The body of King James IV

 

King James IV of Scotland was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field on 9th September 1513, following his unwise invasion of England while King Henry VIII was out of the country. The battle was a massacre and there was some doubt as to which body was that of the Scottish king.

There then arose a problem, due to the fact that James had died having broken a Treaty of Eternal Peace with England. This treaty had been brokered by Pope Alexander VI, who had decreed that anyone who violated it would suffer excommunication. This meant that James’s body could not be given a Christian burial. It was therefore taken to Berwick, embalmed, sealed in lead, and then transported to Richmond Palace near London.

When King Henry returned to England from France he suggested that the body be buried in St Paul’s Cathedral, but the Pope would have none of it and so it was taken instead to the monastery at Sheen in Surrey where it was left.

Following further problems with the Papacy, King Henry proceeded to declare himself head of the Church of England and dissolved the monasteries, that at Sheen suffering this fate in 1538. King James’s body was moved to an old lumber room and forgotten about.

There are various accounts of what happened next. One is that nothing happened until the early years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, in the 1560s, when a glazier working on the building, which was then falling into considerable disrepair, reported that he could smell embalming spices. A delegation arrived to inspect the source of the smell coming from a lead box and left again, taking no action. The glazier then decided to open the box, cut off James’s head and take it home with him. Not surprisingly, his family was less than impressed with this bizarre trophy so he took it to St Michael’s church in the City of London where it was reburied and may well still be there.

However, a second story relates that the whole body is still at Sheen, buried in an unmarked grave. Evidence for this is entirely lacking.

A third option is much more entertaining but probably the least likely of those on offer. This is that James did not die at Flodden at all. Instead, he was rescued by the Queen of Elfland and has been living with the elves ever since. One day, so it is hoped by those who believe this nonsense, he will return in triumph to continue his reign.

© John Welford

The death of King Henry IV at "Jerusalem"

 

King Henry IV of England died on 20^th March 1413 at the age of 45. His health had been poor ever since he had seized the throne from King Richard II in 1399. He suffered regular blackouts and had serious skin problems, which some contemporaries thought might be leprosy, but some sort of kidney disease is probably closer to the mark.

Henry himself thought that his condition was a form of divine punishment, not only for causing the death of his predecessor (Richard died at Pontefract Castle in 1400, possibly having been murdered) but for executing the Archbishop of York after the Battle of Shrewsbury in 1403. He became depressed and slept badly. On top of his health problems, he was on continual bad terms with his son Hal, the future King Henry V.

Henry thought the best way of improving his health would be to obtain a divine pardon, and the best way of doing that would be to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That was why he was in Westminster Abbey on 20^th March 1413, praying at the tomb of Edward the Confessor, prior to setting forth on his journey.

Edward had consecrated the abbey church of St Peter in 1065, not long before his death the following year. He was buried in the Abbey and later kings venerated his memory. He was canonised as a saint in 1161 and his cult was promoted by King Edward III as an alternative to that of Thomas Becket at Canterbury. That was why the abbey was rebuilt from 1245 to become the tallest of all Gothic churches and a fit setting for all future coronations down to the present day.

While King Henry was praying, another fit seized him, one that was to prove fatal. He was carried to a room that had been added to the abbot’s lodgings in the late 14^th century. The monks of the Abbey had become accustomed to naming such rooms after holy sites, which is why the room where Henry died was known as the Jerusalem Chamber. When Henry briefly and partially recovered his senses he asked where he was and was told “Jerusalem”. Given that this was where he intended to go, Henry died happy.

Henry was not buried at Westminster but at Canterbury. His Queen, Joan of Navarre, had a splendid tomb built for him next to the shrine of St Thomas.

© John Welford

King Edward the Confessor

 

Edward the Confessor was the only English king to become a saint. This was entirely due to his personal behaviour and had nothing to do with his abilities as a monarch, which were far from what the country needed at the time.

Born in 1004, he was the son of King Ethelred II, who is known to history as Ethelred the Unready. Edward was 13 years old when his father died, at which time the throne of England was being disputed between Anglo-Saxons and invading Danes. Queen Emma fled to her native Normandy, taking Edward with her.

However, the new king, Canute the Dane, thought that a good way to make himself acceptable to his new English subjects would be to marry Ethelred’s widow, which is what he did. Emma later gave birth to another son, named Hardecanute.

