• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Within the context of the period 1337-1471, to what extent can Henry VI be held primarily responsible for the Wars of the Roses 1455-1471?

Extracts from this document...


Emily Carleton Within the context of the period 1337-1471, to what extent can Henry VI be held primarily responsible for the Wars of the Roses 1455-1471? When Henry VI came to the throne in 1431, people already had high expectations of him. At only 8 years old, he had already broken tradition by becoming the first king to rule over both England and France. However, when the minority council finally permitted Henry VI to rule of his own accord, he seemed to be a hopeless King, making severe mistakes that ultimately contributed to beginning of the Wars of the Roses in the period 1455 to 1471. However, there is some debate amongst historians as to whether Henry VI can be held primarily to blame for causing the Wars of the Roses, or whether other factors such as the over mighty subjects, the feuds between noble, and the actions of Margaret of Anjou were greater contributing factors to the outbreak of war. Henry VI?s personality has been criticised by many historians as being unsuited to the role of king. Contemporary interpretations of Henry are that he was terrible at ruling, as he was ?utterly devoid of wit or spirit? (according to Pope Pius II). Subjects who were condemned for speaking ill of the king in the 1440s and 1450s referred to him as ?a sheep?. Victorian views on Henry VI were that he lacked the qualities required for successful kingship, although at that time he was still praised for being ?a pious, humane and Christian character?. The historian Antonia Fraser concludes that ?these were not the attributes of a king and the truth is that Henry had no real wish to act like one?. This suggests that henry?s personality was overall, entirely ill-suited for the role of kingship. Henry?s chaplain John Blacman (writing during the reign of Henry Tudor), although writing somewhat positively about Henry VI, chooses to avoid mentioning Henry VI?S ability to rule and instead focuses on how religious Henry VI is, ...read more.


However, there are other factors that suggest that he wasn?t entirely to blame for the Wars of the Roses. Many historians have identified the family tree of Edward III as a significant factor in causing the wars of the roses for several reasons. One main reason why it could be seen as a significant factor is because it started the debate as to who had the stronger claim to the throne, the house of Lancaster, or the house of York. When Edward II died in 1377, Richard II succeeded him (as Edward the black prince had predeceased his father). However, as she was too young to rule, John of Gaunt ruled in his stead until Richard II turned 20. Richard II banished Gaunt?s heir, Henry Bolingbroke, and Thomas Mobray when they had a quarrel, but made the fatal mistake of seizing all of the wealth of the house of Lancaster. This caused Henry Bolingbroke to return to reclaim his wealth, ultimately ending in Bolingbroke taking the throne of England as Henry IV. By doing so, he ignored the claims of the Mortimer family, which followed back through a woman named Philippa, the daughter of Lionel of Clarence (the second son of Edward iii), and these claims eventually passed down to Richard, duke of York. The Yorkist line seemed to have the stronger claim to the throne than the Lancastrian line, as Richard, earl of Cambridge?s marriage with Anne Mortimer connected his line with the Mortimer line, arguably putting him ahead of the Lancastrians in the line of succession. The debate was that Anne Mortimer was a woman, making Richard Plantagenet?s claim through a female line, so the Lancastrian claim was considered stronger, and also the Yorkist claim was not pursued after 1415, as his father, Richard, earl of Cambridge had been beheaded for treason. This chain of events helped to start off the Wars of the Roses, as it was Richard Plantagenet who founded the house of York. ...read more.


The Coventry Parliament in 1459 even wrote a catalogue of his alleged treacheries, and the tract Somnium Vigilantes criticised his behaviour as being ?subversive to the commonwealth?. The events in 1452 also support this view; York started a campaign to remove Somerset from power which failed, so he had to resort to an armed force. He also confronted the king at Blackheath with armed retainers, with a view to finally gaining his deserved position beside the king. According to the historian J.R. Lander, one contemporary writer claims that he ?surrendered on the promise that Somerset would be arrested?. However, this failed, as little support from nobles and the common people led to his humiliation. These events suggest that York was indeed ambitious and self-interested with little support. When York returned from Ireland in 1450, many of the king?s servants became suspicious. Despite returning because he was worried about the return of Somerset from France, the king?s servants assumed he was there to overthrow the king due to rumours spread about during that time. This suggests that he certainly did not have the approval of the public, as they were prepared to believe in rumours rather than trusting in his character. Overall, the balance of evidence seems to suggest that Henry VI was primarily responsible for the Wars of the Roses. Henry VI?s incompetence allowed rebellion to take place, and his inability to rule effectively meant that the government was filled with over-mighty subjects all vying for power. He also worsened the disputes between the nobles and increased tensions between them, creating the perfect conditions for war to take place. Although he cannot be blamed substantially for the defeat in France, he did play a role in events by surrendering Maine and Anjou. The usurpation in 1399 also heightened all of these factors, as it encouraged the belief that God was against his rule. None of the key factors responsible for the Wars of the Roses would have been as influential on events if Henry VI had been the dominant, assertive ruler everyone needed him to be. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    In what ways and to what extent does the concept of Spain's Golden Age ...

    5 star(s)

    destroyed the entire Turkish fleet, leaving him without a rival for naval supremacy in the Mediterranean. Upon his acquisition of the Portuguese navy in 1580's Philip command of the seas was cemented. Yet the navy also saw a decline under Philip as he sent it to eight consecutive defeats against England after 1588.

  2. Was there a mid-Tudor crisis during the reigns of Edward VI and Mary I ...

    The quality of Mary's I reign has often been criticized by traditional historians like A.F. Pollard who stated that the regime was weak and unproductive, however this can be argued and there is little doubt that central and local government remained in control throughout the reigns of Edward and Mary,

  1. Henry VI's weakness as a King Directly Led to the outbreak of war in ...

    nation HAD to be decisive and strong, both mentally and physically if he was to keep the country in check. Seeing as he didn't posses traits that were considered fit for a King, nobles had a lack of respect for him, and considering the Nobilities increasing private power, was very

  2. Was Charles I responsible for his execution?

    On the other hand, maybe Charles has a feeling that the people will not stand for his death, so even if Parliament executed him a new king will succeed to the throne. Of course, with hindsight we see that this actually happened.

  1. To What Extent Was Henry Vll Secure?

    was Perkin Warbeck and was persuaded by the Yorkist party to persuade Richard, Duke of York, the younger brother of Edward V. His claim was more serious as he had backing from some big names including Maximillian I, James IV of Scotland and Margaret of Burgundy.

  2. The Hundred Years' War, fought between two royal houses for the French throne, the ...

    Edward was able to do so because he could prove a closer relationship to the deceased French king Philipp der Sch�ne; with Philipp VI. being only a nephew, Edward the III. as an grandchild should have had better chances in becoming the french king.

  1. What kind of king does Shakespeare create in Act 3 Scenes 1 and 2? ...

    It is also clear that the three are disloyal as Nym expresses fears of getting killed for hiding from fighting; "Abate thy rage, abate thy manly rage! Abate thy rage, great duke! Good bawcock, bate thy rage. Use lenity sweet chuck", this casts doubts in the audiences minds as to the effectiveness of the King's speech.

  2. How far was Edward IV successful at restoring order in England between 1471 and ...

    Benevolence is a gift of money demanded by the King. Everyone except the nobles and the clergy had to pay this to the King. In terms of foreign policy, Edward IV's reign was a success. In the ever-changing friendships between countries in Europe, England would always be on the outside because of its location.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work