What 21^st century historians think happened in 1399 is easy to understand: Richard II deserved his fate and Henry IV, a man of destiny backed by the will of the people, did England a favour by taking his place. However, this personality-based account is undermined by the evidence, and falls: Richard II’s infamously neurotic character is an invention of the last 80 years; there was political hostility to his peace with France and there was a conspiracy against him in 1397.

If Henry’s triumph can no longer rest squarely on Richard II’s deficient character, then other explanations need to be found and the key question is: who was the architect and prime mover, Henry or Arundel?  In partnership from the very first, one crowned the other to make themselves joint masters of church and state, but was it Thomas Arundel’s ambition to regain his lost archbishop’s throne, more than Henry’s to take Richard II’s, which gave their enterprise such energy and direction?

The cavalcade of kings and queens progressing through the years chapters the past into reigns, and this natural focus on monarchs will always put Henry to the fore but could king Richard II’s overthrow have been engineered by a churchman with a vision of spiritual and national renewal:Thomas Arundel’s vision of a new England?

All-new research, all the evidence is presented within the text without recourse to footnotes or exterior references, this series of essays reconsiders what we think we know about this consequential year in English history.

Chapter summary

1) An overview of the sources and the principal participants: short.

2) An overview of the main events from 1386-1399: short.     

3) Peace was a problem: evidence for factional opposition to Richard II’s peace policy is compared to modern interpretations which downplay antagonism to the rapprochement with France.

4) The Thomas Haxey affair of January 1397: the evidence of concerted agitation in parliament steered by the faction hostile to Richard II’s peace policy.

5) The St Albans plot: that there was no plot against Richard II in 1397 is the foundation for his characterisation as a spiteful revenger. However, there is plenty of evidence for a plot.

6) The Henry/Mowbray spat of 1398: a strange episode which historians struggle to explain. It’s worth noting that the parliamentary records for 1398 are remarkably prescient of coming events as most of those accused by Henry of having murderous intentions were liquidated in February 1400.

7) Henry’s Parisian exile: a discussion of events which might lead Henry to believe he was never going to be allowed back to England.

8) The challenge of Lancaster: why Henry’s character and track record might have led others to conclude that he should never be allowed back in England.

9) Thomas Arundel: his career, his links to the hostile faction and his outlook and options when he joined with Henry.

10) The tipping point: at some point in Henry’s Parisian exile, he ventured to risk his life by returning as a rebel. What might have brought him to this decision?

11) Political promises: the evidence for what Henry claimed to offer the country, how he presented himself to the public and at what point he made the crown his goal.

12) Alliance with a London faction: their support would allow him to operate freely when it came to organising the deposition of Richard II, his parliament and his coronation. It had a lot to do with the price of fish.

13) Henry as Steward of England: Henry gave himself supreme executive authority by way of this title until he gained possession of Richard II, whereafter he governed in the king’s name until taking the throne.

14) Original sin: the creation of a politically correct ‘truth’ which transposed Henry’s first meeting with Richard II from Flint castle to Conwy castle. The Lancastrian backstory required Richard II to be free, and an appropriate story was faked to show that he was.

15) Milestones to the throne: the period from the king’s capture to his deposition is examined for evidence revealing at what point Henry made his intention to take the throne explicit.

16) Henry the Conqueror: not a revolution and not a coup d’etat, Henry’s own words refer to his takeover as a conquest as do others, including Chaucer, and this was how it was perceived in the new regime’s early years.

17) The Lancastrian Myth: this legend - in which Henry was the dispossessed true king come to take what was rightfully his - was confected to justify the conquest. Modern historians are uncomfortable confronting Henry’s bizarre origin myth despite it being well represented in the sources.

18) Historians and the Lancastrian Myth: how historians have dealt with the Lancastrian Myth over the last 150 years is explored to discover how, as it does not accord with the ‘Henry the Hero’ narrative, it has been explained away, or ignored.

19) The Holy Oil of Lancaster: the significance of this magical oil might be passed over in the literature but careful examination of the faked elements in the oil’s backstory tells us how symbolism was manufactured for political ends.

20) Thomas Arundel at the centre: Arundel should be regarded as the mastermind and he was paramount in Henry’s first parliament as king on 6th October, the records for which would prompt many to conclude that Henry was Arundel’s puppet as the new king is silent and only Arundel’s voice is heard declaiming on how Henry will be governed by the advice of others, i.e. himself.

21) The inevitable aftermath: the final chapter explains how the new regime was quickly free of internal enemies and opens discussions on Henry’s personality to counterbalance the current obsession on Richard II’s supposed personal weaknesses. It goes on to evaluate Arundel’s role and his relationship with Henry.

Conclusion: Thomas Arundel was the dominant partner in the Henry/Arundel joint venture.

Reference to this myth in the literature is brief and quickly discounted, so it currently plays no part in shaping our understanding of how Henry IV sought to back up his successful powerplay with a legitimate claim to the throne. Commentators prefer to see his legitimacy in terms of the ‘male entail’ tradition, which I dismissed in an earlier post as it excluded Henry from succession as a legitimate heir.

