New histories that are about notorious personalities or well known political events need to have something new to say or be able to interpret the facts in a different light, otherwise they might as well not be published. The life of Richard II was first dramatised by William Shakespeare in 1607 and since then there have been many other studies. Diligent research into primary resources, new discoveries or extensive reading around the subject can provide enough materiel for a new approach, however the author must still decide on his target audience and how best to present his findings.

Ian Mortimer who wrote a book on Richard II's grandfather "The Perfect king, the Life of Edward III" chose to present a new interpretation of existing materiel right at the start of his book. His retelling of the facts were shaped and coloured by this new information and the reader was then nudged along into thinking of the events in Edward's life in a new way. Michael Bennet has chosen a quite different approach. His introduction concentrates on the source material provided by the chroniclers, available to him and he discusses their relevance, their use and their bias. He stresses the importance of checking these against public records to give as full a picture as possible and then proceeds with his narrative having thoroughly absorbed all the information. He saves much of his analysis until the final two chapters: a thoughtful summary of key events is followed by a sustained piece of writing that interprets their relevance to the portrait of the king that Bennet has built through the book. This is followed by a chapter on how Richard's deposition subsequently effected the reign of Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV). This is masterly stuff.

Richard II came to the throne in 1377 when he was ten years old. He had to fight to gain contriol of his crown from those Lords who had been assigned as his protectors. He had largely achieved this by the time he was 18 and then surrounded himself with his own favourites. The powerful Lord protectors staged a palace coup in 1388 and swept away Richards new favourites and once again had the king in their power. Richard had to manoeuvre and fight again to win back his authority and by 1393 he had regained full control of his kingdom. He soon became one of the most powerful kings in all Europe and saw himself as the leader of the christian communities fight against the infidel. In 1397 he took his revenge against those Lords who had crossed him in 1388: there were banishment's, murders and executions. However when the exiled Henry Bolingbroke returned to England to claim his inheritance the most powerful Lords flocked to his standard resulting in Richard's deposition and death.

Richard II might have said in his defence that throughout his reign there were plots to seize his crown and he was obliged to take all necessary action. He could point out that under his stewardship the monarchy's power had been restored along with his authority to rule. He was a devout christian and he had the ability to lead Christians in Europe against the infidel. He brought peace to England and was keen to seal a lasting peace with France. He patronised both the clergy and the arts and was responsible for some fine building works. His enemies would have said that he surrounded himself with inappropriate court favourites and would not listen to advice from wise and experienced men. He became increasingly arrogant taking the power of the monarchy to unprecedented heights, believing himself to be above the law. He was totally untrustworthy and almost a pathological liar. He taxed his subjects and fined his enemies to excess in order to build up his treasury and personal wealth.

Bennet gives both sides of the argument, but on balance it appears that Richard had to be stopped. His reign had become tyrannical. He was a king out of kilter with the times in which he lived. A man of peace when all the powerful land owning Lords were intent on proving themselves through feats of arms. A move towards a more absolute monarchy when parliament had started to gain some influence. A king without issue, who was not able to name a successor.

Michael Bennet's study is extremely well written and very accessible to the general reader, It would appear to be meticulously researched with good notes and an excellent index. His marshaling of the facts at his disposal is most impressive and allows him to provide some thought provoking analysis ( )