Did the reign of Richard II witness a significant change in the nature and role of kingship and its relations with the nobility?

Authors Avatar

Did the reign of Richard II witness a significant change in the nature and role of kingship and its relations with the nobility?

        The time of Richard II has been aptly described by Nigel Saul as an “unhappy, faction-ridden reign” and this is in marked contrast to the common image of the reign of his grandfather, Edward III.  Richard presided over a realm reeling from the social and economic effects of the Black Death and almost a century of continuous warfare, yet there was great hope at the inception of his reign that both the English state and the monarchy would prosper under his leadership.  The fact that the reign ended in tragedy for Richard, resulting in his usurpation by the nobles his predecessor had so painstakingly built a rapport with, has fascinated Shakespeare and gained the interest of many since.  Richard had specific views on kingship and the role he should play in English government and society and it is highly likely that his views were wholly unsuitable for the condition of society he found himself in and contributed greatly to his downfall.  His reign has traditionally been perceived as one of conflict with the great magnates of the kingdom and the establishment of almost tyrannical rule and the effects of his actions are suggested to have had a significant and almost irreversible impact on the role of the monarchy.

        For a considerable time before the reign of Richard II, the relationship between monarch and nobility was crucial to the stability of the state and contributed to allowing the monarch to govern as he pleased.  The control over the state was enforced by several institutions, which appointed officers throughout the land in an attempt to govern the country effectively.  These institutions were essentially under the direct influence of the monarchy and a primary function of them was to ensure the continuation of royal power.  There was a general consensus among society that the king maintained supreme authority and could rely on the support and loyalty of all those over whom he governed.  This situation was to be preserved to some extent up to the reign of Richard II but there had been a continuing trend of the growing power and influence of the landed classes who would continue to increasingly claim as their rights to have influence on the workings of the state.  As they possessed considerable wealth and were an integral part of the English military system, they were a force to be taken seriously, especially if they had a common aim, as classes are liable to develop.  Tuck points out however that the nobility were generally loyal to the monarchy and it was in their interests to co-operate with royal policy.  It was only in extreme cases such as those which were evident in the reign of Richard II that the magnates resorted to direct action against the monarch.

        It is difficult to accurately define the nobility as a class, let alone a political identity, Tuck suggests that it may be extended to the landed classes of knightly rank and above.  These are certainly the individuals who would have had a significant influence on the running of the state in some respect, either through parliament or court, both of which were important influences on the behaviour of the monarch.  By the reign of Edward III, parliament had grown in influence and provided more than a symbolic ratification of royal policy, becoming a powerful body that could hold the actions of the king to account and also be able to determine the level of taxation.  It is true that parliament was generally subordinate to royal will but it did provide a growing power base for the nobility and also a forum for those out of royal favour to express their grievances.  The structure of government was not codified and the consensus as to what was expected changed over time, resulting in the 14th century position where the nobility were not explicitly interested in being involved in centralised government but did expect their interests to be taken into consideration in policy and that the existing social hierarchy not be altered drastically by royal intervention.  As any group with significant power, the magnates were primarily concerned with retaining that power but were also keen to increase that power, at the expense of the other powerful groups, either themselves, the church or the crown.

Join now!

        Essentially the magnates had to be generally kept in a state of satisfaction at the governance of England to maintain a stable political structure, as was seen in the case of the demise of Edward II, the magnates had the power to depose the monarch if they possessed the will.  This mostly relied on two factors, firstly the monarch’s personal ability to interact with the nobility and maintain the hierarchy they expected played an important role.  The magnates being incredibly concerned with status were generally displeased if royal patronage conferred status upon an individual who did not deserve it.  The ...

This is a preview of the whole essay