The Eagle and the Hart: The Tragedy of Richard II and Henry IV

I liked this book enough that I'm having trouble trying to review it. There is just too much I want to talk about and I can't, you know, sum up. This is fascinating history where one cousin, after a lifetime of loyal service to his cousin the king of the same age, usurps the throne. It's famous in Shakespeare, covered in four plays (Richard II, Henry IV Part I, Henry IV Part II, and Henry V). Richard II, the infamous crazy king who kept getting crazier in the midst of the 100 years war with France. This is also the post-plague era. The English language was first becoming prominent, instead of simply the language of the commoners. Chaucer, Gower, William Langland and the Pearl Poet were all writing major Middle English works. And it the show more era of the massive Peasants Revolt

Castor's interest, as she tells up front, is in the nature of power. Richard was not exactly born into it, but upon the death of his father, The Black Prince, he became the natural heir. And he inherited the throne at age ten. There was no good choice for a regent, so he didn't have one. He just had advisers who tried very hard to control him. He spent his rule not thinking about England or its people, but how to get past all the obstacles full power, so that his will was always done. This led to a lot of weird situations. His first selected set of royal advisers were all convicted of treason. He was only not dethroned because there was no natural heir to replace it. So having a bad king was better than the alternative.

Henry, meanwhile, was raised to be a leading loyal servant to the king. His father, John of Guant, younger brother of the Black Prince, was the most powerful person in England when Richard became king. He never overstepped. He was always loyal to England. He was also the next in line to Richard. Upon his death, with Richard still childless, Henry became the next in line.

When Henry rebelled, there were no battles. Key lords immediately joined Henry without a fight. And those loyal to Richard pretty much all surrendered, leaving Richard without an army. Henry took the kingship in the name of good government. This is also fascinating. First, it's really hard to run a good government, especially where there are rebellions against you everywhere, and that's a big problem if that is your main claim to the throne. And second it meant Henry felt it was important for him to work with the parliament in ways previous kings hadn't. He accepted huge criticism and actually compromised. For example, he allowed Parliament to monitor his spending, and to nominate some of his advisers.

See what I mean. Sorry guys. That's too much. Ok, some of the most interesting stuff to me in this book was, first, that Richard was never crazy. It's just mythology. He was pretty much the same narrowly focused person his whole life. He just wasn't interested in the state of England, or that war. The second thing is how sophisticated the political world of England was. Parliament was very complex. The peasant revolt, notorious for its murderous mob, actually had some intelligent ideas, if not realistic. They wanted to end serfdom, confiscate church land, end their loyalty to their local lords, and instead give it directly to the king. So, they merely wanted to overturn the unjust social structure of England. But the constant interplay of the different leading figures with each other and the realities their world was always so complicated and fascinating.

I've seen reviewers say this book was boring and they got lost. But I never got lost on audio. I was pretty rivetted the entire time I listened, for 20 hours. Fun stuff. Recommended to Shakespeare people...and Chaucer people...and anyone else curious.

2025
https://www.librarything.com/topic/369129#8819309 show less

Cousins born within months of each other, Richard of Bordeaux and Henry of Bolingbroke became enemies and powerful rivals. Known as Richard II and Henry IV their true stories are just as tragic as Shakespeare portrayed them and the medieval politics around their reigns is complex. Castor is a superb historian, able to find and interpret the minutiae as well as create a compelling narrative to entertain. I read this book after the Dan Jones biography of Henry V and wish I'd read them in the chronological order as they make good companion pieces.

although interesting and well researched, I could not finish listening to this book because the author decided to read it herself and was unable to keep my attention.