Canute also had an illegitimate son named Harold and it was he who became king on Canute’s death. This was because Hardecanute was far more interested in looking after Denmark than England. However, when Harold died in 1040 Hardecanute became King of England and he invited his half-brother Edward to return from exile and assume the position of heir to the throne. Edward therefore became King when Hardecanute died in 1042.

Edward had very little interest in the monarchy, much preferring to spend his time in religious devotion. He was known to spend several hours every day praying and was even reputed to perform miracles of healing. He grew a long white beard and therefore looked more like an Old Testament prophet than a king of England.

The real power in the land was the Godwin family, who ruled the roost and whose word was law. Edward married a Godwin daughter but this was a marriage in name only, with no children issuing from it. There have been various theories as to why this was – Edward might have been impotent or homosexual, and it is even possible that he had taken a monkly vow of chastity.

At any event, when Edward died in 1066 after a reign of 24 years he left no heir other than his brother-in-law Harold Godwin. The resulting conflict over the succession between Harold and Edward’s French cousin William of Normandy soon resulted in the Norman conquest and the end of Anglo-Saxon England.

© John Welford

King William IV

Born on 21^st August 1765, William was the third son of King George III and would not have expected ever to become King. 

He joined the Royal Navy in 1779 and served in America and the West Indies. He was promoted to Admiral of the Fleet in 1811 and Lord High Admiral in 1827. This service was what gave him the nickname of “Sailor King” during his later reign.

He married Adelaide, daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Meiningen, in 1818, but the two daughters born to the marriage died in infancy. This was in contrast to the nine healthy children that William had previously fathered with an actress, Dorothy Jordan, with whom he had lived between 1790 and 1811.

From 1820 the throne had been in the hands of William’s elder brother George (as King George IV), but his sole legitimate daughter (Charlotte) had died in 1817, leaving him without an heir. 

Next in line should have been Frederick, Duke of York (satirized as ‘The Grand Old Duke of York’), but he died in 1827, also without leaving any legitimate children behind him.

When George died on 26^th June 1830, William became King at the age of 64.

The first part of William’s reign was largely given over to the political crisis surrounding electoral reform, which concerned doing away with the medieval and highly undemocratic methods then in force for electing Members of Parliament. 

William was completely opposed to reform, which would have meant a huge diminution of aristocratic privilege and the involvement of the middle classes in the business of government. He used every means at his disposal to frustrate the efforts of reformers, but he could not prevent the election in November 1830 of a Whig government, led by Lord Grey, that was determined to push reform through.

Grey exacted a promise from King William to appoint enough Whig peers to enable his reform bill to pass a vote in the House of Lords, but William later tried to go back on his word and only reluctantly allowed the “Great Reform Bill” of 1832 to become law. 

Although William was not particularly active in the political sphere, he did try, in 1834, to exert influence on who should be Prime Minister. Lord Melbourne had succeeded Grey in July 1834, but William did not like the reforming nature of the Whigs and dismissed Melbourne in November, appointing the Tory Robert Peel in his place, despite the latter’s lack of a Parliamentary majority. Peel’s government soon fell, leading to the return of Lord Melbourne as Prime Minister for the rest of William’s reign. William was the last British monarch to make such an appointment against the will of Parliament.

Despite his innate conservatism and elitism, William was a popular monarch with the British people and was surprisingly informal in many of his personal ways. For example, he was known to issue open invitations for anyone to dine with him, in informal dress, at the Royal Pavilion in Brighton. He also gave half of the royal art collection to the nation and even tried to give away Buckingham Palace, which his predecessor as King had spent a huge sum on restoring.

It is to be noted that William’s short reign included the passing into law of several important social reforms, as well as the Reform Act. These included the Factory Act of 1833, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 and the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834.

© John Welford

Harold Harefoot, Danish king of England

Much less is known about the first than the second King Harold of England, as it was the latter who lost his throne and his life at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 and was thus the last of the Anglo-Saxon kings. The first King Harold is usually known as Harold Harefoot.

King Harold’s claim to the throne

King Harold I, although King of England for a brief period in the 11^th century, was not an Anglo-Saxon but a Dane, being a member of the short Danish interregnum before the Anglo-Saxons, in the person of Edward the Confessor, were restored to the throne.

