Middle English Literature

He debased the nobles. It was in this King Richard’s nature to debase the noble
and to exalt the ignoble – as he did with . . . Sir William,
22
for example, and
with other such low-born men whom he elevated to great positions, or the
numerous simpletons whom he raised to bishoprics and who were later
brought to ruin because of such unwarranted promotion. Thus might it
truly be said that this Richard was like Arthgallus, former king of the
Britons, for this Arthgallus also debased the noble and exalted the ignoble,
seizing the goods of the wealthy and amassing indescribable treasures.
The king deposed. As a result of this, the heroes of the realm, unable to bear
such evils any longer, rose up against him, deposed him, and set up his brother
as king in his place.
23
Precisely the same things happened with this Richard,
concerning whose birth many unsavoury things were commonly said, namely
22
Sir William Bagot, one of the Richard’s appointed counselors.
23
Usk uses Geoffrey of Monmouth (ca. 1100–55), Historia regum Britanniae.
Usurpation
85

---

86
Force and Order
that he was not born of a father of the royal line but of a mother
24
given to
slippery ways – to say nothing of many other things I have heard.
Reasons for deposing the king. Following this, the question of deposing
King Richard and replacing him as king with Henry, duke of Lancaster, and
of how and for what reasons this might lawfully be done, was committed
for debate to a number of doctors, bishops, and others, one of whom was
the writer of this present work; and they decided that perjuries, sacrileges,
sodomitical acts, dispossession of his subjects, the reduction of this people
to servitude, lack of reason, and incapacity to rule, to all of which King
Richard was notoriously prone, were sufficient reasons – according to the
chapter “Ad Apostolice” taken from “Re Judicata” in the Sextus, and the
other things noted there – for deposing him.
25
Moreover, although he was
prepared to abdicate, it was nevertheless decided that, as a further precau-
tion, he should be deposed by authority of the clergy and people for the
reasons already stated, for which purpose they were therefore summoned.
On the feast of St. Matthew
26
the second anniversary of the beheading
of the earl of Arundel, the writer of this present work was conducted by
Sir William Beauchamp to the aforesaid Tower where King Richard was im-
prisoned, for the specific purpose of ascertaining his mood and behaviour,
and I was present there while he dined. And there and then, during dinner,
the king began to discourse dolefully as follows: “My God, this is a strange
and fickle land, 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 down by dissensions and strife and internecine hatreds.” And he
recounted the names and the histories of those who had suffered such fates,
from the time when the realm was first inhabited. Seeing therefore the
troubles of his soul, and seeing that none of those who had been deputed
to wait upon him were in any way bound to him, or used to serving him,
but were strangers who had been sent there simply to spy upon him, I
departed much moved at heart, reflecting to myself on the glories of his
former state and on the fickle fortune of this world.
Thomas Walsingham, Annales Ricardi Secundi. Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde:
Chronica et Annales, ed. H. T. Riley. London, 1866, 282, 286–7. In C. Given-Wilson (ed.
24
Joan of Kent (ca. 1328–85).
25
Usk quotes from Pope Innocent IV’s 1245 sentence of deposition of Frederick II for
sacrilege, heresy, and dispossession and tyranny over his subjects. Both Usk and Walsingham
(Historia Anglicana) accuse Richard of being sodomitical.
26
September 21.

---

and trans.) (1993) Chronicles of the Revolution, 1397–1400: The Reign of Richard II. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 186–7, 188–9.
Language: Latin
Manuscript date: ca. 1420–30
[Henry] had proposed to claim the kingdom by conquest, but Lord William
Thirning, justice, said that this was quite impossible, for by doing so he
would arouse the anger of the entire population against him. This was
because if he claimed the kingdom in this way, it would appear to the
people that he had the power to disinherit anybody at will and to change
the laws, establishing new ones and revoking old ones, as a result of which
no one would be secure in his possessions . . .
[W]hen Lord William Thirning said to him that he had renounced all the
honours and dignity pertaining to a king, he replied that he did not wish to
renounce those special dignities of a spiritual nature which had been bestowed
upon him, nor indeed his anointment; he was in fact unable to renounce
them, nor could he cease to retain them. And when William Thirning
replied to this that he had himself admitted, in his own Renunciation and
Cession, that he was not worthy, or adequate, or able enough to govern, he
said that this was not true; it was simply that his government had not been
acceptable to the people. But William replied by telling him that this had
clearly been stated in the aforesaid Cession and Renunciation, and remind-
ing him of the form in which this confession of his had been written down
there. Hearing this, the king simply smiled and asked to be treated accord-
ingly, and not to be deprived of the means with which to sustain himself
honourably.
Usurpation
87

---

88
Gender, Sexuality, and Difference