Customer Reviews

Richard II (The English Monarchs Series)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Richard II was a fascinating and enigmatic character, whose reign was marked by his being dethroned not once, but essentially twice. This in addition to Richard's being faced with that oddity, a nearly successful popular uprising. Thse two losses of power constitute about as disastrous a pattern as any ruler can produce. What the sources of the turmoil were and why Richard was so spectacularly unsuccessful at dealing with them should make for an absorbing tale. Unfortunately, Nigel Saul is good neither at telling the events of the reign nor in laying out the nature of Richard's character.

It may be no easy task to build up a character on the basis of the fragmentary and often very dry records left by medieval English society. However, as some fine volumes in this series illustrate, this task can be accomplished with aplomb, even by authors working with even weaker material than Saul has and with a less gripping tale that they might tell. Saul falls into a number of traps. The most blatant of these is his repeated failure to distinguish trivia from significant facts. He also fails to distinguish speculation from well-supported fact and makes little attempt to eschew the former as much as possible. Furthermore, Saul repeatedly presumes detailed knowledge of certain aspects of the individuals and situations under consideration to a quite unreasonable extent for anything purporting to be a book for anyone other than an expert. At other times he belabors matters that need little exposition for anyone with much familiarity with the subject.

The presumption of knowledge is most annoying when Saul is discussing taxation. Saul never explains what a "fifteenth and tenth" was; though he has Parliament grant it to the King repeatedly in the early going. What is totally lacking in the book is a discussion - and here there is a lot of material available - on what the sources of revenue of the English crown really were, and how they were used.

Another example of the author's annoying habits is illustrated by the offhand way in which Harry Percy (Hotspur) is introduced which presumes a full and immediate knowledge of who he was. (To make matters worse, the index doesn't even list the real introduction, which is in a footnote.) It is not clear that Hotspur needed to be mentioned when he was, but if he is going to enter the tale, we should be told who he is when he appears, especially since the real Hotspur differed in very significant ways from the picture to be gleaned from Shakespeare.

And so it goes. Lists of names where some analysis is needed, places visited with no explanation of why it would matter, etc. The book is so badly organized so that it is repetitious without being illuminating. Lengthy disputes with other scholars are undertaken on minor matters, while little care is given to establishing what is and is not known about major matters.

The general background of a society in transit, with serious demographic dislocation from the Black Death, is not analyzed and not related to Richard's troubles and successes. Only in discussion of religion and Lollardy do we get anything like an analysis of the background. This temporary strength is marred as Saul breaks off for meaningless (since there has been no clear analysis of the roles of the individuals) lists of adherents, and the thinnest of analysis of Richard's beliefs. Much of this latter involves the interpretation of an altar piece in whose design we are given no reason to suppose that Richard himself was involved.

Even the concluding chapter, which is probably the best of the book, is marred by raising material to buttress arguments which was not covered earlier and by making points quite unsupported by any material that went before. That chapter also quotes Shakespeare, with chunks pulled randomly and out of order from the play, and one can only conclude that Shakespeare, though no historian, had a better grasp of the situation than does Saul.

This is supposed to be the best biography of Richard II available. It may be - I am no expert - but if so, the field is crying out for a better one. One hopes that it is already sitting on some scholar's desk or in some editor's briefcase. In the meantime, there are many far better books on British medieval history and the character of its kings to absorb the energies of the interested reader.

If you are not well-versed in this period of English history, then reading this book could be a struggle at times. It is not the best-organized book I have read; there were several times I had to re-read for 4-5 pages to make sure I was following the narrative properly. Also, the author assumes that the reader knows the subject thoroughly. Do you know the difference between the Great Seal, the Privy Seal and the signet? The difference between scutage and amercements? That the names Duke of Lancaster, Prince John, John of Gaunt and Gaunt all refer to the same person (sometimes several being used on the same page)? The difference of a "grant in fee simple" and a "grant in tail male?" The author assumes you do, for he offers no details. If you are in the dark about this, you will remain utterly confused at times with what appears to be meaningless terminology.

Also, echoing another reviewer, the author bases a number of assumptions on some rather sparse documentation. He may make an assertion and in the next paragraph observe that there is virtually nothing in the historical record to indicate one way or another what exactly was going on? Is the author then simply guessing at times? This is a little troubling for the reader.

The narrative can get unnecessarily tangled at time as the author gets bogged down in what seems to me to be minute details. This was a gripping period of English history, a prelude to the War of the Roses, where one witnessed a struggle for power between Parliament and the King, as well the struggle within the royal family itself, a struggle that would erupt more violently two generations later. This story would seem to provide a gripping narrative, but at times the prose is positively leaden. Be warned, the words do not flow gracefully from Saul's pen.

If you are able to stick with it, you will find this book to quite informative, but I cannot believe that this book could not have been a bit more accessible.

