Editing Richard II of England (section)

== Character and assessment ==
Contemporary writers, even those less sympathetic to the King, agreed that Richard was a "most beautiful king", though with an unmanly "face which was white, rounded and feminine."<ref>Saul (2005), p.&nbsp;237.</ref> He was athletic and tall; when his tomb was opened in 1871, he was found to be six feet (1.82 m) tall.<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;451–452, quoting [[John Gower]] and ''Historia vitae et regni Ricardi II''.</ref> He was also intelligent and well read, and when agitated he had a tendency to stammer.<ref>Harriss (2005), p.&nbsp;489.</ref> While the Westminster Abbey portrait probably shows a good similarity of the King, the Wilton Diptych portrays him as significantly younger than he was at the time; it must be assumed that he had a beard by this point.<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;450–451.</ref> Religiously, he was orthodox, and particularly towards the end of his reign he became a strong opponent of the Lollard heresy.<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;297–303.</ref> He was particularly devoted to the cult of Edward the Confessor, and around 1395 he had his own [[coat of arms]] [[impalement (heraldry)|impaled]] with the [[attributed arms|mythical arms]] of the Confessor.<ref name="Tuck"/> Though not a warrior king like his grandfather, Richard nevertheless enjoyed [[tournament (medieval)|tournaments]], as well as hunting.<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;452–453.</ref>

[[File:King Richard II from NPG (2).jpg|thumb|Anonymous artist's impression of Richard II in the 16th century. [[National Portrait Gallery, London]].]]

The popular view of Richard has more than anything been influenced by [[Shakespeare]]'s play about the King, ''[[Richard II (play)|Richard II]]''. Shakespeare's Richard was a cruel, vindictive, and irresponsible king, who attained a semblance of greatness only after his fall from power.<ref>Saul (1997), p.&nbsp;1.</ref> Writing a work of fiction, Shakespeare took many liberties and made great omissions, basing his play on works by writers such as [[Edward Hall]] and [[Samuel Daniel]], who in turn based their writings on contemporary chroniclers such as Thomas Walsingham.<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;3–4.</ref> Hall and Daniel were part of Tudor historiography, which was highly unsympathetic to Richard.<ref>Saul (2005), pp.&nbsp;11–12.</ref> The Tudor orthodoxy, reinforced by Shakespeare, saw a continuity in civil discord starting with Richard's misrule that did not end until [[Henry VII of England|Henry VII]]'s accession in 1485.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Aston |first=Margaret |title=Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion |date=1984 |publisher=[[Continuum International Publishing Group]] |isbn=0-9076-2818-4 |pages=273–312 |chapter=Richard II and the Wars of the Roses}}</ref> The idea that Richard was to blame for the later-15th century [[Wars of the Roses]] was prevalent as late as the 19th century, but came to be challenged in the 20th.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Pollard |first=A.J. |title=The Wars of the Roses |date=1988 |publisher=[[Macmillan Education]] |isbn=0-3334-0603-6 |location=Basingstoke |page=12 |author-link=A. J. Pollard}}</ref> Some recent historians prefer to look at the Wars of the Roses in isolation from the reign of Richard II.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Carpenter |first=Christine |title=The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, c. 1437–1509 |date=1997 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=0-5213-1874-2 |location=Cambridge |page=20}}</ref>

Richard's mental state has been a major issue of historical debate since the first academic historians started treating the subject in the 19th century. One of the first modern historians to deal with Richard II as a king and as a person was [[Bishop Stubbs]]. Stubbs argued that towards the end of his reign, Richard's mind "was losing its balance altogether."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Stubbs |first=William |title=The Constitutional History of England |date=1875 |publisher=[[Clarendon Press]] |volume=II |location=Oxford |page=490 |author-link=William Stubbs}}</ref> Historian [[Anthony Steel (historian)|Anthony Steel]], who wrote a full-scale biography of the King in 1941, took a psychiatric approach to the issue, and concluded that Richard had [[schizophrenia]].<ref>Steel (1941), p.&nbsp;8.</ref> This was challenged by [[V. H. Galbraith]], who argued that there was no historical basis for such a diagnosis,<ref name="Galbraith">{{Cite journal |last=Galbraith |first=V.H. |author-link=Vivian Hunter Galbraith |date=1942 |title=A new life of Richard II |journal=[[History (journal)|History]] |volume=xxvi |issue=104 |pages=223–239 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-229X.1942.tb00807.x}}</ref> a line that has also been followed by later historians of the period, such as [[Anthony Goodman (historian)|Anthony Goodman]] and [[Anthony Tuck]].<ref name="Tuck"/> [[Nigel Saul]], who wrote an academic biography of Richard II in 1997 concedes that{{Spaced ndash}}even though there is no basis for assuming the King had a mental illness{{Spaced ndash}}he showed clear signs of a [[narcissistic personality]], and towards the end of his reign "Richard's grasp on reality was becoming weaker."<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;460–464.</ref>

One of the primary historiographical questions surrounding Richard concerns his political agenda and the reasons for its failure. His kingship was thought to contain elements of the early modern absolute monarchy as exemplified by the [[Tudor dynasty]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Walker |first=Simon |title=Rulers and Ruled in Late Medieval England |date=1995 |publisher=[[Hambledon Press]] |isbn=1-8528-5133-3 |editor-last=Rowena E. Archer |location=London |page=49 |chapter=Richard IIs Views on Kingship |editor-last2=Harriss |editor-first2=G. L. |editor-last3=Walker |editor-first3=Simon}}</ref> More recently, Richard's concept of kingship has been seen by some as not so different from that of his antecedents, and that it was exactly by staying within the framework of traditional monarchy that he was able to achieve as much as he did.<ref name="Tuck"/><ref name="W63">Walker (1995), p.&nbsp;63.</ref> Yet his actions were too extreme and too abrupt. For one, the absence of war was meant to reduce the burden of taxation, and so help Richard's popularity with the Commons in parliament. However, this promise was never fulfilled, as the cost of the royal retinue, the opulence of court and Richard's lavish patronage of his favourites proved as expensive as war had been, without offering commensurate benefits.<ref name="S439"/> As for his policy of military retaining, this was later emulated by [[Edward IV]] and Henry VII, but Richard II's exclusive reliance on the county of Cheshire hurt his support from the rest of the country.<ref>Saul (1997), pp.&nbsp;440, 444–445.</ref> [[Simon Walker (historian)|Simon Walker]] writes: "What he sought was, in contemporary terms, neither unjustified nor unattainable; it was the manner of his seeking that betrayed him."<ref name="W63"/>