Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A son of Richard II - any info?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A son of Richard II - any info?

    I know there are a goodly number of history buffs on here so maybe I can get some help with a puzzle I have been pursuing. It is received wisdom - and thereby accepted as historical fact - that King Richard II, who was deposed in 1399 had no offspring from his two wives and thus no heir. Indeed his usurper and successor was his first cousin Henry Bolingbroke who became Henry IV.
    Some time back I saw a mention of Richard having a son who bore a strong resemblance to him who had some minor position at court. I cannot remember the young man's name and cannot find any reference to him or what happened to him.
    Has anyone seen this story before please?

  • #2
    I actually found the alleged son's name in one of my own former posts!
    Definitely old age is setting in!!!

    His name was Richard Maukelyn but I can't remember where I saw that and a Google of that name produces no other mentions

    Comment


    • #3
      I think Ian Mortimer might have something on this. Give me a while and I'll come back.

      I know there was a look-alike who pretended to be Richard after the deposed king's death. he was known as the "Mammet" (i.e. puppet).

      Phil

      Comment


      • #4
        Many thanks Phil

        Comment


        • #5
          The only reference I have managed to find so far, is a footnote in Ian Mortimer's scholarly "Medieval Intrique: Decoding Royal Conspiracies".

          He spells the name MAUDELEYN so it may not be the same individual.

          On page 341 (n50) he mentions a suggestion that the body displayed (at St Albans, Cheapside, St Paul's and Westminster Abbey) was that of Richard Maudelelyn, Richard II's lookalike.

          Mortimer discounts this as he states that Maudeleyn was killed in the Epiphany Rising (1400).

          There is no mention of Maudeleyn being Richard II's son.

          This is not my period and my shelves are not rich in material on the C14th, but I will go on looking.

          Hope this helps a bit meantime.

          Phil

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Phil H View Post
            The only reference I have managed to find so far, is a footnote in Ian Mortimer's scholarly "Medieval Intrique: Decoding Royal Conspiracies".

            He spells the name MAUDELEYN so it may not be the same individual.

            On page 341 (n50) he mentions a suggestion that the body displayed (at St Albans, Cheapside, St Paul's and Westminster Abbey) was that of Richard Maudelelyn, Richard II's lookalike.

            Mortimer discounts this as he states that Maudeleyn was killed in the Epiphany Rising (1400).

            There is no mention of Maudeleyn being Richard II's son.

            This is not my period and my shelves are not rich in material on the C14th, but I will go on looking.

            Hope this helps a bit meantime.

            Phil
            Many thanks Phil - very helpful:-)

            Comment


            • #7
              Ian Mortimer also mentions Maudeleyn in his "Fears of Henry IV" as does Michael Bennett in "Richard II and the Revolution of 1399".

              Neither suggests he might have been an illegitimate son of the king - simply that he was a minor court official who bore a striking resemblance to Richard.

              My own view, for what it is worth, is that Richard had no children by anyone. Kings were not shy about acknowledging their bastards - I think Richard's father the "Black Prince" had at least two. I suppose Maudeleyn might have been one of those or an additional one, or a cousin on his mother's (Holland) side.

              My reason for thinking that Richard did not have offspring is that I think he was probably homosexual (or at least strongly bi) - see his obsessive devotion to Robert de Vere. That does not mean he did not respect his queen - with whom he was buried. His second wife was, of course, a child.

              Edward II had children by Isballa despite his alleged homosexual relationships with Gaveston and Despenser, so I retain an open mind.

              If I find more I'll let you know.

              Phil

              Comment


              • #8
                Putting Maudeleyn into a google search, I find he is mentioned as Richard's confessor (thus a priest).

                Incidentally, this thread shows up too - so we are self-referencing now!!!

                Phil

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Phil
                  many thanks for the additional references which are most helpful. I am not sure that I would agree about Richard's sexuality - his attention to De Vere has to be offset against his extravagant grief at the death of his first wife, Anne of Bohemia. Richard caused the place where she died, Sheen Palace, to be virtually demolished. I have read some opinion that this extravagant reaction to Anne's death was symptomatic of his theatrical, almost hysterical personality but others think he was truly and deeply devoted to Anne.
                  We must also remember that the extravagant nature of male friendship among the upper classes in the medieval and early post medieval period can cause, in my opinion, misinterpretation in the modern mind where sexuality is seen in almost anything. The flowery language of Elizabethan male friendship can be mistaken for homosexuality whereas it was in truth more of a conceit, a literary exaggeration. Many, for example, are not aware that the famous sonnet of Shakespeare "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day..." is, in fact written to and dedicated to a young man. Some modern authors have interpreted this as showing that Shakespeare was homosexual but in my opinion this misses the point and is too simplistic and literal.
                  Although some English/British monarchs have very likely been homosexual or bisexual (in light of the longevity of the institution of monarchy it would be very surprising if this were no the case) it has not been proven in any single case. The usual list of "suspects" is William II, Richard I, Edward II, James I and William III. But again all these cases are interpretations of scant evidence in a modern post Freudian light.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I tend to agree with the idea that there are problems of interpretation in this area.

                    Wilde changed things. Until his trial, young men often walked hand-in-hand, arm-in-arm. The British stateman Anthony Eden had the habit. Manners changed once Wilde went to prison - an innocence had gone.

                    I also think it was unlikely that anyone led a wholly homosexual lifestyle in the past - church, state and society would have condemned it. But I don't think that means the love (sexual love) between men did not exist. I think it was probably about as common then as now, but suppressed, as so often in the past.

                    I think I made the point that Edward II had children, so he certainly was not exclusively male-orientated. Richard II may have simply been infertile (or Anne) and I agree he loved her - her effigy rests beside his to this day. But I think Richard's personality and actions do point to some complexity in his sexual make-up and I tend towards my stated view.

                    Others are more complicated. William II could be church prejudice. But then he ddi not marry in an age when almost all non-churchmen did.

                    James I again had children, but clearly liked men and I think he slept with them - to their enrichment. Kerr and Villiers being examples. They might today be described as "gay for pay" or rent-boys, I suppose. They again were seemingly straight, married and had children.

                    William III, again complicated. With him I favour non sexual male "favourites", but I seem to recall Mary found herself terribly isolated and neglected in the early years of her marriage.

                    It doesn't surprise me that there is little evidence for any of the cases you cite or others. Olden times were not particularly tolerant and secrecy, or at least discretion - even when female mistresses were paraded - was probably essential. James I seems to have been pretty open about his tastes though.

                    But I think it important to be clear that modern views and terminology won't work in relation to the past. The common idea of ancient Greek and Roman homosexuality is very wide of the mark.

                    A very good and thoughtful post of yours, if I may say so, Chris.

                    Phil

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X