That money may have been the catalyst for a turn of fortune. In September 1388, the Cambridge Parliament was called to address the state of the government's funds. By the end of 1388, the support for the Lords Appellant by the House of Commons has begun to wane.
The Commons made several complaints, arguing that the Lords had not been attentive to the proper governance of the country once they had eliminated their enemies. The approved tax was very small and committed only for defense of England in its northern boundary. Nothing was raised to continue wars in France.
Then, in 1389, John of Gaunt returned from campaigning in Spain (Gaunt had married Constance of Castile—whose father the king of Castile had been usurped—and claimed the Castilian throne in her name, for which he had to fight). Gaunt was wealthy and powerful and worked to restore the king's power. He convinced the Lords Appellant and the king to compromise. The 1390s were relatively stable, but Richard never forgave the Lords Appellant, and eventually had his revenge.
The Duke of Gloucester, one of the Lords Appellant, was Thomas of Woodstock, one of the sons of Edward III and therefore Richard's uncle. He was captured during the wars in France and held captive in Calais. Richard (presumable) gave an order to kill him. (see illustration) Others were executed or imprisoned.
One of the Lords Appellant was Henry Bolingbroke, John of Gaunt's son. This was one explanation why Gaunt was able to reason with the Lords Appellant. When Gaunt died in 1399, Richard did not have to worry about angering his most valuable ally. Richard exiled Henry for ten years (it didn't last), and forbade him to inherit from his father.
The exile and confiscation of his father's estate and title did not sit well with Henry. You might be familiar with his name and what happened next. If not, I'll save the surprise until next time.
