What do you think?
Rate this book
Hollow Crown: A Life of Richard II
. 1979, bright clean copy, with dustjacket, no markings, Professional booksellers since 1981
1000 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1961
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 25, 2016
THE HOLLOW CROWN is one of those books that's been sitting on my shelf for years until I was ready for it. Now, the time had come and I was pleased to find a book that was actually in favor of Richard II; if I dare say, I think I'd call Harold Hutchison an apologist. He has done the one thing that always comes into play when discussing the controversial Richard III: he reminds us that the deposed king’s history (and reputation) has been written by the usurpers. Why don’t we connect the same dots when talking about Richard II? No chronicler was going to defend him in the face of Lancastrian might. It was just as much in Henry IV’s interest to blacken his predecessor as it was to that later Tudor upstart.
And so this biography was written to demonstrate that Richard II should be seen in the light of a true medieval king, and not by the standards of later dynasties. Richard’s tempestuous barons still had enormous power: “It was not until the mutual baronial slaughter of the Wars of the Roses had weakened the feudal baronage beyond recovery that at last the Tudors were able to build a ‘new monarchy’ whose sovereignty was unquestioned…”. The Merciless Parliament of 1388 was orchestrated by the five Appellants (the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel, the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Derby—later Henry IV—and the Earl of Nottingham), who took out their personal revenge on Richard’s favorites while the underaged king was forced to watch helplessly. Although Richard eventually wreaked his own revenge on four of the five it took him over seven years of careful planning to build his power. The author calls these “The Quiet Years” during which Richard showed admirable restraint and much good sense. Alas, when he did plunge into action, Richard’s confiscation of all Bolingbroke’s estates alarmed his restive nobles beyond repair. Had he stopped short of this deed—considered tyrannical by many of his contemporaries—he might have gotten away with his ruthless revenge. However, “Richard’s most fatal step was…an arbitrary act of confiscation against the most powerful of his barons, and therefore a threat to the propertied ‘liberties’ of every baron in the land.” But even here, Hutchison gives us a reasoned explanation. On John of Gaunt’s death, “Richard’s generosity to the father had now made the son heir to wealth, privileges and jurisdictions that were far in excess of what any centralized monarchy could be expected to tolerate.” In order to protect his throne, Richard extended Bolingbroke’s exile to a life-term and the Lancastrian estates reverted to the crown. Of course, rather than protect his throne, events proved that Richard forfeited it.
Richard II lived in an era where Parliament was just beginning to discover its power, bargaining with the king in order to ensure certain privileges in return for needed tax revenues. The role of Parliament is a thread that unwinds throughout the book. In Richard’s reign, the Parliament was not the ruling constitutional entity we saw in Oliver Cromwell’s day, so Richard II’s actions cannot be viewed as against the People. As of yet, the People didn’t exist. His was “a time when medieval kingship still had to fight baronial oligarchy, and when neither had yet succumbed to the sovereignty of Parliament.” In the words of the author, the book depicts Richard’s story as “a mirror to Chivalry in brilliant decline, to the Middle Ages in middle age, and to our English renaissance in embryo.” When seen in the context of his time, many of Richard’s alleged crimes might not seem quite as tyrannical as when viewed through modern eyes. Overall, I think Hutchison does a good job of enlightening the reader by continually bringing things into perspective.
And so this biography was written to demonstrate that Richard II should be seen in the light of a true medieval king, and not by the standards of later dynasties. Richard’s tempestuous barons still had enormous power: “It was not until the mutual baronial slaughter of the Wars of the Roses had weakened the feudal baronage beyond recovery that at last the Tudors were able to build a ‘new monarchy’ whose sovereignty was unquestioned…”. The Merciless Parliament of 1388 was orchestrated by the five Appellants (the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Arundel, the Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Derby—later Henry IV—and the Earl of Nottingham), who took out their personal revenge on Richard’s favorites while the underaged king was forced to watch helplessly. Although Richard eventually wreaked his own revenge on four of the five it took him over seven years of careful planning to build his power. The author calls these “The Quiet Years” during which Richard showed admirable restraint and much good sense. Alas, when he did plunge into action, Richard’s confiscation of all Bolingbroke’s estates alarmed his restive nobles beyond repair. Had he stopped short of this deed—considered tyrannical by many of his contemporaries—he might have gotten away with his ruthless revenge. However, “Richard’s most fatal step was…an arbitrary act of confiscation against the most powerful of his barons, and therefore a threat to the propertied ‘liberties’ of every baron in the land.” But even here, Hutchison gives us a reasoned explanation. On John of Gaunt’s death, “Richard’s generosity to the father had now made the son heir to wealth, privileges and jurisdictions that were far in excess of what any centralized monarchy could be expected to tolerate.” In order to protect his throne, Richard extended Bolingbroke’s exile to a life-term and the Lancastrian estates reverted to the crown. Of course, rather than protect his throne, events proved that Richard forfeited it.
Richard II lived in an era where Parliament was just beginning to discover its power, bargaining with the king in order to ensure certain privileges in return for needed tax revenues. The role of Parliament is a thread that unwinds throughout the book. In Richard’s reign, the Parliament was not the ruling constitutional entity we saw in Oliver Cromwell’s day, so Richard II’s actions cannot be viewed as against the People. As of yet, the People didn’t exist. His was “a time when medieval kingship still had to fight baronial oligarchy, and when neither had yet succumbed to the sovereignty of Parliament.” In the words of the author, the book depicts Richard’s story as “a mirror to Chivalry in brilliant decline, to the Middle Ages in middle age, and to our English renaissance in embryo.” When seen in the context of his time, many of Richard’s alleged crimes might not seem quite as tyrannical as when viewed through modern eyes. Overall, I think Hutchison does a good job of enlightening the reader by continually bringing things into perspective.
Displaying 1 of 1 review