{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029275808936825885, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01078582434514638, 'mean_word_length': 5.190476190476191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Richard II in Thomas Walsingham's Chronicles

King Richard II of England (1377-99) has enjoyed neither a happy nor a wholesome posthumous reputation. The traditional view of his character and government is largely hostile, if not contemptuous.' In recent years, however, historians have begun to question this view. They have detected in the work of contemporary chroniclers, especially Lancastrian authors, the genesis of an unfriendly and unfounded bias against the king. Because of their enormous importance and influence, the many chronicles of St. Albans abbey, above all those by Thomas Walsingham, have been singled out for particular blame.2