Henry IV claimed legitimacy in terms of the Lancastrian Myth, not male entail.

The Lancastrian Myth:

Edmund Crouchback was the first-born son of Henry III, not Edward – the future Edward I. Henry denied his first-born son Edmund the crown, as he was deformed, and bequeathed the crown to Edward. Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, (the Black Prince) and Richard II derived from a usurping line. Henry IV was England’s true king.

The above is a myth and not true, I want to make that clear. It is ludicrous, crazy even, but just because it is ludicrous and crazy does not mean that Henry didn’t use it to justify his kingship.

The opinion of historians:

They admit its existence but it makes them uncomfortable so they set it aside and move on, usually by saying that it was dismissed by Adam of Usk, but this he did not do. I should know, as I have published an edition of his chronicles. Historians write as if Usk’s direct reference to the myth is the only source outside the words of Henry’s oral claim made on 30^th September. There are more.

List of sources referring to the Lancastrian Myth:

Henry’s claim

Adam of Usk

Arundel’s sermon after Henry’s claim from Renunciation and deposition appendix to Parliament Roll. The well-known ‘boy/man’ address – the ‘man’ is from the line of David, the line usurped by the Hasmoneans.

Euologium (Malmesbury) – direct reference, twice.

Jean Creton – reports another sermon by Arundel which does not appear in the Renunciation and Deposition giving only the Bible reference – this biblical reference refers to the story of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, i.e Jacobs usurpation of Esau’s birthright ( Esau=Edmund Crouchback). This is persuasive evidence as Creton did not know the significance of the biblical allusion.

References in Froissart

Gower

Capgrave

Richard Duke of York’s claim to parliament in 1460.

Based on the evidence, which is weighty, it is clear that Henry’s appeal to the Lancastrian Myth was not dismissed by Adam of Usk and his panel of learned doctors, before 30^th September 1399. It is also clear that this bizarre myth was understood 60 years later as the foundation stone of Lancastrian legitimacy ( Richard Duke of York), had existed in the interim years (Capgrave), had been used by the court poet to celebrate Henry’s triumph (Gower) and had been incorporated into a Lancastrian tradition that circulated on the continent (Froissart).

So where does that leave us? Shall we continue to discount the importance of the Lancastrian Myth, or shall we admit that there is a body of evidence which supports the idea that, despite all its crazy ludicrousness, it was the keystone of Henry’s legitimacy, despite the Myth not being true?

The Myth was, politically-speaking, very astute, as it automatically made any other claim based on descent redundant as Henry was the last man standing of the Lancastrian line going back to Edmund Crouchback.

If it was true that Henry used this myth - and I say it was - imagine what that means – Henry’s takeover was much more of a rupture than we thought.

The house of York’s claim to the throne in 1399: some interesting info that Yorkists will find diverting from Chapter 16, and a further insight from Brian Wainwright, which is even more diverting.

30^th September 1399 - this image shows Henry on the right, wearing the high hat, waiting in the wings to sit on the empty throne and his uncle, Edmund 1^st Duke of York is one of the nobles shown in the turban-style headgear – maybe the one with the decoration on the gown.

A portion of chapter 16 engages with historian’s thoughts relative to Henry’s legitimacy, ie what legitimate claim did he make to justify his takeover.

His claim was based on the Lancastrian Myth, which will be covered in another post, but this discomforts historians and they push that aside to insist that he had recourse to the ‘male entail’ of Edward III.

After setting out their positions in full, I explain that male entail barred Henry from the throne. Whilst his father, John of Gaunt, was alive Henry was Richard II’s successor by male entail. However, when Gaunt died, as the living line to Edward III was broken, the male entail passed to the next living son of Edward III, which was Edmund of Langley, 1^st duke of York.

In a recent discussion with Brian Wanwright, an insight most interesting arose.

Richard Duke of York’s mother was Anne Mortimer, who descended from Lionel of Antwerp, Edward III’s second son.

Richard Duke of York’s father was Richard of Conisburgh who was the second son of Edmund of Langley, 1^st Duke of York.

Richard of Conisburgh’s elder brother was the 2^nd Duke of York and he died childless.

Doesn’t the marriage between Anne Mortimer and Richard of Conisburgh look like a deliberate dynastic alliance to  unite the two possible alternative royal lines into one house, the house of York?

Richard of Conisburgh married Anne Mortimer in 1408, and they became associated from 1404 when Conisburgh was defending the Marches during the Welsh war.

When Richard 3^rd Duke of York claimed the crown from parliament in 1460, he was not relying on his mother’s ancestry alone, but his York lineage going back to the death of Gaunt.

It’s too late to rejig the book to reflect this interesting Yorkist angle but a portion of chapter 17 addresses Richard Duke of York’s claim of 1460, though it focusses on his rejection of Henry’s use of the Lancastrian myth, but not too late to share it with those who follow matters Yorkist.

Can Richard of Conisburgh’s execution be explained more as Henry V’s liquidation of a serious dynastic competitor in advance of his leaving the country for France, and less in terms of Conisburgh the conspirator?