Cnut (Canute) of Denmark had ruled an impressive empire, comprising England, Scotland, Denmark and Norway, but when he died in 1035 this all fell apart. One major problem was that there was no obvious successor, as he left behind several offspring who laid claim to various parts of the empire.

It did not help matters that Cnut would appear to have been a bigamist, having married Elfgifu of Northampton in 1016 and Emma of Normandy, the widow of King Ethelred (the Unready), in 1017. However, all sorts of claims and counter-claims were made in the records of the time as to which marriage came first, whether one or other “wife” was actually a concubine, and therefore whether or not the children of the marriages were legitimate.

One fact that seems uncontested is that Elfgifu had two sons, namely Harold and Swein. It is recorded that Emma agreed to marry Cnut on condition that neither of Elfgifu’s sons would succeed to the empire should she, Emma, produce a son. However, it would also appear that Cnut’s later intention was that Harold should become King of England while Emma’s son Harthacnut ruled Denmark. In 1030 Cnut sent Elfgifu and Swein to Norway to look after that part of the empire for him.

When Cnut died in 1035, Harold would have been about 18 or 19 years old. He apparently acquired the nickname “Harefoot” because of his athletic build and swiftness as a runner; however, this is not recorded in any document written earlier than the 12^th century, so it may well be a later invention, or a result of confusion with another person.

Harold had the support of the powerful lords of the Midland counties, probably because his mother was from that area. Harthacnut was in Denmark at the time, defending his lands, but his interests in England were protected by his mother Emma who was based in the Wessex capital of Winchester. One possible outcome was that England would be split between the half-brothers, with Harold ruling the north and Harthacnut the south. Swein was soon removed from the reckoning because he died late in 1035.

However, Emma also had two sons by her first husband, Ethelred, namely Alfred (Etheling) and Edward (who would later be known as Edward the Confessor). They were living in exile in Normandy as guests of Duke Robert (father of William the Conqueror). On Cnut’s death, Alfred launched an invasion of England but was intercepted by Earl Godwine (father of Harold II) and handed over to Harold Harefoot. Harold had him blinded and he died soon afterwards, possibly as a result of the blinding.

Harold becomes king

Harold was then accepted as king by the lords throughout the country, even by Godwine who had earlier given his support to Harthacnut. Queen Emma was sent into exile in Flanders. Harthacnut realised that he had no chance of wresting the throne from Harold, as he did not wish to share Alfred’s fate, so he stayed put in Denmark.

There is scarcely any evidence of Harold’s activities as undisputed monarch, but his reign was not a long one. He died in Oxford on 17^th March 1040 and was the first king to be buried in Westminster Abbey. Harthacnut then arrived to claim the throne and promptly had Harold’s corpse dug up and thrown into a marsh. It was later retrieved and given a proper burial in a Danish cemetery in London.

One report mentions that Harold was married and had a son, but, if he did, the son never entered the historical record as a claimant to the throne of England.

© John Welford

The death of King Edward II, 1327

During the night of 21^st/22^nd September 1327 a horrible murder was committed in England that killed a king.

The victim was King Edward II, the less than worthy son of the “Hammer of the Scots”, Edward I. He was the opposite of his father in many ways. These included military prowess, hence the disastrous (from the English point of view) Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, at which Robert the Bruce defeated an English army and Edward abandoned the field of battle, followed by many of his troops.

Edward had no idea of how to rule and he allowed himself to be dominated by a series of “favourites”, including Piers Gaveston who was Edward’s gay lover.

Edward had a wife, namely Queen Isabella, and he managed to father a son, but Isabella came to prefer the company of a more manly lover, Roger de Mortimer.  She therefore had personal reasons for wanting to get rid of her husband, apart from the political one of being able to rule the country as regent for her son who was only aged 14 at the time.

Edward was duly forced to abdicate in January 1327. He was arrested and taken to Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire where he was guarded by three other members of the plot, namely Sir Thomas Gurney, Sir John Maltravers and William Ogle.

It had been hoped by the conspirators that Edward would simply fade away and die from natural causes if he was locked away in a cold damp dungeon and fed as little as possible.  However, Edward must have had more of his father’s constitution that anyone had expected and he simply refused to die. A much more unpleasant fate awaited him instead.

While Edward was asleep the three henchmen entered his cell, pinned him down with a table, and thrust a red-hot poker up his anus. He died in agony, but his killers would have thought it to be an appropriate end for a notorious homosexual who, in their eyes, had dishonoured the office of King of England. Also, by causing injuries that were internal as well as fatal, it would still be possible to pretend that Edward had died from a sudden illness.

(At least, this is the traditional view. Doubts have been expressed as to whether this is what really happened.)

Queen Isabella got her way in that she was now the virtual ruler of the country, with Mortimer alongside her, but this state of affairs did not last for long. When her son reached his majority just over three years later he took his own revenge on his mother and her lover. Queen Isabella was exiled and Mortimer was executed for treason by a method nearly as brutal as that meted out to Edward II. This was the traditional punishment of being of being hanged, drawn and quartered.

Edward II was regarded as a martyr by some, including the monks of Gloucester. They established a pilgrimage centre at his tomb, and the offerings left by visitors were eventually enough to allow them to rebuild the cathedral at Gloucester, which can be seen today as of the finest examples of Perpendicular style architecture in England.

© John Welford

The death of King Louis XVI, 1793

On 21^st January 1793 the deposed King Louis XVI was executed by guillotine in what is now the Place de la Concorde in Paris.

Louis had not been king since the abolition of the monarchy five months previously, and he had been held under virtual house arrest for two years prior to then. In December 1792 he was put on trial for treason against the people, found guilty on 18^th January, and sentenced to death by a vote in the Convention that was far from unanimous, being 380 in favour and 310 against.

On 21^st January the procession that escorted Louis to the guillotine took two hours to complete the journey as it wound through the streets of Paris, which were heavily guarded in case of any attempt by royalists to rescue Louis from his fate.

The fat and bumbling ex-king, aged 38, made a speech on the scaffold that declared his innocence but he was eventually drowned out by the drums that rolled as he was placed on a board that slid underneath the blade of the guillotine. His neck was too fat for a single clean cut and he screamed in pain before the blade was rapidly raised again for a second blow.

When Louis’s head was shown to the crowd there was shocked silence at first before the cries of “Vive la République” took over and the general mood turned to one of celebration.

Of course, the work of the guillotine was far from over and it would claim many more victims during the remaining years of the French Revolution. Indeed, this device, which was not invented by Dr Guillotin but only recommended by him as the best way to despatch people quickly and democratically (all classes being treated the same way), would remain the means of execution in France for as long as the death penalty continued. The final victim was a murderer from Tunisia who was executed in 1977.

© John Welford

The imprisonment of King Richard I

On 21^st December 1192 King Richard I of England was captured by Duke Leopold of Austria, after which he was held prisoner for 14 months.

Richard was on his way home from the Holy Land where he had taken part in the Third Crusade. While there he had made the mistake of antagonising Leopold during the siege of Acre. When the city fell, Richard had refused to share the spoils with his fellow crusader and had made matters worse by throwing the Duke’s standard off the ramparts and into the mud.

Richard was clearly not the wisest of men because, when he was shipwrecked near Venice, he decided to set off inland northwards into Duke Leopold’s territory, rather than westwards through northern Italy and towards France.

Richard did at least take the precaution of disguising himself as a merchant, but he then made another mistake by not hurrying past Vienna (Leopold’s capital). Instead, he stopped for three days in a town not far from Vienna and took a room at an inn. While there he sent a manservant off to buy food, giving him a purse full of gold coins. Not surprisingly this attracted attention in the local market, as did the glove bearing the royal insignia which the manservant had tucked inside his belt. When the Duke’s men followed the manservant back to the inn they had little trouble in finding and arresting King Richard.

Richard was imprisoned in the Duke’s castle at Durnstein, and Leopold demanded a ransom of 150,000 silver marks for his release. This was truly a “king’s ransom”, as it amounted to 34 tons in weight and would have been worth many millions of pounds in today’s value.

Back in England, the government was in the hands of Richard’s younger brother John, who now had the task of raising the ransom money. This proved to be extremely difficult and involved John having to demand fresh taxes from everyone who had any money. It is little wonder that this made John highly unpopular and was a major reason why he was opposed by the barons who accused him of despotism.

Richard’s imprisonment gave rise to the legend of Blondel, the king’s troubadour, touring the castles of Europe and singing Richard’s favourite song under the windows until eventually he found the right one and Richard sang the refrain. It does seem a little unlikely given the impracticalities that such a venture would entail. There was also the little matter of what was supposed to happen when contact was made – a single troubadour was never going to be able to spring a king out of jail! Apart from anything else, in reality Richard’s whereabouts were not a secret.

