Almost at the beginning (well, three short paragraphs in) I found “…. Edward II whose piety could not make up for his lack of leadership….” Piety? Edward II? Well, he has a posh tomb in Gloucester Cathedral, but otherwise I don’t recall him being particularly pious. In fact, it was one area in which he was conventional!
The article also describes Edward II as Henry’s great-grandfather. No! Edward III was Henry’s grandfather. Guess who was his great-grandfather? Why yes, pious old Edward II!
So this didn’t encourage me to hope that Part Two was going to be an improvement on Part One. How right I was to have reservations.
The first offering in the trilogy had been a complete dissection of “stubborn and narcissistic” Richard II, without anaesthetic. He was everything bad under the sun, and clearly deserved everything he got. However, the angelic Lancastrian usurper, Henry IV, was one big shining halo with wings. No matter that Henry stole the throne and murdered Richard for becoming a terrible tyrant. No, Richard wasn’t a tyrant, nor did Henry invade England in order to regain his father’s inheritance, which nasty Richard had taken from him. That’s simply not true, Richard didn’t do any such thing. And if you disagree with me, I refer you to the excellent Terry Jones, who wrote about it quite brilliantly in his book Who Murdered Chaucer? The proof is there that Henry invaded with the specific purpose of going for the throne – the dutiful, honourable maltreated cousin routine was a load of codswallop.
Small wonder then that “From time to time Henry IV also showed his ruthless side”. Well, shucks, that’s astonishing. And he so chivalric and wonderful.
Well, the article goes on, and poor Henry dies, worn out by all the rebellions, uprisings and other little trials that a poor hard-done-by usurper is going to have to face. Just ask the execrable Henry VII. Henry IV wasn’t a well man when he died, but he breathed his last in his bed, unlike the unfortunate king he murdered in order to scramble to the throne. Another fact he shares with Henry VII.
Then we had Henry V, of course, who did much to restore faith and respect for the throne. I won’t have a go at him. (But I’m sure I could if I really, really tried…)
The next instalment of this trilogy deals with Henry VI – who was indeed a pious king. To the point of idiocy, from all accounts. The worst king we’ve ever had. Whether I’ll read it is doubtful. If Richard II was put through such a mill, I just hate to think what they’ll do with Richard III. Two Richards, both maligned by history because of the machinations and skulduggery of members of the scheming House of Lancaster.