Richard II: A True King's Fall

by Kathryn Warner

Richard II is a figure famous in England's national myths - the king who went insane, the narcissist, the tyrant of Shakespeare's play. History regards his rule either as that of a superhuman monarch or a crazed and vicious ruler. But Richard II was a complex and conflicted man - a person with faults and shortcomings thrust into a role that demanded greatness. In this book, Kathryn Warner returns with the first modern biography of Richard II in decades, to paint a portrait of the king with all of his strengths and imperfections left in the picture. An aesthete and patron of the arts as well as a person troubled by a much-maligned 'personality disorder', Richard II here emerges from behind the mask of a theatrical character.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, British Literature, Medieval, Politics, Plantagenet

368 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2018

About the author

I grew up in the north of England, and hold two degrees in medieval history and literature from the University of Manchester. I have run a blog about King Edward II (reigned 1307 to 1327) since 2005, have had work published about him in the prestigious academic journal the English Historical Review (founded 1886) and in the academic essay collection Fourteenth-Century England, and have appeared talking about him in the BBC documentary Quest for Bannockburn. I also appeared in a documentary about Edward II shown on the German-French TV channel Arte in late 2019, and have given a paper about him at the International Medieval Congress at the University of Leeds.

My first book, titled Edward II: The Unconventional King, was released in October 2014, and my biography of Edward II's queen Isabella of France (c. 1295-1358) was published in March 2016. My third book is an account of Edward's murder in 1327 or survival past that year, which came out in June 2017, and my fourth is a bio of Edward II's great-grandson Richard II, published October 2017. My fifth book, Blood Roses, came out in October 2018, and is an account of the royal houses of Lancaster and York from 1245 to 1399. My sixth was also published in October 2018 and is a biography of Edward II's malevolent favourite Hugh Despenser the Younger. My next two books came out in 2019: a travel guide to places in the UK associated with Edward II, called Following in the Footsteps of Edward II, and a biography of Edward III's queen Philippa of Hainault. A joint bio of Edward II's nieces Eleanor, Margaret and Elizabeth de Clare came out in February 2020, and a work of social history called Living in Medieval England: The Turbulent Year of 1326 was also published that year, A book about the Despenser family from 1261 to 1439 will come next, and a bio of Edward III's son/Henry IV's father John of Gaunt, second duke of Lancaster, is due out in 2021.

Projects I'm working on are: a joint bio of Edward II's five sisters; a joint bio of Edward III's granddaughters; a social history of London between 1300 and 1350; and a book about the medieval Beaumont family. And I'm sure there'll be plenty more after that!

Reviews

[Jeffrey Keeten · Rating 4 out of 5]

”’My God, what a wonderful land this is, and fickle, which has exiled, slain, destroyed and ruined so many kings, so many rulers, so many great men, and which never ceases to be riven and worn by dissensions and discords and envy.’ --Richard of Bordeaux on 21 September 1399 while imprisoned in the Tower of London after his downfall.”

Richard of Bordeaux was the oldest surviving son of Edward, The Black Prince of Woodstock, who was the oldest son of Edward III and heir to the throne until his untimely death in 1376. When Edward III passed away in 1377, Richard was crowned king at the tender age of 10.

The problem, of course, is that the Black Prince had been preparing to be king his entire life. He was a proven, successful battlefield commander, and the passing of power from his father to himself would have been seamless, but unfortunately, he came down with a wasting disease that shortened his life considerably. He compounded the issue of succession by marrying late, at the age of 31, thus leaving a young child instead of a young man as heir apparent. To make matters even worse, Edward married the lovely, obviously she must be nearly irresistible, Joan of Kent, who was previously married to one man secretly and to another officially, thus making her a bigamist in the eyes of the church. Not to mention that one of her previous husbands refused to die, but lived on and on, being a visual reminder of her past long after she was married to Edward. It was seriously like something out of a Telemundo soap opera.

His mother’s checkered past would haunt Richard for the length of his reign.

