Assess the value of the source for revealing the character of Richard II and the reasons
for his deposition in 1399.
Walsingham was a famous late medieval chronicler and was noted for opinionated writing.
This is shown in source 5 where he gives a rather negative interpretation of Richard II’s style
of governance. The passage was written in 1397, around the time of Richard’s increasingly
tyrannical behaviour and it provides an insight into his actions near this time.
Source 5 begins by expressing Richard’s character as “puffed up” indicating that he behaved
arrogantly and regarded himself as superior than others. Walsingham goes on to state that he
“began to behave even more loftily than usual”, indicating that his new behaviour has
become more extreme recently. During the late 1390s, Richard’s character grew more
agitated and autocratic as his deep-seated mistrust, caused by the Wonderful and Merciless
Parliament, grew into paranoia as he ordered three of the five lords appellant to be arrested
and tried for treason. This is later mentioned in the source as the “king’s scheming
behaviour”. The exact motivation for this is unclear, as the source mentions: “threw all this
into confusion”, but it is likely to be in revenge for Radcot Bridge. This evidence gives
validity to the source and provides a good insight into the character of Richard II. The fact
that Richard’s treatment of the lords appellant was later included in the accusations against
him at Henry IV’s first parliament also indicates that his increasingly tyrannical and irrational
behaviour was one of the reasons for his deposition in 1399.
Another of the 39 accusations made against Richard was also his failure to pay back loans.
His financial failings are also mentioned in source 5 where it states Richard began “to
impoverish the common people and borrow large sums of money from every available
source”. His poor handling of finances was persistent during his reign and his financial
generosity to those he personally favoured such as his wife Anne of Bohemia as well as De la
Pole which led to serious royal debt. This created further tension with parliament who were
frustrated with the continuing high levels of taxation during this period. A king of this period
would have been expected to have a harmonious relationship with parliament and have a
prosperous wealthy country to be respected and known as a strong leader, therefore
Walsingham’s interpretation compares the king to these expectations. We can see that
Richard’s character is not meeting them as Walsingham gives a negative opinion of Richard’s
style of governance as his financial failures were an “extreme across the realm” which
therefore provides us with one of the reasons for his deposition in 1399.
Throughout the source the idea that Richard’s character was unpredictable and unexpected is
noted upon multiple times. Walsingham first mentions it when Richard “[pretended] to be
well disposed” towards the earl of Warwick and then had him arrested later than day. He goes
on to explain how Richard used “deceitful promises” towards Arundel and then had him
imprisoned. This devious behaviour from Richard was one of the reasons that made many of
the nobles fearful of him as they were worried what he might do next. This can be seen by
Bolingbroke’s behaviour after the lords appellant as he begs pardon multiple times for his
role in the Merciless Parliament and places his loyalty firmly with the king. This further
reveals Richard’s tyrannical and interchangeable character. Leaving his subjects in a state of
continual uncertainty was a defining characteristic of his reign which stimulated fear and
dislike among many of the other nobles which contributed considerably to the downfall of his
reign. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that source 5 is valuable in revealing the
character of Richard which in turn was a reason for his downfall in 1399.
for his deposition in 1399.
Walsingham was a famous late medieval chronicler and was noted for opinionated writing.
This is shown in source 5 where he gives a rather negative interpretation of Richard II’s style
of governance. The passage was written in 1397, around the time of Richard’s increasingly
tyrannical behaviour and it provides an insight into his actions near this time.
Source 5 begins by expressing Richard’s character as “puffed up” indicating that he behaved
arrogantly and regarded himself as superior than others. Walsingham goes on to state that he
“began to behave even more loftily than usual”, indicating that his new behaviour has
become more extreme recently. During the late 1390s, Richard’s character grew more
agitated and autocratic as his deep-seated mistrust, caused by the Wonderful and Merciless
Parliament, grew into paranoia as he ordered three of the five lords appellant to be arrested
and tried for treason. This is later mentioned in the source as the “king’s scheming
behaviour”. The exact motivation for this is unclear, as the source mentions: “threw all this
into confusion”, but it is likely to be in revenge for Radcot Bridge. This evidence gives
validity to the source and provides a good insight into the character of Richard II. The fact
that Richard’s treatment of the lords appellant was later included in the accusations against
him at Henry IV’s first parliament also indicates that his increasingly tyrannical and irrational
behaviour was one of the reasons for his deposition in 1399.
Another of the 39 accusations made against Richard was also his failure to pay back loans.
His financial failings are also mentioned in source 5 where it states Richard began “to
impoverish the common people and borrow large sums of money from every available
source”. His poor handling of finances was persistent during his reign and his financial
generosity to those he personally favoured such as his wife Anne of Bohemia as well as De la
Pole which led to serious royal debt. This created further tension with parliament who were
frustrated with the continuing high levels of taxation during this period. A king of this period
would have been expected to have a harmonious relationship with parliament and have a
prosperous wealthy country to be respected and known as a strong leader, therefore
Walsingham’s interpretation compares the king to these expectations. We can see that
Richard’s character is not meeting them as Walsingham gives a negative opinion of Richard’s
style of governance as his financial failures were an “extreme across the realm” which
therefore provides us with one of the reasons for his deposition in 1399.
Throughout the source the idea that Richard’s character was unpredictable and unexpected is
noted upon multiple times. Walsingham first mentions it when Richard “[pretended] to be
well disposed” towards the earl of Warwick and then had him arrested later than day. He goes
on to explain how Richard used “deceitful promises” towards Arundel and then had him
imprisoned. This devious behaviour from Richard was one of the reasons that made many of
the nobles fearful of him as they were worried what he might do next. This can be seen by
Bolingbroke’s behaviour after the lords appellant as he begs pardon multiple times for his
role in the Merciless Parliament and places his loyalty firmly with the king. This further
reveals Richard’s tyrannical and interchangeable character. Leaving his subjects in a state of
continual uncertainty was a defining characteristic of his reign which stimulated fear and
dislike among many of the other nobles which contributed considerably to the downfall of his
reign. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that source 5 is valuable in revealing the
character of Richard which in turn was a reason for his downfall in 1399.
