The New Murrey and Blue blog

Henry Bolingbroke, of course, was not a tyrant. Not at all. It’s just that before he became king, he executed an earl and four knights, no doubt by mistake. He was neither king, high constable nor marshal, and anyway was a banished man. So he had no lawful authority whatever. But he was merely carrying on the honourable tradition of the Appellants. By the way, I have yet to see a learned article condemning these murders. Maybe one of those five chaps should have had the foresight to write pretty poetry like Anthony Rivers. Someone would then have made martyrs of them.

Sorry, what am I thinking about? They were murdered by a Lancastrian, so it’s OK.

After he became king, the deaths mounted rapidly. Of course, it must be admitted that this was partly due to the fact that many people were not willing to just sit supinely under the rule of a man they regarded as a usurper, and after 1400, a regicide. Very inconsiderate of them, I’m sure.

There can be little doubt that Henry ordered the plain murder of his cousin, Richard II. But of course, this was wholly justified and cannot in any way be bracketed with Richard’s disposal of that very reasonable and non-aggressive chap, Gloucester, which was tyranny. Because Henry was not a tyrant.

Non-tyrant Henry decimated the peerage. Perhaps his most notorious act was to behead Archbishop Scrope and the Earl Marshal after a summary trial in 1405. They were not taken in arms. Indeed they had dispersed their forces, such as they were, and agreed to talk. But as Henry was a Lancastrian no one writes reams and reams about how tyrannical and evil it was. Scrope was the first English prelate ever to be executed. (Becket was murdered.) The tyrant Richard II was far worse, because he banished Archbishop Arundel, and the poor man had to live in Rome, and later France. Death is much preferable to such a fate.

Let’s pass lightly over some of the stuff Henry did in Wales. Sure he hanged, drew and quartered a few Welsh chaps and sacked the odd monastery, but it was a vicious war, and selling Welsh children into slavery (source, Adam of Usk) was no doubt meant kindly, because Henry was not a tyrant in any way whatever.

The real reason Henry IV is given a pass, however, is that he was the father of Henry V, the idol of historians, and one of the most splendid killers of foreigners ever. Because, you see, Henry V was a Great King. Shoving Richard II in an oubliette to starve to death was neither here nor there if it bought us Henry V. Who wants an early Renaissance if, instead, you can have a bloodbath in France? Just think of all those splendid battles you can describe! What fun, especially as you stand no chance of dying of dysentery in a ditch or of being raped by rampaging soldiers.

Henry V decided that he was God’s choice to be King of France. How he worked this out, only God knows, given that he was not even the rightful King of England.(1)

Ah, but you say, he won the glorious Battle of Agincourt. He conquered a large chunk of northern France. Above all he made those French devils submit to the Treaty of Troyes. He was a Great King!

All of which is true, but what is also true is that he opened the unwinnable war again, which England had neither the money nor the men to bring to a successful conclusion. Parliament had started to cut up awkward over the cost even in his lifetime. We should also consider the enormous price in blood, English and French. All because Henry V fancied himself as a mighty warrior. But you see, he was a Great King, not a tyrant. And if he bumped off a few pesky Lollards and many thousands of French people along the way, who cares? None of them were angelic little princes clad in velvet, so they don’t much matter.

The price of his ‘glory’ was the chaos of the 15th century, primarily caused by the overburdening cost of the war and England’s ultimate defeat. Yes, defeat. It isn’t much taught in schools but read about the Battle of Castillon. This led in turn to the bankruptcy of England and the fall of Henry’s dynasty. Poor Henry VI never stood a chance, and would not have done had he been twice the man he was. But if his father had not done all the Great King stuff, he might have managed to die in his bed.

(1) Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March was if you’re in any doubt. See the Westminster Chronicle for details. And England’s claim to France was well dodgy anyway.