I believe that Richard II should have never been king. I find it ridiculous to adhere to some primogentry edict and put a child on the throne when Edward III supplied several other sons, who were grown men and also very capable of taking up the reins of power. If Edward III had named his third son, John of Gaunt, as king, the devastating war fought over succession, referred to as The War of the Roses, might have been avoided. There is precedent in English history. When Richard II’s namesake, Richard I, the Lionheart, died without issue, his nephew Authur of Brittany, son of his younger brother Geoffrey, was passed over for Richard’s youngest brother, John. John did settle the question permanently; many believe that he personally strangled Authur to make sure there were no future claims to take his throne.

Richard was the grandson of a king. John of Gaunt was a son of a king, which in my mind certainly makes him the more valid candidate for the throne. There was another son named Lionel, who was between Edward and John, who died before his father. His grandson Roger Mortimer, son of Lionel’s daughter Philippa, also had a claim to the throne. Again, he is a grandson of a king, but being descended from a female was considered in the Middle Ages to be not as strong of a claim. To strengthen John of Gaunt’s claim, he also had a very capable son, Henry of Lancaster, who had four sons of his own, ensuring a long line of male successors to provide stability in leadership for England.

Making matters worse, Richard II turned out to be infertile. He had two queens and produced no offspring. With no direct heir to the throne, this allowed a lot of speculation and hope to rise among his cousins as to who would be the next king. If Richard had produced a son, he might have kept his throne.

In my opinion, a lot of problems would have been avoided by putting John of Gaunt on the throne of England. Of course, I have the benefit of hindsight, but rarely does it work out well when children are crowned. Henry VI, grandson of Henry of Lancaster later Henry IV, who was crowned at nine months old, is one very wonderful example of how bad it can get.

Richard didn’t help himself. As he grew up, he was volatile and lashed out at people, showing more weakness than strength in the process. He was too friendly with Robert de Vere, whom he elevated well above his station, creating resentment among the nobles. Richard tried to have his grandfather, Edward II, canonized as a saint by the church, which just called attention to the parallels people were already seeing between the two kings. Edward II, another king who loved men too much, was deposed by his wife, Isabella, the she-wolf of France, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. If the name Mortimer sounds familiar, it is because you read that name earlier in this review. His grandson married Edward III’s granddaughter. Given that Edward III hanged Mortimer to regain his throne, he was certainly very forgiving, allowing a Mortimer to marry his granddaughter.

Seriously, soap operas have nothing on the Plantagenets.

I do think that Richard did love his wife, Anne of Bohemia. He was plainly distraught over her death, having a palace razed to the ground rather than spend another moment within its walls without her. He definitely became more erratic after her death, leading many to believe that she had had a calming influence on him. If Richard was in love with Robert de Vere, it clearly did not become a wedge between him and his queen. In my opinion, I’d say it is more likely that Richard was bisexual, just unfortunately incapabable of producing an heir.

Richard was not well liked, and assuredly, when he banished Henry of Lancaster from England for life and confiscated the lands Henry inherited from his father John of Gaunt, he took things a step too far. Instinctively, he might have been trying to protect the future of his kingship by bouncing his main rival out of England. This radical decision made the other nobles nervous. Power grabs and dirty deals were a part of normal politics, but to strip all the possessions from the most powerful man in England, well, who would be next? Richard really left Henry with no choice. He had to take back his lands, and the only way he could do that was to take the crown as well.

So the detour of the crown to Richard finally lands on the head of the man whose father should have had the crown after the death of Edward III. ‘Tis a mess to say the least.

William Shakespeare undoubtedly loved this story, and his play covered the last critical two years of Richard II’s reign. I never see Richard II show up on any best-of lists of Shakespeare’s work, but the play certainly influenced how history perceived Richard II as a man and as a beleaguered King of England.

Kathryn Warner has done a marvelous job, laying out the framework of Richard’s disastrous reign, and makes a case that he wasn’t as ineffectual as king as he has been portrayed. He was, in many ways, progressive, but he wasn’t strong enough in his convictions to move men to support him. He avoided war, which saved the lives of thousands of his people, but especially in comparison to his warring ancestors, this made him seem weak. My overall view of Richard has been changed by this book, and I see him with a clearer perspective. My general impressions of him have moved from thinking of him as a terrible king to one of better understanding the conditions with which he had to contend. He was dealt a bad hand from the moment his father died and the decision was made that he was the heir apparent. With so many more capable alternatives waiting in the wings, he was doomed from the moment the sceptre was placed in his hands and the crown was settled upon his head.

Kathryn Warner also wrote a book about Edward II, and I plan to read that one as well. The next Plantagenet read for me will be Ian Mortimer’s biography of Richard’s successor and enemy Henry IV.

If you wish to see more of my most recent book and movie reviews, visit http://www.jeffreykeeten.com
I also have a Facebook blogger page at:https://www.facebook.com/JeffreyKeeten and an Instagram account https://www.instagram.com/jeffreykeeten/

[Brian · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author goes into some places where no previous historian has gone before, with the result that this book is complementary to, and not a replacement for, Nigel Saul's biography of the king. The focus is very much on Richard as a person and his relationships (including a fair amount of focus on his ancestry) and there is *relatively* little about the politics of the reign. The author's deep understanding of Richard's incredibly complex family is evident.

As an example of "where no previous historian has gone before" Richard's creations of numerous ladies of the Garter are set out. Offhand I can't think of a work on Richard - as opposed to a specialist work on the Garter Order - where this has been so much as mentioned

As with the author's work on Edward II, this account is not a whitewash, and does not set out to prove that Richard was a saint. Like Edward II, he was an unconventional king, and had many faults. On the other hand, there was a positive side to his character, and this is carefully drawn out. As is pointed out in the last chapter, those kings who were ultimately unsuccessful in their reign are always judged harshly by historians. Had Richard died suddenly in 1397, while at the height of his powers, the verdict of history might have been quite different.

Highly recommended to anyone interested in this era.

[Tony Riches · Rating 4 out of 5]

Where the famous portrait on Henry VIII makes him seem powerful, the familiar image of Richard II in Westminster Abbey (see book cover) achieves quite the opposite. I'd always thought he looks sad - and was unsurprised to discover a contemporary chronicler described him as 'pensive'.

Kathryn Warner, as an acknowledged expert on Richard II, has crammed her book with a wealth of fascinating details, yet the image of Richard which emerges is one of an unhappy life. Her choice of ' A True King's Fall' as her title is significant.

He inherited a kingdom ravaged by the plague and simmering with rebellion. The Scots tested his borders to the north and the old noble families of England jockeyed for power and influence, making it impossible to Richard to be certain who he could trust.

This book reveals more truth than I expected in Shakespeare's unflattering portrayal of Richard. Many accounts hint at his mental health problems, and he proved an ineffective king, yet undeserving of his lonely death by starvation - or responsibility for the Wars of the Roses.

Tony Riches

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

interesting and detailed biography of Richard II which looks at all the events prior to Richards birth and his overthrow by his cousin henry IV (henry of Lancaster) and the book challenges some of the assumptions made about Richard.

[S.J.A. Turney · Rating 4 out of 5]

