murreyandblue

A great WordPress.com site

Another Maligned King – or Propaganda Strikes Again

Richard_II_of_England

This portrait of Richard II in Westminster Abbey is familiar. What is less well-known is that it is heavily ‘restored’ over the years, most recently in 1866. In Richard II, Manhood, Youth and Politics, 1377-99, Christopher Fletcher reveals that when examined under infra-red reflectography the king’s beard was much more developed, covering much of his face, the line of his jaw was much more defined, the lips were less full. In other words, Richard’s image has been deliberately ‘feminised’ to match his reputation – or more precisely, the reputation Lancastrian propagandists attached to him as they went about distorting his character.

The fact is that only one contemporary Chronicler, that of Evesham Abbey, makes any reference to Richard appearing in any way feminine. He wrote that Richard had ‘fair hair, a white, rounded and feminine face, occasionally corrupted by a phlegmatic humour.’ But as this writer could not even get so basic a fact as the king’s height correct, one is left to wonder whether he actually set eyes on Richard. In any event, the description was set down after the king’s fall, and may well have been influenced by the propaganda of the new Lancastrian government.

So whence does this reputation proceed? As Fletcher explains, the medieval concept of manhood (based on classical tradition) held that women (and youths) were imperfect men. In particular they lacked the reason of men, were inconstant and apt to tell lies. These alleged defects are among those attributed to Richard, and help to explain why he is often spoken of as a ‘youth’ or ‘youthful’ or influenced by overly young advisers, even when it is obvious that (at least in the later part of his reign) Richard was not a youth – by our standards, let alone medieval ones – while even a casual examination of the facts will reveal that the majority of his advisers, throughout his reign, were his seniors, in some cases by many years.

In short, what medieval people meant by ‘youthful’ or ‘female’ was something different to what we mean by these terms, and implied a character defect. It did not necessarily mean that Richard was (in our terms)  young in years or feminine in his ways, or that his advisers were literally youths.

It is interesting to note that in his speech to Henry IV’s first Parliament, Archbishop Arundel stated that England had been ruled by youths by the counsel of widows. This sounds very much as though there was a suspicion that Richard had ignored his formal council and had in effect been advised by a sort of informal cabinet council in which women had their say! That he kept women at court in some numbers is undoubted. But did they really have political influence?

Arundel’s comment may be nothing more than a party political swipe to justify the overthrow of Richard’s government, but it is a good example of the conservative attitude towards the rule of women in England, which Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville were to face in years yet to come.

Although we are told not to judge by appearances, it is an unfortunate fact that appearances do influence opinion, even the opinions of professional historians. If Richard II’s portrait had not been ‘adjusted’ one wonders whether the king would have been referred to as ‘slightly epicine’ by Nigel Saul in his 1997 biography, or whether Saul would have dwelled on his ‘narcissistic’ personality.

The irony is that on three separate occasions in the 1380s, Richard proposed to lead an army to France in person. What stopped him from being a putative Henry V was that Parliament would not, or could not, supply the necessary funds. (A tale so familiar in later 15th Century history!) Richard was in fact keen to prove himself in the traditional ‘manly’ way, and it was scarcely his fault that there was no money available for the purpose. (By the way, at this point he was spending less on his household than Edward III had done, so  wild expenditure on pretty clothes and favourites cannot be blamed.) In 1385, he actually did invade Scotland – with one of the largest English armies assembled in the middle ages. He gets little credit from English historians for this – unfortunately his opponents ran away and there was no set-piece battle – but apparently Scottish and French historians are rather more impressed.

Contrary to popular opinion, Richard also appeared in tournaments, and won honours on occasions. Of course, one must also put an asterisk against tournament honours won by kings, but he certainly took part. He also rode right through the night on one occasion in his haste to get to London. Was this a physical weakling?

The final irony is that Richard’s burning, relentless determination to avenge himself on his enemies, to avenge his honour as he saw it, was the very epitome of noble masculinity as it was defined at the time!

This article is heavily influenced by and could not have been written without:-

Richard II, Manhood Youth and Politics 1377-99, by Christopher Fletcher, Oxford University Press 2008

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

3 thoughts on “Another Maligned King – or Propaganda Strikes Again

  1. viscountessw on said:

    Excellent post, sighthound6! Richard II requires vindication almost as much as Richard III, in both of whom I am keenly interested. Richard II has had a very bad press – and has had his portrait/s messed around with by his foes. Sound familiar? What’s more, both Richard II and III lost queens named Anne, and were killed by Lancastrian usurpers named Henry. The only King Richard I have no time for is Richard I.

    So thank you for setting the record straight for Richard of Bordeaux, who, incidentally, shared the distinction with Richard III of being written about by Josephine Tey, this time under the name of Gordon Daviot. http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2003/apr/09/theatre.samanthaellis

    Liked by 2 people

  2. giaconda on said:

    Reblogged this on Giaconda's Blog and commented:

    Interesting post and worth considering in detail. His response to the Peasant’s Revolt certainly suggests that he demonstrated courage (like his mother Joan) and ruthlessness (like his father, the Black Prince) at a young age. Lancastrian propaganda may well account for some of the popular perceptions held by modern day historians though we must balance this with Richard’s own propaganda and the legacy of ‘imperial kingship’ left by his grandfather, Edward III as well. He certainly is an interesting figure to consider with what appears to be a complex, multi-dimensional personality living in explosive times. Perhaps he was wise to take his mother’s counsel as Joan has been consistently undervalued, like most medieval women, by the traditional, male-focussed approach to history and she is also due for a major re-assessment.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. A chronicler calling Richard’s face feminine doesn’t necessarily mean he was seen as being effeminate – young Henry VIII was said to have a “round face so very beautiful that it would become a pretty woman” by a Venetian ambassador, and that was a part of a long, glowing description of the king’s physical beauty and accomplishments. It seems like comparing a man’s face with a woman to stress its beauty was what some writers, at least, saw as a compliment. Shakespeare also describes the Young Man in his sonnets as being beautiful as a woman. Maybe the chronicler just thought the king was good-looking so he compared him to a woman.

    Like Richard III, Shakespeare’s Richard II is also thought by some to have been a (not-so) secret swipe at a contemporary figure – in this case, queen Elizabeth I herself. Whether or not it was originally meant that way, the supporters of Essex certainly saw it that way, paying the company a large sum to stage a special performance with the deposition scene included, at the time before the rebellion was to take place. If there was any truth to the idea that Richard II was always meant to evoke Elizabeth, that would put Richard’s “feminine” traits in the play into a different light – if not, it was just something that was no doubt easy to latch on.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: