Vergil wrote: ‘King Henry was a man of mild and plain dealing disposition, who preferred peace
before wars, quietness before troubles’. This quote displays that Henry held the opposite traits to
those demanded of a king by his contemporaries. It is supported by the quote of Henry’s admiring
chaplain, JohnBlacman, who tells us: ‘His delight was in the law of the Lord by day and night’.
This further demonstrates the incorrect positions of the priorities of Henry VI. A.J.Pollard gives a
blunter, more critical view of Henry, saying ‘Henry was weak, vacillating, feckless and
profligate’. It is indeed correct to apply each of these terms to Henry, and every one of these
traits led to actions with undesirable results. Henry was weak, and strength was especially
necessary in a Lancastrian due to Henry IV’s (Henry VI’s grandfather) dubious claim to the
throne. This made a Lancastrian king vulnerable to attack. Henry’s lack of such a strength not
only strengthened the power of other claimants but also encouraged people to question his right to
be king. The king’s inauthoritative presence produced a lack of confidence in a King of so little
strength amongst his people. It also encouraged his council as well as Margaret of Anjou to
dominate parliamentary decisions. R.L Storey tells us ‘Record of the meetings of the King’s
Council, indeed, do not indicate that Henry regularly attended its sessions. While it sat as
Westminster, the King was frequently absent from the capital’. This quote demonstrates an
obvious shortcoming of Henry. His absence from Parliament was a direct indication of his
disinterest in his kingly duties. The quote also reminds us that we cannot put full blame on
Henry’s Council for their increasingly powerful roles. John Watts is less critical of courtiers than
most and claims they were simply filling a void created by the absence of an active king.
McFarlane is strongly critical of Henry where the rising power of others was concerned. He wrote
‘his personal lack of fitness was the cause, not the weakness of his office and his resources’.
Wolffe wrote that Henry ‘dissolved the unity and purpose of the realm and made all his advisers
seem like knaves or fools or both’. Wolffe agrees that Henry was in part the most responsible
for the actions of his Council. Henry’s absence and disinterest in royal matters were not the only
problems of his incompetence. His feeble qualities combined with his feckless attitude resulted in
an unmerited and unreasonable distribution of patronage as well as an increase in bastard
feudalism and noble rivalries. A.J Pollard writes that Henry was ‘a man who always agreed with
the last to have spoken with him, he created confusion by contradictory policy decision and
duplicated grants’. This is evident from many of his actions. Henry showered vast amounts of
patronage on Richard, Duke of York who became one of the greatest landowners in the country,
owning vast estates in England, Wales and Ireland as well as several castles, including his
stronghold in Ludlow. This leads us to consider how great a role Henry played in his eventual
rival’s rise in power. An example of Henry’s ineffective distribution of patronage is that of his
actions in 1441, when he granted the stewardship of the Duchy of Cornwall to both the Earl of
Devon and Sir Bonville. Such careless mistakes increased noble feuds and put greater pressure on
his council who had to correct his errors. Henry’s incompetence due to his personality was a great
cause of the Wars of the Roses and must be considered as a factor of the other sources of the
Wars.
It is certain that until 1453, Henry was not yet mentally ill but simply incompetent. However, the
fact of Henry’s complete mental and physical breakdown in 1453-4 is undisputed. Just three
weeks after hearing of the defeat at Castillon, Henry VI’s health suddenly collapsed. He became
utterly withdrawn, bringing things to a head as a regent was needed to rule in Henry’s name. The
following events – York’s loss of the regency, his raising of an army against the Queen resulting
in the Queen’s actions at her ‘Parliament of Devils’ – heightened tensions in the build up to the
consequential wars. Henry’s sudden deterioration of his mental fitness had caused further conflict
between his wife and Richard, Duke of York, giving additional stimulation to the quarrels which
led to the Wars of the Roses.
A certain amount of blame for the outbreak of the Wars has been placed, by some historians, on
the faults of Henry’s Council, above all on the ‘over-mighty nobles’ who sought power beyond
their duty, most prominently Richard, Duke of York. The general view amongst historians is that
Henry was in fact responsible for the growing confidence of subjects in his office, for example
McFarlane wrote that ‘only an undermighty ruler had anything to fear from overmighty
subjects’. It is indeed
R L Storey, The End of the House of Lancaster, p35
McFarlane, The End of the House of Lancaster, p456
John Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship, p108
A.J Pollard, The Wars of the Roses, p 56
The Origins of the Wars of The Roses, Keith Dockray, p65