I do like to intersperse, in the rare leisure time I get, my fiction reading with a little non-fiction (quite apart from all the Roman non-fiction research I do.) This book was an interesting choice, because to sum up everything I knew about Richard II in one sentence: “Pubs called the White Hart are named after him.” Pretty feeble, eh? The white hart was Richard’s own insignia. Also I tend to get a little mixed up in the Plantagenet era. On the bright side, the Richards aren’t to difficult to separate. 1st was a bloodthirsty warrior who bankrupted the country fighting his crusades and yet for some reason is the country’s most beloved monarch, and 3rd is Shakespeare’s hunchbacked villain. No for me, of course. I’m a Yorkshireman, so I know him for the heroic king and Henry Tudor for the usurping French/Welsh tart. But that’s an argument for another time. Damn you, Stanley…
The book opens with a who’s who. More non-fiction should do this. A common issue with numerous eras is lots of very similar names and trying to keep them straight in your head. I get that a lot with Roman names. To have a handy reference point at the start is invaluable in a world where at first glance everyone appears to be called Henry or Edward.
Then we launch into the biography in chronological order beginning with his youth, obviously. And that, I would make clear, is what this is: a biography of the man Richard II, not an account of his reign. It delves into family, relationships, motivations and the minutiae of Richard’s personal life and connections. It does not provide a vast wealth of information about the time and events of his reign.
As such, I found it interesting, yet it left me with unanswered questions. Since I know so little about his reign I was constantly cross referencing with my friend Google to fill in the socio-political gaps. But hey, I’m used to that with my Roman research. And this being non-fiction, it’s not like you’re going to lose the pace and feel of it by branching out to find out more about Wat Tyler.
But what Warner omits in terms of the political history, we gain in terms of an in-depth look at the character and life of an oft-overlooked monarch. Oh, and it is graced with some lovely colour plates too. In short, if you’re wanting a study on the reign of the White Hart King, and you’re not au fait with the history already, this might not serve you so well. But if you want to understand the man, or you are already versed in the politics of the time, then it should be a treat.

[Megan · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars.

rtc.

[Anthony Nelson · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit dissapointing after her excellent biography of Edward II. The first half of the book is almost unreadable, as Warner falls into the trap of reciting the genealogy of every single person we encounter and a satisfying rythmn never develops. Warner also skips details about major events- we are told Richard was infatuated with Edward de Vere, and was devastated when he died, but we learn almost nothing about their relationship.

Thankfully, when the cycle of events that leads to Richard's downfall kicks off, the book becomes much more engaging, and Warner finally starts telling a story, instead of reciting anecdotes about various people's forebearers.

[Lois · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched and well handled.

[Mercedes Rochelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Doing my research on Richard II, I was surprised at how difficult it was to find a general biography about this complicated and enigmatic king. I had already read many books on the subject before this one was available, and I was sorry I didn’t have access to it first. Kathryn Warner has given us a thorough recital of major and minor events in Richard’s life, though I think the book stops short of giving us “more a portrait of an individual than a thorough account of all the politics of the reign” as she states in the introduction. Although there are suggestions that fill out a portrait: “His troubling nightmares, insomnia and visions of a ghostly earl of Arundel after the latter’s execution on his command in September 1397 argue that Richard had a conscience and empathy and was able to feel guilt and remorse over his actions, which would also argue against his being a genuine narcissist (who do not feel these emotions).” But by the end of the book I felt that he was every bit as much as an enigma as before I started. Indeed, a bit of politics would have helped explain some of the extreme measures taken by his enemies. On the other hand, the biography wasn’t muddled by attempt to reinterpret history. It seems that every historian strives to leave his own mark on the literature of Richard II (in the interest of NOT re-inventing the wheel). Warner has done the same by an almost compulsive need to clarify each person’s genealogy. Here’s part of an introduction to Queen Anne: “Another of her first cousins was Erik, king of Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Her half-brother Václav, born in Nuremberg in 1361 and five years Anne’s senior, succeeded their father as king of Germany and Bohemia and was unkindly though accurately nicknamed der Faule or ‘the Idle’, and ‘the Drunkard’. He was the son of Karl IV’s third wife Anna Świdnica (also sometimes called Anna von Schweidnitz, the German form of her name), who like Anne of Bohemia’s mother Elżbieta was Polish and who died in childbirth in July 1362, ten months before Karl married Elżbieta.” I felt like I was at a family reunion, especially during the first third of the book.

