edward of Westminster was up-for-debate. Richard, 3rd duke of York, considered his own claim pretty good. As the grandson of Edmund of Langley, he would have been the next-in-line as per Edward III's entail, assuming the Beauforts were deemed illegitimate. (As it turns out, this might have been a legal fiction; York's father Richard of Conisburgh might have been the product of an illicit affair between his own mother (Isabella of Castile, duchess of York) and John Holland, 1st duke of Exeter, for reasons I can get into but aren't relevant to this discussion). York pushed to be recognized as heir-presumptive in 1451 via an intermediary, Thomas Young. Young was locked in the Tower for his troubles and Parliament dissolved, a bold move on Parliament's part if York truly were considered heir-presumptive at this time. This means someone *else* might have been considered the heir in 1451, and chances are that person was a Beaufort. Either Edmund Beaufort, 2nd duke of Somerset (then not nearly as unpopular as he would become), as the next heir-male of John of Gaunt (assuming the Beauforts are deemed legitimate), or his niece Margaret Beaufort (future mother of Henry VII). Remember, Margaret had been married/betrothed to John de la Pole, son of William de la Pole, 1st duke of Suffolk, only a year prior to this, in a union that contemporaries speculated was Suffolk's grasping attempt at inserting himself into the succession. This accusation only makes sense if Margaret is considered throne-worthy to some degree or another. Given York was on the outs at this time, it's possible Margaret, her husband, or some future son of hers really was considered a potential heir. Eventually Somerset's political clout dissolved, York sees a brief ascendance before dying, and the Wars of the Roses breaks out in earnest (a story all of us no doubt know all too well). There's no need to get into all that now; my only point was that a Beaufort claimant, and even Margaret Beaufort herself, were already been thrown around as potential Lancastrian heirs as early as 1450-1451, while York's claim was not considered rock-solid until some period afterwards. By the time Henry VI actually dies, the days of Edmund Beaufort and his sons are already numbered, leaving only Margaret's line as plausible candidates for those looking for heirs outside the Yorks. Given that the Beaufort line had reached some clout before, as well the legal case probably being in their favour, it makes sense desperate Lancastrians would look to Richmond as an answer. The reason he didn't get unanimous support is obvious; the claim is shaky unless you believe the legal situation is in his favour, it's fairly distant genealogically (not to mention on a female line), and the Yorks have been ascendant for almost 2 decades by 1485. But I still think the claim is more plausible than is usually given credit for. Plus, Richard III's own claim is fairly weak (assuming the Princes in the Tower are dead, Edward, 17th earl of Warwick has far-and-away the best claim to the English crown along the Yorkist line, IMO).
Last part of my research Richard is thought to have starved to death and died on or around 14 February in year 1400 and William Shakespeare wrote play about Richard 11 its political play tells story of last two years Richard 11 reign how he was imprisoned murderd supporters of Robert devereux earl Essex who planned to mount rebellion very next day seize throne thank you for giving us chance to read learn improve our English language as well iwish for your channel more success and progress stay safe blessed good luck to you your dearest ones iam so sorry to be little long
How are you doing ihope you are fine thank you for your cultural documentary channel iam new subscriber Arabic lady citizen we are as foreigners subscribers as overseas students want to increase our cultural level improve our English language as well so that I gathered main information about topic you talked about briefly here it’s as iread Richard 11 is king of England born in 1367 died in 1400 he was king of England from 1377 till 1399 his region which ended in his abdication he saw rise of strong baronial forces aiming to control monarchy he was bad king he could not settle conflict among his own knights he texad his people unfairly seized land belonging to other nobles such as Henry who desposed by his first cousin Henry of Bolingbroke who then reigned as Henry 1v king of England held in captivity at ponterfract castle in ponterfract west York shire
Does No one see a trend between Rulers that are the Second of their Names. William II, Edward II, and Richard II all had rumors that they were Gay. Well Henry II, James II, George II weren’t Rumored to be Gay so I guess this falls flat.
Well, they aren't named by God; they're named after their relatives, and who lives and who dies in the Middle Ages is all up to chance anyway. You never know which of your baby boys are suddenly going to drop dead, so which names the survivors have is nearly-random. Plus, Edward II is like the 5th English king named Edward, the first 3 just aren't given regnal numbers.
This king reminds me of Nero-a narcissist who maybe a terrible ruler that is not seen fondly by historians yet, you couldn’t help but feel like his flaws are a product of his environment and mental illness and feel sorry for him. Both of them, in my opinion, are real-life tragic villains.