Richard II has been a controversial figure from his deposition from the English throne in 1399 to our own day. Like his later fifteenth-century namesake Richard III, interpretations of him and of his motives have varied widely, and were dominated for much of the twentieth century both by Shakespeare's play and by the image of the mad autocrat first painted by Anthony Steel in his "Richard II" (1941). Now Professor Nigel Saul has given us what will deservedly be the standard life for at least the next half-century. This work, first published three years ago, forms part of an outstanding series of lives of the English kings, and is every bit the equal of the best of them, from Warren's "Henry II" (1973) to Barlow's "William Rufus" (1983). Saul presents Richard as a man thrust, at the tender age of ten, into an office and a domestic and international situation which he could not fully grasp, and forced to do the impossible: fill the gargantuan shoes of both his grandfather, Edward III, and his father, the outstanding warrior Edward the Black Prince. The uncertainty of Anglo-French relations during this stage of the Hundred Years War, and the expectations of Richard's magnates and subjects - that he would be a military leader and vigorous defender of the English position in France like his predecessors - bedeviled the king during his minority and placed constraints upon his behavior which he found unbearable. Saul examines the entire context of Richard's reign and the forces at work in his world, from Richard's peace overtures to the French (which were opposed by his magnates as insulting to English "national" honor) to his support of unpopular court favorites, and even to the king's religious attitudes (traditional in a time of growing discontent with the Papacy and the Catholic Church). He thus gives us a complete structure to support the fascinating final chapters of the book. It is here, just as in any finely crafted piece of literature, that we see all the strands of Richard's life and character woven together with what, for him, was a terrible finality: his revenge against those, including members of his own family, who had insulted and demeaned him in his youth, his growing paranoia, and his assault on the property rights of his magnates, rights which were a cornerstone of the late medieval English state. The result, as Saul rightly puts it, was a "terrible denouement" in which Richard, showing a tragic lack of judgement (as he had so often done), lost his throne to his cousin Henry Bolingbroke. Saul's final view of Richard as psychologically disturbed, but understandably so, is well supported by evidence and is very plausible. The book has no major weaknesses and few minor ones, and will provide a thorough understanding not only of Richard II, but of power and its limitations in late medieval England.

Richard II has been a controversial figure from his depositionfrom the English throne in 1399 to our own day. Like his laterfifteenth-century namesake Richard III, interpretations of him and ofhis motives have varied widely, and were dominated for much of the twentieth century both by Shakespeare's play and by the image of the mad autocrat first painted by Anthony Steel in his "Richard II" (1941). Now Professor Nigel Saul has given us what will deservedly be the standard life for at least the next half-century. This work, first published three years ago, forms part of an outstanding series of lives of the English kings, and is every bit the equal of the best of them, from Warren's "Henry II" (1973) to Barlow's "William Rufus" (1983). Saul presents Richard as a man thrust, at the tender age of ten, into an office and a domestic and international situation which he could not fully grasp, and forced to do the impossible: fill the gargantuan shoes of both his grandfather, Edward III, and his father, the outstanding warrior Edward the Black Prince. The uncertainty of Anglo-French relations during this stage of the Hundred Years War, and the expectations of Richard's magnates and subjects - that he would be a military leader and vigorous defender of the English position in France like his predecessors - bedeviled the king during his minority and placed constraints upon his behavior which he found unbearable. Saul examines the entire context of Richard's reign and the forces at work in his world, from Richard's peace overtures to the French (which were opposed by his magnates as insulting to English "national" honor) to his support of unpopular court favorites, and even to the king's religious attitudes (traditional in a time of growing discontent with the Papacy and the Catholic Church). He thus gives us a complete structure to support the fascinating final chapters of the book. It is here, just as in any finely crafted piece of literature, that we see all the strands of Richard's life and character woven together with what, for him, was a terrible finality: his revenge against those, including members of his own family, who had insulted and demeaned him in his youth, his growing paranoia, and his assault on the property rights of his magnates, rights which were a cornerstone of the late medieval English state. The result, as Saul rightly puts it, was a "terrible denouement" in which Richard, showing a tragic lack of judgement (as he had so often done), lost his throne to his cousin Henry Bolingbroke. Saul's final view of Richard as psychologically disturbed, but understandably so, is well supported by evidence and is very plausible. The book has no major weaknesses and few minor ones, and will provide a thorough understanding not only of Richard II, but of power and its limitations in late medieval England.

I found Nigel Saul's biography on King Richard II to be pretty complete and interesting. It pretty obvious that the author have a pretty good knowledge of his subject and the period he lived in. The book appears to be well researched and while the writing seem bit awkward at times, I enjoyed reading it and for most part, it flowed pretty nicely. The book covers most of the aspects of Richard's reign although I am bit disappointed that it doesn't covered the subject between Richard and his wife, Anne of Bohemia. It supposed to be one of the great love stories of the English crown but it don't get a lot of pages.