Once most of the genealogy was out of the way, we follow Richard through the many crises of his reign. Warner has given us details that I didn’t see elsewhere, and here is the best value I got out of this book. For instance, when Queen Anne died, it was said that Richard probably ordered the destruction of Sheen, one of their favorite palaces. In this book, we finally get more detail which helps clarify his state of mind at the time: ”This order was not given until 9 April 1395, ten months after Anne’s death, and therefore Richard was not acting in the first wave of terrible grief, but much later when he had had more time to think about it. This tends to emphasize the idea that he ordered the palace’s destruction because of the painful memories of the happy times he had spent there with Anne, whom he had lost, and that he genuinely could not face the prospect of visiting and staying at Sheen without her. For a year Richard also refused to enter any chamber in which Anne had been, excepting churches. The order to level Sheen was given to the clerk of the king’s works, John Gedney, and included ‘as well the houses and building in the courtyard within the moat and within the courtyard outside the moat, as the houses and buildings of La Neyt beside the manor’.” This kind of detail is precious, and many other historians only hinted at it. So there is much to commend itself in this book. I would recommend it as early reading, so you can build a solid base from which to elaborate with other histories that assume you are familiar with the cast of thousands.

[Karen Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very well researched book which covers the life and reign of the much-maligned (and arguably, misunderstood) Richard II, the boy king who inherited the throne after the death of his revered grandfather, the “warrior-king” Edward III (his father, the Black Prince, having died a few years earlier).
With a great knowledge of family trees and the complicated familial links of the great British and European dynasties and making solid use of contemporary records and chroniclers, Warner unravels aspects of Richard’s early years as king, the hurdles he had to overcome, his love of pomp and finery, his devoutness to his first wife, Anne of Bohemia and great love of his friend, De Vere, and the impact the loss of both these people had upon the man. She also describes how contemporaries both manipulated the boy-king for their own ends, how Richard II indulged in blatant favouritism and puerile revenge against those he didn’t favour, how the people swiftly turned against their liege, and how all this came back to bite him viciously in his final years.
The tale of how Richard was usurped by his cousin, Henry Bolingbroke or Henry IV and ended up starving to death (whether deliberately or against his will) is well known. So are stories that he didn’t actually die but was replaced by a look-a-like and lived for many years after (imposters did spring up from time to time). As Shakespeare and other writers and poets have found, Richard’s life and reign are the stuff of stories – full of pathos (the little boy who lost his father while young, his grandfather, beloved wife; was rumoured to have a homosexual relationship, betrothed to child for his second marriage, was spoiled, prone to tantrums, failed to live up to the great expectations his father and grandfather set in terms of being a militant leader; earned the contempt of parliament and the people, the cautious warnings of poets and clergy, was vengeful, spoiled, prone to temper tantrums and yet also generous at times and when young, incredibly brave (he faced a huge rebellion when a mere teenager and quelled it) and yet, this biography didn’t capture the imagination or this reader in quite the way other stories about this king have.
Warner’s writing is lovely and when she unspools the life and times of the king and those around him, it is engrossing reading. For example, early in the book she describes the king physically based on a study of his remains at Westminster and contemporaries’ descriptions. She also tells us that he was prone to revealing his emotions on his face as he changed colour when angry or upset. He also ”invented” the pocket handkerchief – that is a piece of fabric exclusively dedicated to blowing and cleaning the nose – fascinating! These are wonderful gems with which to approach the later political machinations with which he not only became embroiled but facilitated. However, these parts are too often dominated by reams of reams of what seems like unnecessary information about bloodlines and relationships of British royals and other nobles that reads like the Old Testament where so and so begat so and so for generations. You end up becoming not only side-tracked from the main narrative but lost in a blizzard of names. It was, for a life of a remarkable and fascinating – for all the wrong and right reasons – king, often boring. I also found that Warner sometimes passes moral judgements about various people’s lives and actions which grated. Or she adds suppositions that don’t seem to have a place in what is otherwise a fine work of research and evidence-based accounting.
Overall, however, I found this an interesting read that placed Richard II and his reign in a slightly different context to usual.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard II was a paranoid, tyrannical, vindictive, and sometimes cruel man. It is hard to believe the man who rode out in 1381 to meet the mob and calm the Peasants Revolt is the same man who beat an earl just over ten years later until he drew blood for turning up late to the queen's funeral, the same man who threw his slippers out of the window in a fit of rage, reacted hysterically and furiously to the slightest criticism and who, by my count, at least two contemporaries called a mad man. There is definitely something to be said for Richard's declining mental state in the 1390s - he is the very image of a tyrant. He can't ride through his kingdom safely, he completely and utterly falsely accuses men of crimes to get his revenge (Warner doesn't mention it here but he had Robert Plessington put on trial on totally false charges purely to mirror the trial of the king's favourites earlier on), his spending is out of control, so much so that the commons are begging him to reign it in. He brings in laws that make it treason to go against the will of the king, he removes the court to York leaving the men in the south without access to royal justice, and, here's the absolute kicker - he gets his nobles to sign blank charters, allowing him to take whatever the fuck he wants from them in the future. Richard blatantly abused his power and yet despite ALL OF THIS, Kathryn Warner made me feel a niggling bit of sympathy for him.

