The New Murrey and Blue blog

This interesting paper by Carole Cusak is well worth reading. Particularly worthy of note is the fact mentioned in it that no contemporary source suggests that there was anything wrong with Richard II‘s state of mind.

It was, in fact, Bishop Stubbs in lectures at late as 1866, who first suggested that Richard was insane. That is 466 years after the King’s death!

Since then, of course, many historians have seen fit to act the part of amateur psychiatrists and attempted to diagnose Richard’s assumed mental illness. This would be a challenge even for a real, qualified psychiatrist, by the way. Nigel Saul, for example, in what is probably the best biography of Richard so far written – and certainly the nearest to being complete – posits that he was narcissistic. The truth is that all these theories are built upon foundations of sand and have no true 14th Century basis.

So much of what we call ‘history’ is in fact speculation. In some cases, well-informed speculation, founded on the historical analysis of highly qualified people. Yet still speculation at the end of the day. Not fact. We should, I think, be conscious of this in our attempts to understand past times.