OCR Specification focus:
‘Henry Bolingbroke’s claim to the throne; the problem of Richard’
Richard II’s deposition in 1399 and Henry Bolingbroke’s accession sparked fierce debates over kingship, legitimacy, and succession that shaped the political tensions of the fifteenth century.
Background to the Accession
In September 1399, Richard II was deposed and replaced by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, the son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. This moment was a watershed in medieval English history because it questioned the traditional notion of hereditary right and introduced new debates about the legitimacy of rulership.
The Fall of Richard II
Richard II had alienated much of the nobility through:
His authoritarian policies and emphasis on personal rule.
The tyrannical purge of 1397–1399, where opponents such as the Duke of Gloucester were arrested or eliminated.
Heavy reliance on a small circle of favourites, leading to resentment among wider political elites.
By 1399, Richard left for Ireland to suppress rebellion, enabling Henry Bolingbroke to return from exile and gain significant support among the nobility.
Henry Bolingbroke’s Claim
Henry Bolingbroke faced the fundamental issue of justifying his seizure of the throne. His hereditary right was questionable in comparison to other potential heirs.
Dynastic Position
Henry was the son of John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III.
The line of descent from Edward III’s second son, Lionel of Antwerp, through the Mortimer family, arguably had a stronger hereditary claim.
A clean genealogical chart of Edward III’s descendants. The diagram contrasts the Lancastrian line of John of Gaunt (leading to Henry IV) with Lionel of Antwerp’s Mortimer line, which had a stronger hereditary claim. The chart extends into later fifteenth-century claimants, but students need only focus on the branches immediately below Edward III. Source
Richard II had designated Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, as his heir presumptive.
Hereditary Right: The principle that the crown should pass according to bloodline, usually prioritising primogeniture (inheritance by the eldest son or his descendants).
Henry could not simply rely on hereditary right. Instead, he constructed a multi-faceted justification.
Strategies of Legitimation
Henry claimed the throne through:
Right of conquest: emphasising that Richard had been deposed by force and that God had favoured Henry’s cause.
Consent of Parliament: the assembly in 1399 formally recognised Henry’s title, suggesting the monarch derived authority from the realm as well as divine right.
Divine sanction: Henry emphasised providence and God’s will in his success.
Personal capacity: his military skill, wealth, and noble lineage made him a suitable ruler.
This combination created a more flexible definition of kingship, moving beyond strict hereditary right.
The Problem of Richard
Although deposed, Richard II remained a living former king, presenting a continuous threat to Henry IV’s legitimacy.
Richard’s Imprisonment
Richard was confined in Pontefract Castle after abdication.
The ruins of Pontefract Castle in West Yorkshire, where Richard II was imprisoned and likely died. The site represents the precariousness of Henry IV’s rule while Richard remained alive, embodying the political danger of a deposed king. Source
His presence inspired plots and rebellions, including the Epiphany Rising (January 1400), a failed conspiracy by nobles loyal to Richard.
Richard’s death in February 1400, possibly by starvation or murder, removed the immediate threat but created long-term questions of legitimacy.
Usurpation: The act of seizing the throne unlawfully or by force, without following the accepted hereditary succession.
Henry’s rule was coloured by the stigma of usurpation. His deposition of an anointed monarch challenged the sacred concept of the king’s inviolability.
The Role of Parliament in 1399
Parliament was central in giving Henry’s claim legal and moral weight:
Richard II was forced to abdicate formally in Parliament.
The Lords and Commons declared Henry king by common consent, a significant precedent.
Engraved depiction of Henry IV’s coronation at Westminster, emphasising the ritual importance of anointing and public recognition. The image illustrates how ceremonies and Parliament’s consent reinforced Henry’s claim to kingship despite the weakness of his hereditary right. Source
This highlighted an emerging constitutional principle: that kingship required recognition by the political community, not just inheritance.
Parliamentary Justifications
Parliament emphasised Richard’s misrule as a reason for deposition:
Mismanagement of finances.
Abuse of power and tyranny.
Failure to uphold the rights of his subjects.
This broadened the definition of kingship into one of responsibility and accountability, not just hereditary succession.