She does not excuse his behaviour - far from it - but highlights that he was capable of compassion and deeply loved those close to him. He was, like Edward II before him, the wrong king on the throne and at the wrong time. She draws comparisons to Edward and Richard throughout, and focuses very much on Richard as the man he was rather than the tyrant he became. Warner also impressively has a hugely extensive knowledge of the extended family tree of Richard II, but I found that it kept pulling me out of the narrative because I had to flip back to the family tree again to place someone. I also didn't really see how the background on his godfathers and what they were up to at different points in his reign was relevant - my knowledge of European medieval history is probably shockingly lacking and it made it a little complicated to follow. Overall though, this was an interesting biography on a very complicated man: a king who was shaped by his great grand-father's deposition, succeeded to the throne as a child, faced a huge revolt only four years into his reign, became obsessed with kingship and majesty (Richard was the first to introduce the term 'your highness'), and ultimately was deposed by his cousin and probably left to starve in Pontefract castle - and as Warner notes at the end, no matter what crimes he'd committed as king, he didn't really deserve such a grim fate.

[Jeremy Hobbs · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is my second book by Kathryn Warner, the first being her overview of Edward II.

I found there was precious little insight about Richard II to be found here. I wasn't even sure I was going to make it through the first half of the book because it was such a tedious slog. I would guess that there isn't enough material about the King's early years to warrant a book and it appears the author has instead stuffed the first several chapters with long winded genealogies and sidebars about historical characters that bear little or no relevance to Richard II or the events around him.

Many similar books have family trees at the beginning or end and I have found these to be helpful as references, especially in cases of British medieval history where everyone seems to be named John, Thomas, Edmund, Edward or Henry. However, Warner is the first author I have encountered who not only includes graphical family trees but also insists on narratively describing them in the body of a chapter. The result is that a chapter will start out recounting a set of historical events and then she will diverge off into a multi-page description of Anne of Bohemia's family tree and then end the chapter having not advanced any insight about Richard II. Many times in this book I ended up reading through pages of family relations only to have to look back at the title of the Chapter to see what in fact I was supposed to be reading about. There were even times when I struggled to find anything in the text of a chapter that related to the title of the chapter.

The net result is a book that provides facts that were already previously well covered in other works, but fails to provide any new insight. The author seems to want to be more sympathetic to Richard II than others, but doesn't provide much support for her 'thesis' - she cites his love of queen Anne but really fails to flesh out the root cause or implications. In fact she fails to provide much evidence of it.
Richard II's conflicts with John of Gaunt and Henry of Bolingbroke are treated almost as an afterthought, with precious little attention given to the build up or progression of tension. She refers repeatedly to Richard II's interest in his great grandfather Edward II but doesn't explore it.

She flirts with interesting angles when referring to Richard II's kindness to the future Henry V but pretty much entirely fails to explore or even suggest the implications of that kindness on Henry V and his relationship with his father.

