Hume's Richard II

I think it will be worthwhile to sketch out how Hume understands Richard's reign. Is Shakespeare's understanding of Richard as profound as Hume's? We shall see.

Hume describes the beginning of Richard's reign as a time of good order, not because of anything about Richard, who was only a "boy of eleven years of age," but because of other factors.

Edward III had been "a sovereign of consummate wisdom and experience" and during his long reign the barons had been taught "the habits of order and obedience." This persisted for a time into Richard's reign.

There was something else that kept in check the "turbulent spirit, to which that order [i.e. the barons], in a weak reign, was so often subject": "the authority of the king's three uncles, the dukes of Lancaster, York, and Glocester."

As for the ambition of these three dukes, this was kept in check by a number of conditions. First, Richard was clearly the rightful heir to the throne and this was declared in Parliament. Second, the people had been well disposed to Richard's father, the Black Prince, and they were well disposed to Richard on his account. Third, the other brothers could be expected to oppose any one of them who sought to act upon "dangerous designs."

The characters of the brothers themselves made them unlikely at that time at least to challenge Richard's authority. Lancaster "was neither of an enterprizing spirit, nor of a popular and engaging temper." "York was indolent, unactive, and of slender capacity." Glocester alone had the requisite qualities of being "turbulent, bold, and popular." The fact that he was the youngest of the three, however, led to his being "restrained by the power and authority of his elder brothers"--at least for the time being.