Book Review:

In the Trump era, the history of Richard II has a very unique resonance.

Back in April, my wife and I visited Paris and London to celebrate a significant birthday for her. As part of that trip we saw ‘Richard II’ at the Bridge Theatre in London. Jonathan Bailey is the main attraction as the eponymous King, but the overall performance was really solid. Adapted to be more of a modern/’Succession’ type feel, I still couldn’t quite shake the sense that a story about how a state grapples with an unpredictable executive could have a lot more to say about modern US politics than it might have prior. In addition, the playbill discussed a book that helped inspire the production.

Released in April of 2024, Helen Castor’s “The Eagle and the Hart” is a parallel history of Richard II and Henry IV and it was an excellent read. For those unfamiliar, the two men were born mere months apart. Richard was the eldest son of the Black Prince — the famed military leader and son of Edward III — while Henry was the eldest son of Edward’s brother, John of Gaunt. The book focuses more on Richard in its first half, helping to frame how his cocooned childhood first in France and then in London, both before and after his coronation, created a view of Kingship that was focused on ceremony rather than substance and emphasized courtly procedure over more traditional royal activities such as warfighting. Henry’s childhood is portrayed as more balanced, with a large and loving family, though even there the strain of his father’s obligations have an impact.

It then traces Richard’s ascension to the throne following his father and grandfather’s untimely deaths, his regency, and, arguably the one moment he succeeds as being King, the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. For those unfamiliar with the episode, in the aftermath of the Black Death the common folk were feeling more empowered as their reduced numbers made them more valuable. Faced with nobles attempting to bar their ability to negotiate to take advantage of this, tens of thousands of peasants revolted, murdered government officials, and marched on London, intending to save the young King from immoral advisors. Amid confusion and panic in the royal household, Richard, relying on sheer confidence in his divinely ordained authority, managed to disperse the rebels and defuse the crisis.

From there we see Richard’s struggles to shed his regency, the Appellants’ revolt, Richard’s return to power and then his ultimate downfall at Henry’s hands. The book continues through to Henry’s troubled reign and eventual death. It’s well worth reading for anyone interested in history.

Of more interest, especially given the news yesterday of President Trump calling up the California National Guard in response to protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, is the book spends a lot of time examining the power struggles in the realm throughout Richard’s reign between both Richard and his various nobles and amongst the nobles themselves. I think you can see echoes of this in the dispute between Trump and Elon Musk and in the way various titans of industry have been attempting to appease or oppose (or some combination of both) the new administration.

In many ways, despite Richard’s presence as King, his rule (at least as presented in the book) was an ongoing series of crises stemming from his inability to perform the role of King as expected in 1381. For much of the period this is solely his inability to understand his obligations to the nation - so focused on his royal court and securing appropriate respect for his divinely ordained person he prioritizes personal validation and acclamation over pursuing the national interest. However, in the short period between the Appellants’ revolt and Henry’s revolt, it also is seen in how nobles struggle to respond to an empowered and erratic executive.

Some choose to make deals and support the throne, understanding that his erratic nature provides little protection in the long run but seeing little alternative. Others plot to rebel and several alternate between strategies as relative strengths ebb and flow. One of the interesting parts that Castor highlights is how Richard abuses his pardon privilege both by issuing pardons in exchange for personal benefits and in ignoring his past pardons to pursue prosecutions of those he disfavors. Similarly, Richard’s paranoia and inconsistent nature means even powerful men are constantly set against each other as he seeks to undermine potential rivals and enmesh others in his illegal actions.

One of the interesting conclusions the book led me to is that this is an important waypoint on the journey of England from divine rule to the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and eventual representative government. When faced with a tyrannical, inconsistent and overbearing monarch who ignores the law in favor of his own impulse, English nobles were able to rally behind Henry Bolingbroke and dethrone Richard. However, just as importantly, its clear that this was far from preordained. A whole hosts of things had to go right for the rebellion to succeed and, even then, a lesser man than Henry IV may have been more willing to simply attempt to recreate Richard’s monarch-centric government rather than attempt to rule rightly and justly.

We like to believe that “the arc of history bends towards justice” but history has no arc. Events are what individuals choose to make of them. Richard II's deposition succeeded not because it was inevitable, but because specific people made difficult choices to prioritize institutional stability over personal loyalty or fear.

The success or failure of representative government with checks and balances, the rule of law, and limited authority requires people to make ongoing decisions to affirm these institutions. In a world of rising post-liberal political theories and philosophies, the long-term viability of these core Western institutions will depend much on what we make of them.