The book appears to be written for people with good background on English history. It definitely wasn't written for the popular masses and I agreed with some of the previous reviewers that the author take too much upon himself to believed that everyone knows much as he does on the period at hand. At times the book appears to be overly complicated.

But for those who do have a high level of interest in this period of history, this book proves to be filled with information and facts that the author laid out with considerable skill and insight. He looked at Richard with a fresh perecption and logically followed his strengths and flaws. Comparison made between Richard II and Edward II proves to be interesting.

For correctional purpose, I offered to point out that in 1961, Harold Hutchinson wrote a biography on Richard II titled "Hollow Crown". I thought that was a pretty interesting book as well and well written for novice reader. For some reason, this book completely escaped the author's radar.

However for modern biography, this one on Richard II come highly recommended only if you are well versed in English medieval history.

Richard II came to the throne in 1377 soon after his 10th birthday. Four years later he faced a major revolt of his people and he acted (and reacted) for the ten years from 1377-87 pretty much like the adolescent he was. It got so bad that he was stripped of his power and had to face the humiliation of watching the Appellants rule the country. Not many 20-year-olds would forget that or take it well. When he regained power in 1389, he seemed to have learned his lessons. But his strange behavior from 1397-99 makes it appear as if he was biding his time. His revenge on those who he felt betrayed him ten years earlier was brutal and he made paranoia a policy. What happened? Saul makes a good case for "narcissism" - Richard could never separate his own ego needs from the role he held and gradually went overboard in his inability to grasp reality outside himself. Some historians say he simply went insane. Or maybe he was totally rational and just waiting for the right time. I like Saul's conclusion. A reader does get the impression that Richard never got past his personal vanity and wrapped it all in a religious fervor that supported his actions. For Richard revenge was a dish served when it was very cold and it was served with a cruelty that alienated the nobility and the people. He ends up being deposed, apparently completely unaware of his effect on his people.

Nigel Saul's book is an excellent read in those sections that narrate the historical flow of events. He never wavers from the evidence and manages at the same time to make Richard a living if enigmatic person. The one really irritating flaw about the book to me was its repetitiveness. Most books in the Yale English Monarchs series have chapters that get into depth on areas like a king's relationship with the church or with the nobility. But the best ones in the series do this in a way that gives new insight into the king. Sometimes Saul does this. For example, he does a nice job talking about Richard's piety and religious fervor in the chapter on that issue. But if only he did not make the same points so often! Many times he repeats something at length that was already covered. A good example of this is the last chapter on "Richard: King and Man." His discussion of Richard's relations with his "Chesiremen," his impetuousness, his need to project a vain self-image, several other points - all were covered earlier. If the last chapter were simply a concluding summary of these issues, that would be one thing. But these topics are covered stylistically as if they were new items to talk about and it is very tiresome. This occurs at places in other chapters also. However, those same chapters, including the last one, then move on to be insightful with new material and sound writing. I found Saul's tie-ins between the actual history and Shakespeare's version well done and his conclusion of narcissism seems to match Richard's actions very well.

So the book is mixed but overall I think it is a fine biography of this perpetually adolescent king. Be prepared for some repetitiveness which may put you to sleep at times but you can also expect the bulk of the book to be a well-written narrative of Richard that both sticks to the historical details and brings the reader to a living sense of this unusual man/child.

A very in depth biography on the tragic life of Richard II the grandson of one of the great kings of England, Edward III. I'd always wanted to know a little bit about the son of Edward, the Black Prince, and about his demise, and Saul certainly delivered. The information in this book is amazing, detailed, but very heavy. If you are interested in learning about Richard the man, this book will deliver. But just be warned that it comes with weightier information on political factions, nobility ego's, and many other minutely detailed information not just about the king but life in general of the higher ups of society in late 14th century England.

For a general overview of Richard II, this is not the book for you. Much more information then you will require. But if you are keen on a full education of his life and the political and general life of medieval England then this book is for you.

As I picked up Nigel Saul's mammoth "Richard II" (1999, 514-page paperback) I remembered that some have blamed the rule of this troubled monarch for planting the seeds for the War of the Roses (a hundred years later). I thought it exciting to again step into the 14th century's chivalrous pageantry, political mayhem, and late medieval preparation for the age of discovery.

Saul's is a fascinating story of the birth of English appeasement politics. Although the "a word" ("appeasement") is only sparingly used here, this history surprisingly demonstrates Richard II to be the first great appeaser in English kings history. It is shocking how quickly king Richard, when he's allowed to control the government, gives away the farm.

