European release date: 30/1/27.

What 21st century historians think happened in 1399 is easy to understand: Richard II deserved his fate and Henry IV, a man of destiny backed by the will of the people, did England a favour by taking his place. However, this personality-based account is undermined by the evidence, and falls: Richard II’s infamously neurotic character is an invention of the last 80 years; there was political hostility to his peace with France and there was a conspiracy against him in 1397.

If Henry’s triumph can no longer rest squarely on Richard II’s deficient character, then other explanations need to be found and the key question is: who was the architect and prime mover, Henry or Arundel?  In partnership from the very first, one crowned the other to make themselves joint masters of church and state, but was it Thomas Arundel’s ambition to regain his lost archbishop’s throne, more than Henry’s to take Richard II’s, which gave their enterprise such energy and direction?

The cavalcade of kings and queens progressing through the years chapters the past into reigns, and this natural focus on monarchs will always put Henry to the fore, but could king Richard II’s overthrow have been engineered by a churchman with a vision of spiritual and national renewal. Thomas Arundel’s vision of a new England?

All-new research, all the evidence is presented within the text without recourse to footnotes or exterior references, this series of essays reconsiders what we think we know about this consequential year in English history.