H/W 13th June 2017
How important was Richard II’s prolonged absence in Ireland to the success of Henry
Bolingbroke’s campaign to seize the throne?
Whilst I believe that Richard II’s prolonged absence in Ireland was an important factor that led to
Henry Bolingbroke’s success of seizing the throne, I think that there were other factors such as the
Peasants’ Revolt, Richard’s treatment of the Lords Appellant and others who opposed him, along
with how there was uncertainty over the succession of the crown, that created a bigger impact in
the movement towards Bolingbroke’s campaign to seize the throne, whilst his absence secured
Bolingbroke’s positonn
Whilst his absence from England was a signifcant factor in Henry’s campaign to securing the
crown, I believe that other factors also played large roles; for example, many of his subjects – both
peasants and noblemen – were unhappy with his seeking a twenty eight year truce with France as a
way to end the one-hundred years war and reduce hostlites, which was not what his subjects
wantedn This led to the decrease in the amount of money and power Earls were obtaining, reducing
his popularity with them and pushing them towards Henry; this act of allying with the French further
upset many as Richard then threatened to request French assistance against anyone who rebelled
against himn Furthermore his pro-French outlook led to the marriage of himself and Isabella, the
daughter of the French King Charles VI, who was seven years oldn This emphasised his unpopularity,
as due to her age they were unable to consummate their marriage and start producing an heir, as
well as how it only benefted him, and not the rest of the countryn Another reason that led to
Henry’s successful campaign to seize the throne was how Richard had favoured some people,
putting them into important positons whilst alienatng senior nobles, including his uncle Thomas of
Woodstockn Both Richard and his favoured men were critcised for creatng royal through the King’s
fnancial generosity; this debt spurred anger amongst the nobles as well as the peasants, and
lessened Richard’s popularity even more, allowing Henry to gain more supportersn To further this,
after the eerciless Parliament going after the King’s favourites, he sought revenge by exiling or
killing the Lords Appellant, a group of men who included Thomas Woodstock and Henry Bolingbroken
However, I do believe that Richard II’s absence from England played an important role in
Bolingbroke’s successful campaign to seize the throne, because during that period of tme Richard
had not suspended his actvites in Ireland to rush back to strengthen his own support, which meant
that whilst Bolingbroke was able to gather more supporters and grow his network of people who
could help with the usurpaton of the throne – helped by how warmly he was received in many
areas, and how Richard was accompanied by his leading supporters - in contrast to Richard who was
not able to defend himself against what Bolingbroke promotedn This was important to the success of
Bolingbroke’s campaign to seize the throne as it gave him the opportunity to show how he was able
to be a King – despite not being appointed through Divine Right – and undermine Richard, furthering
his positon and ability to seize the thronen What also drove Bolingbroke to pursue this was how
Richard had exiled him and taken away his inheritance after the death of his father John De Gaunt to
ensure that Henry’s claim to the throne was weakened by his lack of wealth and land; this angered
Bolingbroke, giving him the motvaton to try and usurp Richard II’s thronen The motvaton to seize
the throne was enlarged through his want of revenge on Richardn Richard’s acton in disinheritng
Henry was widely critcised, meaning Henry was able to use levels of support in his endeavours,
partcularly whilst Richard was absent in Irelandn