Eventually the ransom was paid and Richard was released, having paid a heavy price for his previous greed and stupidity. Unfortunately the kingdom to which he returned, and in which he had spent hardly any time since he became king, was rendered virtually bankrupt as a result.

Whether England got a good deal for the sacrifices made on Richard’s behalf is a moot point. He had spent very little time in the country, which he seemed to regard mainly as a source of funds for his overseas adventures and the defence of his lands on the French side of the English Channel. His reign of ten years was to end when he died from injuries received in another military campaign in France. All in all, despite Richard’s reputation for bravery (hence his nickname “Lion Heart”) he does appear to have been lacking both in brainpower and in loyalty to the people over whom he reigned.

© John Welford

The death of King George V, 1936

On 20^th January 1936 King George V died of influenza at the age of 70, having been on the throne since 1910. A mystery has always surrounded his death, with the suggestion being that it was hastened by his personal doctor who gave him an overdose of morphine. The reason for so doing, it is alleged, is that if the king died early enough (it was about 11pm) there would be time for The Times to announce it the following day; however, if the death was later than this the deadline would be missed by The Times but not necessarily by the tabloid newspapers.

There is no absolute proof that King George died at a time of someone else’s choosing but it is entirely possible given the class system that was rife at the time. For The Times to be beaten to the punch by the working-class Daily Mirror would have been seen as a terrible social faux pas.

King George was not the most inspiring of monarchs. He had no great personal or social qualities and no intellectual gifts, although by the end of his life he was highly respected by the mass of the British people for his honesty and decency, especially when compared with his wayward son the Prince of Wales, who would succeed him as King Edward VIII.

Despite his lack of the common touch, King George did institute a custom that has lasted down to the present day, namely the annual Christmas Day sovereign’s broadcast to the nation – originally just on the radio, of course. It was probably this single inauguration that did most to endear him to his people.

A black mark against King George was his refusal to grant political asylum to the royal family of Russia when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917. Tsar Nicholas was George’s first cousin and there was a remarkable family resemblance between them (see photo). The imperial family had visited the British royal family in the past, but when the crunch came George took fright at the thought that such a move would not play well with the British people and so he barred the escape route of the Russian royals, who were all murdered the following year.

King George’s last words are also up for grabs, depending on the version one wishes to believe. They might have been the high-sounding request: “How is the Empire?” or they might have been the more earthy “Bugger Bognor” in response to his doctor’s encouraging suggestion that when the king was well enough he might be able to recuperate at that resort in Sussex, to which he had been before and which was thenceforth known as Bognor Regis. However, had the doctor just given George a fatal shot of morphine he would have known that the suggestion would never become reality.

All I know is that when, in 1978, I took up a post at a library in Bognor Regis, my leaving card from my previous employment was inscribed: “We commend to you the dying words of King George V”!

© John Welford

King Henry II, the first Plantagenet ruler of England

On 19^th December 1154 the coronation of King Henry II of England took place in Westminster Abbey, thus beginning the rule of the Plantagenets that would last until 1485 and the death of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth.

Born in 1133, Henry spent his early childhood in France, having been born at Le Mans to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, and his English wife Matilda, who was a daughter of King Henry I. Geoffrey was in the habit of wearing a spring of yellow broom in his hat, and as the Latin name of the plant is “planta genista”, the nickname of Plantagenet became his surname and that of his only son.

Henry was educated partly in France and partly in England, so he was no stranger to English ways and customs when he became king.

He became involved in the civil war between his mother and her cousin, who usurped the throne of England and reigned as King Stephen from 1135. At one stage, when aged only 14, Henry had launched a military adventure of his own without his parents’ approval and had to appeal to Stephen to find the funds for him to return to France when the money ran out to pay his mercenary army. This may be an indication that Stephen regarded the war as being solely between him and Henry’s mother, and that could be a reason why he was willing to agree to the throne passing to Henry when he died.

When Henry arrived for his coronation he was wearing a short French cloak that earned him the nickname of “Curtmantle”. He was accompanied by his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, who was eleven years his senior.