All in all this book started out as utter tedium and progressed at the end to something equivalent to the wikipedia entry on Richard II. Avoid.

[Matthew Gurteen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Richard II might have never gone to the Sahara, but his biography is as dry as it. I still really love medieval history, but so much of the enjoyment from books like 'Richard II: A True King's Fall' comes from the author's style. Kathryn Warner presents history in the most linear and academic style possible, and I do not say that as a compliment. This book was the opposite end of the spectrum from the work of authors like Lauren Johnson, which is entertaining and enjoyable to read. Warner is frequently repetitive, and I had to labour through most of this book.

Yes, it is well-researched, and I particularly enjoyed the focus on the literature produced in the period throughout the study. That does not excuse the lack of readability, however. I wonder if Warner even considered her readership when writing this book at all. Additionally, I did not realise until the final chapter, all of the analysis in this biography is textual. Instead of examining Richard's body or the location of some famous battles herself, Warner relies entirely on contemporary descriptions. On the one hand, this is good for anyone looking for a contextual background. I do not think this book brought anything new to the study of Richard II, though. In that way, it failed as a biography.

Overall, I could not recommend 'Richard II: A True King's Fall' unless you have a particular interest in the figure. This book was such a disappointing start to the year.

[Yeongbae K · Rating 2 out of 5]

I looked forward to learning about the subject. The book could have been shorter if the author omitted descriptions about bedding, furnishings, etc. Their inclusion seems to make the book longer than necessary.

There are many characters in the story. The author’s inclusion of them renders certain passages difficult to understand.

I would not recommend this book.

[Cathrine Hoffner · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am not a fan of the author’s writing style at all - it’s dry, messy and repetitive - but I loved spending all this time with my favorite king. So, these stars are not for Kathryn Warner, but for Richard.

[Monty · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much information distracted from the story

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting and well researched book, but as some other reviews have said rather too many rabbit holes about the families etc of other characters we meet.

[David Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Well researched and enjoyable

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard II was ten years old when he succeeded his grandfather, Edward III, as king of England. Over the course of his twenty-three year reign, he was at times a compelling ruler, at others, hopelessly incompetent and arrogant, before being deposed and most likely murdered by his cousin, Henry of Lancaster (Henry IV). In Richard II: A True King’s Fall, Kathryn Warner traces his life and reign, focusing less on the politics of his reign but on the life of the man who ruled.

I’ve been interested in reading more about Richard II for awhile, especially after reading Ian Mortimer’s Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-made King and wanting a more balanced portrait of him. I thought Richard seemed rather complex and interesting, but was more or less treated as a Disney villain. So it was lucky for me that this book by Warner – whose biographies of Edward II and his queen, Isabella of France, I very much enjoyed – came out this year and I was able to get my hot little hands on it.

And, once again, I’m full of praise. Warner provides a readable but fair account of Richard II’s life. There is less of a sense that she is cutting through the crap to get to heart of who Richard was than she was in her earlier biographies – but this probably has more to do with Richard being less biographized and discussed than Edward II or Isabella.

There are some moments where the text feels cluttered with the names and relationships of everyone involved, but it does allow the reader to get a sense of just how interrelated the courts of medieval England (and Europe were). But on the whole, the text is very enjoyable and clear. There are even some moments of amusement in the text. My personal favourite:

…Richard ordered the arrest of a Londoner who had said … he was ‘unfit to govern and should stay in this latrine’. A William Mildenhale … admitted that his father Peter Mildenhale, now dead, had uttered these words and expressed a wish that Richard II might stay in his latrine forever without doing any more governing. (p. 174)

This is not a book that sets out to ‘whitewash’ or canonise Richard’s life and personality, but one that takes on the view that humans are complicated, complex beings, full of strengths and flaws. Warner ultimately concludes that Richard was entirely unsuited to the throne – a case of wrong man, wrong time, wrong place – but the portrait she builds up is – I don’t want to say sympathetic, because it’s really not – fair enough that at the end of the day, I just feel sorry for him.