According to Saul, the king is too generous with friends (Burley, de Vere, de la Pole, etc.) and foes (handing over huge tracts of English continental land to France for uncle John of Gaunt to become duke of Aquitaine). Through "Richard II" one sees why Parliament's commons, dukes Gloucester and Arundel, and Londoners were so often frustrated, to the point of royal disposement. (Richard II lost royal governance to them twice!)

This interesting book is too long (thus earning fewer stars). The helpful eight pages of black and white photographs, the 29 pages of appendix and bibliography, and the 18 pages of exhaustive index are to be expected from a Yale University history series. The downside of this book is Saul's reader expectation. He assumes vast reader knowledge. His historical explanation is only a canopy over Richard II information. Also his grammar is not always clear (i.e., see page 116 for a list of royal uncles that seems to include royal friend Michael de la Pole, a syntactic mistake).

This book is a good overview and therefore should be brief (perhaps the author's droning is a cover for story vacancies). It is recommended to everyone familiar with Richard II that has plenty of time for only his highlights.

The book is not a general introduction to the period. Like one reviewer said, it does assume some general background in the subject (for example, I wouldn't read a biography on Lincoln and expect a detailed background discussion on the mechanics and development of American government outside its relation to him). However, I didn't find that to be an issue--the issues with respect to taxation and the use of various seals is inherent to the period, and not to Richard in particualr. Where an innovation in one occurs during the reign, it is throughly explained.

Saul stikes an excellent balance in some speculation while balancing it with what can be supported. He readily admits to the limitations of his conjectures and where he is critical of a source for general unrealiablity, he only uses it with caveats when using it for support in other places.

Although highly academic, the character and personality of Richard also comes through. Where direct quotations from Richard have been recorded, Saul makes use of those to flesh out the man behind the words. This is espically challenging as Richard did not have the gregarious personality that would make this an easy accomplishment. Instead, it requires teasing out data from diverse records and then presenting them with this goal in mind.

All in all, an excellent piece of work.

Richard II is a very thorough study of this English king, but it really isn't for everyone. I've taken degrees in history, and I found myself hard put to it to get through some of the chapters. If you've an absolute passion for English history, particularly the history of its constitutional evolution, you may enjoy this book, but you'd better be determined to get through it. If you just want to know a little about this king, I suggest you read Professor Saul's other book, Three Richards: Richard I, Richard II and Richard III which includes much of the same information with a lot less repetition. Because the author compares and contrasts the reigns of the three kings, he keeps himself more focused and more concise, which seems to lend readability to the work.

Like England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225 (New Oxford History of England), by Dr. Bartlett, I found myself bogged down sometimes in the minutia of the period to such an extent that I found it sometimes difficult to concentrate. There was, furthermore, a degree of repetition among the chapters. The reader receives some information on a facet of the reign in one chapter--perhaps on an historic episode--regarding one aspect of the reign--perhaps the kings retainers--than finds it repeated with perhaps a few additional details in another chapter--like "Marriage and Diplomacy." I found this confusing and sometimes annoying. The volume seems like two books with different purposes interwoven together; one is a history relating events in order of occurance and with the characters, places, and outcomes presented, while the other fits the events into the framework of a discourse on English society and politics. If I were going to read it again, I'd probably read the historic portions together, and then read the more obviously social chapters together; it would certainly be a little less confusing.

This said, however, if I were WRITING A TERM PAPER on Richard II this is one work on the reign that I might use to get started. The book contains a lot of information in footnotes, including details about events, characters, and sources that might help the student pick a topic on which to write. It certainly provides further resources with which to follow up the author's data. The end notes in the appendix on the kings itinerary is very interesting and might well provide a suggestion to the student in dissecting information from the mobility and destinations of the court during the years of Richard's reign. Professor Saul's bibliography is impressive and might also provide some leads for further study. Most of the books cited and many of the journals are dated to the 1980's and 1990's (the copyright of the book is 1997), though a few date to the 19th Century and would have to be used with care. Some of the primary sources, where collections complied in the 20th century are cited, are in English, though many are in Latin and French and would require a reading knowledge, accordingly, to make use of them. I would caution, however, that some may be difficult to find, even in a large university library, unless the period is being researched by someone on the faculty. Some originals will only be available in library and museum collections in England. Depending upon the type and scope of paper required, the secondary sources may be sufficient. If the paper is undergraduate, a comparison of this author's perspective to another on the topic of Richard II or some aspect of his reign maybe be more than adequate. Richard's character and reign have been interpreted in very different lights, especially by different generations of scholars whose own cultural filters have created different "Richards" accordingly; this might be a very interesting topic for a paper, as would a discussion of how much we can actually know about a historic figure and how much our "spin" on such individuals is dictated by our own psyches. Certainly a look at Shakespeare's take on the king King Richard II (Arden Shakespeare: Third Series), which became for many the sine que non of the king, might also provide the student with ideas.