Henry’s reign would last for 35 years. He proved to be a much stronger king than Stephen had been, and he laid the foundations for the English legal system. However, he also faced opposition not only from abroad – he ruled large parts of France as well as England – but on the home front, where his three eldest sons rebelled against him in 1173-4. However, he is probably best remembered for the falling out he had with his former friend Thomas Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury, which led to the latter’s murder in 1170 and Henry’s remorse when he realised what his intemperate words had led to.

© John Welford

King Henry III's long but ineffective reign

On 16^th November 1272 King Henry III of England died after reigning for 56 years, a European record that would not be broken until Louis XIV of France did so some 450 years later.

Henry was the son of King John and was only nine years old when his father died and he became king. England was therefore governed by regents until 1227, when Henry started to reign for himself. He had inherited the war between the king and the barons that his father had been unable to win, but by the time of his coming of age peace of a sort had been achieved.

However, this state of affairs did not last for ever, and Henry’s general incompetence as king led to a second Barons’ War that broke out in 1264 after several years of revolt by the most powerful men in the land, led by Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester.

After defeating Henry at the Battle of Lewes in May 1264, de Montfort had him imprisoned in the Tower of London and there was a very real possibility that the monarchy could have been abolished altogether. The situation was saved when Henry’s son Edward (later King Edward I) defeated and killed de Montfort at the Battle of Evesham in August 1265.

Henry reacted to the revolt by taking harsh revenge on the rebels, which was in contrast to the more conciliatory policies of the earlier part of his reign. He came to rely heavily on the talents of his son Edward, who would prove to be a much more capable ruler than Henry. In his last years Henry was physically unwell and almost certainly senile.

Although Henry III had the distinction of such a long reign, it has been estimated that he only really ruled for 24 of the 56 years that he was king. These were the years when he was not either too young to rule, under the domination of Simon de Montfort, or dependent on his son Edward.

© John Welford

William of Orange, Great Britain's Dutch king

14^th November 1650 was the day on which Prince William of Orange, a grandson of the British King Charles I, was born. 14^th November 1677 was the day on which he married Princess Mary, the elder daughter of King James II. Despite his Dutch origins, it was his British connections that would lead to him becoming King William III.

He spent much of his young life fighting against the France of King Louis XIV, a Catholic king who invaded the Protestant Netherlands in 1671.

This action therefore made him the ideal candidate for the British Parliament to invite to overthrow their own king, namely William’s father-in-law, James, who was reverting to type and becoming far too Catholic for the likes of his subjects.

William landed in Devon in November 1688 and he marched unopposed to London as James escaped to France.

Although the succession should have fallen on Princess Mary alone, Parliament decided to offer the crown jointly to William and Mary, the only time that such an arrangement has applied in British history.

Unfortunately, Mary was unable to have any children (all her pregnancies ended in miscarriages), so when she died from smallpox in 1694 (aged only 32), William ruled alone as king until his own death in 1702, with no heir to succeed him. Mary’s sister Anne was also childless at her death in 1714, so the Crown was once again offered to a foreigner with remote British connections, namely George of Hanover. George’s descendants have ruled as monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom ever since.

William did not prove to be a particularly popular king, especially among Catholics. His death came about after he fell from his horse, and the traditional reason for the fall was that his horse stumbled on a molehill. When later Jacobites (Catholics who schemed for the return to the throne of King James’s male descendants) raised a toast it was to “the gentleman in black velvet”.

© John Welford

The death of King Richard II, 1400

14^th February 1400 was probably the day on which King Richard II of England died in Pontefract Castle, Yorkshire. However, there are several uncertainties about this event, the date being one of them.

Richard succeeded his grandfather King Edward III in 1377 when he was only ten years old. During his minority he was guided by his uncle, John of Gaunt, who was an able administrator who kept the ship of state afloat. Richard did, however, distinguish himself when aged 14 by personally facing down the rioters of the Peasants’ Revolt, although he did this by making alarmingly wild promises that he had no intention of keeping.

Richard started to rule in his own right at the age of 21, but the guiding hand of John of Gaunt was always present. However, Richard was far from popular with the nobility and he also had major disagreements with his uncle.

Things really started to unravel for Richard when John of Gaunt died in February 1399. Richard had already exiled John’s son, Henry Bolingbroke, and now he confiscated Henry’s inheritance from his father. Richard had therefore created a very powerful enemy for himself.

