Been thinking lately about good King Henry. No not that one. Nor that one. Not even that one.
I speak not of Henry VIII, who transformed England perhaps more than any other ruler. Nor do I dwell on his father, who founded the infamous Tudor dynasty. I do not even mean the fifth Harry, who took England to its 100 year war zenith at the battle of Agincourt.
Instead, I’ve been pondering the reign of Henry VI – the man whose reign was seen as so disastrous that it led to the Wars of the Roses and ultimately, the downfall of Lancaster and the rise of York. He was weak. Easily led. He had no desire for glory in war. He lacked ruthlessness. He was far too trusting; particularly when it came to unscrupulous advisers.
All this is accurate. He had none of the qualities necessary for successful medieval Kingship.
But something bothers me about how history judges him. No sympathy has emerged and few rarely speak up for his good qualities. He was a man of genuine religious conviction. He was compassionate. He invested in education. He forgave people that wronged him. He was not promiscuous. He took care of his maternal half-brothers. He was a lover of peace.
None of this, I agree, would have endeared him to contemporaries. But shouldn’t the 21st century observer be pouring praise on these virtues? After all, the behaviour of Catherine Howard made her a totally unsuitable Tudor Queen; but the modern reader has sympathy with her, recognising that she was essentially an abused teenage girl, forced into marriage with an obese man in his 50s. Why isn’t Henry VI given the same generosity?
It has come to my attention of late that the Wars of the Roses are still being fought – albeit by history fans on Twitter. Great! But it surprises me that so many side with Edward IV at the expense of poor Henry.
Don’t get me wrong – as I’ve said above, I understand why contemporaries would have seen Edward as the better King. But shouldn’t we judge differently? Shouldn’t we be quick to acknowledge that virtuous, faithful, peaceful Henry is a better offering than adulterous, gluttonous and war ready Edward – even if we have to sadly acknowledge that the latter probably makes you a better ruler of 15th century England?
But we don’t. Part of me can’t shake the feeling that this has all been distorted by the fact that so many history fans have a crush on Max Irons…
Anyway, for this blogger at least, Henry VI deserves a reprieve. He may have been one of the most unsuited heads to ever wear a crown – but he’s one of the finest characters in the annals of history.
Okay Yorkists (and other geeks) – do your worst. Tell me where I’m going wrong! I want to hear what you think!
While I do think you’re correct in that Henry VI had many virtues that are often overlooked by modern “history geeks,” he possessed one quality that, then or today, made someone entirely unfit for leadership. Henry had a relatively severe and obviously untreated mental illness in the form of (what today is generally diagnosed as) catatonic schizophrenia. It’s hard (if not impossible) to lead a country effectively with such a disabling illness. I have a great deal of sympathy for him as a person–he was in an impossible situation, and seemed to be a genuinely good person–but I have to agree with his contemporaries that he was unfit to be king.
I agree. Just wish they could have come to a better solution. Question marks over his son’s legitimacy probably didn’t help…
I’ve never met someone who doesn’t sympathize with Henry VI (myself included)? I’ve always felt sorry for him. But his madness made me unable o judge his inability to rule. I’ve never heard him called a terrible person, though, or anything. I don’t think anyone dislikes him.
But Edward is the better King.
Good points. Perhaps Henry was most let down by his wife and Somerset. Had they governed better on his behalf, things might have been different…
I’m currently writing my dissertation about Henry VI’s ‘mental illness’. I have all the sympathy for him! I don’t have a lot of love for Edward IV because I feel like his poor decision making has also given Elizabeth woodeville a terrible rap and she’s my gal. Historically speaking.
Also Max Irons < Jeremy Irons.
I’d be REALLY interested in reading your dissertation when you’re done. If you’re up for sharing it, my email address is in the contact section 🙂
absolutely will do!
Interesting. I for one have a great deal of sympathy with Henry VI’s much malinged Queen, Margaret of Anjou. I think she was a brave woman who fought tooth and nail for her family. There is no evidence her son was illegitimate- all the evidence points to that being a rumour spread by her enemies, and she was no more violent then the men.
As to Henry VI’s mental illness, its interesting that in France, she would most probably have been allowed to become Regent. There was a strong precedent for female Regency over there, and her grandmother, Yolande of Aragon had not, by all accounts, done a bad job of running things when Margaret’s father had been absent as a child.
Sadly, we almost never allowed female Regency in England, one almost thinks Margaret might have done a good job, and any complaints made against her about factionalism or favouritism could be applied to Richard Duke of York as well, who attempted to have his main rival Somerset tried for ‘treason’ during his period as Protector. Parliament would not allow it, in the end, as he almost certainly was not guilty of treason against his cousin Henry, for all his faults, he was loyal.
I would also say that the claim Edward IV was a better King who bought more stability does not ring true. Look at all the uprisings and insurrections in the first decade of his reign- not to mention that he almost got himself deposed by the very man who had been instumental in putting him on the throne in the first place. It was treachery yes, but there were some very real grievances put before Edward in 1469, one was the corruption of justice by his favourites, which may well have had some truth in it.
His friend Tiptoft Earl of Worcester was a psychopath who nearly caused a rebellion in Ireland when he exectued the popular Yorkist Earl of Desmond on trumped up chages and took his land.