The New Murrey and Blue blog

Oh, I do get tired of all this Richard II bashing. Here’s the latest to spoil my morning tea: https://tinyurl.com/spr5me98.

It’s as stupid as all the Richard III bashing. Yes, the Wilton Diptych (see above) is a picture of Richard II as a child, and yes, it seems to have been commissioned when he was most certainly an adult, but I don’t think it was painted like that because he saw himself as childlike or any other silly reason. I think the diptych is SUPPOSED to depict him as a 10-year-old child, at the time of his coronation.

If anyone can shoot this opinion down in flames, feel free. But Richard II wasn’t daft, nor was he most of the other things of which he’s always accused.

And don’t even START me on that murderous, usurping, Lancastrian toad Bolingbroke! 😠

However, I’ve received two other opinions that don’t shoot me down in flames, but offer excellent alternative reasoning. They’re definitely worth adding here. In alphabetical order, not preference! ☺️

My friend Janet Reedman suggests: “….Could the painting not also signify that he was ‘small’ in the face of the saints, Mary, and Christ? People with their weird and vaguely obnoxious theories are so tiresome….”

Another friend, Brian Wainwright, offers the following: “….Richard believed that he ruled as God’s representative on earth; he was the anointed of the Lord. The Wilton Dyptych shows him on his knees, being presented by his patron saints to the Christ Child, who is held by the BVM. An aspect of this was that in the Middle Ages, England was called the BVM’s dowry, such was the devotion to Her. So this may also be seen as Richard paying homage to the BVM. Far from showing his pride, this painting shows that he regarded himself as a vassal of Heaven. That also implies that Heaven would protect him….”

Thank you Janet and Brian. Food for thought!

by viscountessw