Richard’s next mistake was to go off campaigning in Ireland, which gave Henry a chance to sneak back into England and raise support from other nobles whom Richard had alienated. On his return Richard found that he had no choice other than to resign his throne which was then claimed by Henry Bolingbroke who ruled as King Henry IV.

Richard was at first imprisoned in the Tower of London, but Henry was fully aware that his throne was insecure as long as there was the possibility of a counter-revolt to restore Richard. The former king was therefore smuggled out of the Tower and held in a number of prisons, each location being kept secret to avoid any risk of a rescue being attempted.

However, when a revolt did take place, mounted by the Earl of Salisbury in January 1400, Henry knew that he had no choice but to engineer Richard’s death.

In his play “King Richard II” William Shakespeare imagined a scene in which Richard fought bravely against sword-wielding attackers but was felled by an axe blow from behind by the jailer of Pontefract Castle. The evidence suggests something less violent because Richard’s body, when exhumed in the 17^th century, showed no sign of such an injury.

Other sources state that Richard starved to death, either as a deliberate act by a man who had given up all hope or, more likely, on the orders of Henry IV who would not have forgotten the deprivation that he had suffered at Richard’s hands.

Richard’s body was taken to London to prove the fact of his death and then quietly buried “out of town” so as not to accord undue honour to Henry’s hated predecessor. However, Henry’s son, King Henry V, did not share the vindictiveness of his father and allowed Richard’s final burial place to be in Westminster Abbey.

© John Welford

The death of King Charles II, 1685

The death of King Charles II, on 6^th February 1685, was a blessed release for a man who went through all sorts of tortures at the hands of what passed for the medical profession at the time.

King Charles II

Charles had been a popular king, especially after the Puritan years of the Cromwell regime when just about every public activity that gave people pleasure was banned. When Charles returned from exile in 1660 the theatres re-opened, music was allowed in public places, and people once again appreciated that life could be enjoyed as well as endured.

Charles was a fit and active man who participated in many sports including hunting, tennis, sailing and rowing. He took a daily walk, often quite a long one, and continued the practice until the day he fell ill, despite suffering from gout and a running sore on his leg.

However, he seemed to get plenty of private exercise as well, being credited with at least fourteen bastards by several mistresses, these including the delightful Nell Gwyn. Despite this track record he was never able to father a legitimate heir although, as Samuel Pepys noted, he never spent a night away from the Queen. She must have been relieved that Charles did not have the same attitude as Henry VIII when it came to queens who could not produce heirs.

A painful and protracted death

Charles, who was aged 54, first felt unwell on Sunday 1^st February and the following day he collapsed with symptoms that suggest a stroke, such as slurred speech, but accompanied by convulsions and fever.

He was then assailed by a phalanx of doctors, each of whom believed that they had the answer and was given the opportunity to show that they did not. Over a period of four days Charles was subjected to 58 different treatments administered by 14 doctors.

As well as bleeding, including from the jugular vein, he was given purgatives, emetics and enemas, had his head and feet branded with hot irons, and made to drink a spirit distilled from the bones of someone who had died a violent death. If these treatments were applied to someone today it might be thought that they were being tortured rather than being given medical care! It appears that nobody suggested “bed rest” as an appropriate treatment for a sick man.

Charles had been notably non-committal on religious matters, and permitted considerable tolerance to his people as to the variety of Christianity they wished to follow. However, his brother James, who succeeded Charles as King James II, was anything but tolerant and, although only a convert to Catholicism, was utterly convinced that England must return to the Catholic fold. As Charles lay dying, James smuggled a Catholic priest into the royal bedchamber so that Charles would receive the last rites and die as a Catholic. It is unlikely that Charles had much idea of what was going on.

On the morning of Friday 6^th February Charles woke and asked to have the curtains opened. However, these were among the last words he spoke because he soon lost the power of speech then slipped into a coma. He died at around noon.

It has never been established with certainty what it was that killed King Charles II. As noted above, some of the symptoms suggest a stroke, although kidney failure is also a strong contender. There have been conspiracy theories suggesting that he was poisoned, but those four days of weird and wonderful quasi-medical treatments cannot have helped.

Incidentally, 6^th February was also the day in 1952 when King George VI died of lung cancer and the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II, who was on a visit to Kenya at the time, came to the throne.

© John Welford