Challenges to Henry IV’s Legitimacy
Henry’s insecure claim bred unrest and repeated challenges during his reign.
Dynastic Rivals
The Mortimers remained a persistent threat due to their claim via Lionel of Antwerp.
Supporters of Richard or his memory continued to destabilise the political scene.
Rebellion and Resistance
Richard’s deposition inspired a cycle of plots and uprisings, including the Welsh rebellion of Owain Glyndŵr and the Percy uprisings.
These challenges were often framed in terms of loyalty to the rightful king or his legitimate heirs.
The Role of Propaganda
Henry worked to strengthen his legitimacy through:
Religious imagery emphasising divine approval.
Coronation rituals to highlight continuity with past kings.
Patronage and land redistribution to reward supporters.
Legitimacy: The recognised right to rule, justified through hereditary descent, legal processes, divine sanction, or acceptance by subjects.
Broader Consequences
Henry IV’s accession set a precedent that kingship could be taken by force and parliamentary approval, not only through hereditary right. This principle had profound long-term consequences:
It weakened the stability of the monarchy.
It encouraged rival claimants to use rebellion as a political tool.
It laid the groundwork for the Wars of the Roses, where competing dynastic lines would fight for the throne, often justifying claims through conquest or parliamentary recognition.
FAQ
Henry benefitted from widespread resentment towards Richard II’s rule. Many nobles had suffered from Richard’s purges, land seizures, and arbitrary justice.
Henry also promised to restore confiscated estates and protect noble rights, making his cause attractive to discontented magnates. His personal reputation as a capable soldier and fair leader contrasted with Richard’s unpopular style, further encouraging support.
The coronation on 13 October 1399 was carefully staged to stress continuity and divine approval.
He underwent the traditional anointing with holy oil, symbolising God’s sanction.
The ceremony highlighted his descent from Edward III through John of Gaunt.
By emphasising ritual and spectacle, Henry sought to reassure subjects that his kingship was lawful, despite questions over hereditary right.
While the Lords provided authority through noble consent, the commons were crucial in symbolising broad political support.
Their agreement to Henry’s claim marked a growing recognition that parliamentary approval was necessary to legitimise monarchy. This implied that subjects had a role in accepting or rejecting rulers, strengthening the constitutional precedent set in 1399.
Chroniclers were divided.
Some, such as Thomas Walsingham, condemned Richard’s misrule and justified Henry’s takeover as necessary for stability.
Others expressed unease at the overthrow of an anointed king, fearing it set a dangerous precedent.
These differing accounts reveal contemporary uncertainty about the balance between hereditary right and effective governance.
Although Richard’s death ended the immediate risk of him being restored, suspicions about the manner of his death undermined Henry.
Rumours circulated that Richard had been murdered or starved under Henry’s orders, reinforcing the perception that Henry’s rule was built on usurpation. Furthermore, Richard’s memory continued to inspire loyalty, with some rebels claiming he was still alive, prolonging instability in the early years of Henry’s reign.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks):
Name two justifications Henry IV used to support his claim to the throne in 1399.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each correct justification, up to 2 marks.
Acceptable answers include:
Right of conquest
Consent of Parliament
Divine sanction / God’s will
Personal capacity and suitability (e.g., military skill, noble lineage)
Question 2 (6 marks):
Explain why Richard II remained a problem for Henry IV’s legitimacy between 1399 and 1400.
Mark Scheme:
Award 1–2 marks for simple statements without development (e.g., “Richard was still alive and could inspire rebellion”).
Award 3–4 marks for developed explanation showing understanding of threat (e.g., “Richard’s imprisonment at Pontefract Castle meant he could still be used as a figurehead by nobles, such as in the Epiphany Rising of 1400”).
Award 5–6 marks for fully developed explanation with detail and analysis (e.g., “Richard’s survival undermined Henry’s claim because he was an anointed king whose deposition was controversial. His continued existence allowed loyalists to conspire, as seen in the Epiphany Rising. His eventual death in 1400 removed the immediate problem, but suspicions over how he died deepened questions of Henry’s legitimacy”).
.jpg){kind=link}
