Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship

by John Watts

Henry VI (1422-61) was one of the most spectacularly inadequate kings of England, and his reign dissolved into the conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. Yet he held on to his throne for thirty-nine years and, for almost thirty of them, without much difficulty. What was the nature of Henry's inadequacy, and why did it have such ambivalent and complicated results? This book looks intensively at the political system itself, rather than at individuals, their personalities and patronage networks, and thus offers the first truly structured narrative of the reign.

Genres: History

418 pages, Paperback

First published August 8, 1996

Reviews

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

John Watts’s study focuses exclusively on the political set-up of Henry VI’s reign from the first movements towards Henry ruling in his full authority as king in 1435 to the anarchic final years culminating in the disaster of the Battle of Towton in 1461. The first few chapters are focused on the conceptual framework, setting out just how late medieval kings “ruled” – these chapters are heavy going and I did struggle with them, though perhaps those with more interest in political theory will be more engaged.

The rest of the book, however, is thought-provoking, fascinating and potentially revolutionary. Watts’s central thesis is that Henry VI was incapable of ruling in his own right and a fiction of the royal will – managed and maintained by William de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, as the head of Henry VI’s household, with the consensus of the lords of the realm – was required in order for the government to function. But this fiction couldn’t be sustained and ultimately collapsed under the stress it placed on the system of ruling.

It is a really fascinating thesis, one that requires reader to rethink and reassess the broader narratives of Henry VI’s reign and the beginnings of the Wars of the Roses, as well as the well-engrained characterisations of leading figures. I found myself challenged and intrigued by Watts’s reassessment of Suffolk and Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, and agreed with much of his assessment of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester who is too often dismissed as a warmongering knave. Unlike more recent biographers of Henry VI and leading figures in his reign, Watts is not interested in blaming the disaster all on one individual or faction but deals with all personalities fairly. In fact, he seems to argue against there being any real factions.

Watts’s thesis is not, however, entirely convincing. It rests on two assumptions. Firstly, that Henry VI was wholly incapable of ruling or exercising his personal authority which is far from a settled fact. Henry’s biographers all take disparate views on when (or if, in Watts’s case) Henry exercised power on his own right. In Watts’ narrative, Henry becomes a void at the centre of government in which others compensate for. Such a theory cannot be completely proven, nor can is it the only scenario that makes sense of Henry’s reign. Secondly, it also rests on the assumption that the response of the magnates was one of reasonable, responsible governance, which does little to address the seemingly personal vendettas and vindictiveness that characterised much of the 1440s and 1450s, or to deal with the legacy of the Beaufort-Gloucester feud. In Watts’s view, the conflict between Richard, Duke of York and Somerset has no personal dimension but simply is caused by the fiction ruling England.

Another flaw, in my opinion, is too little focus is given to the role of women at the court which probably indicates the book was written well before queenship studies – especially Helen Maurer’s monumental study of Margaret of Anjou – could play a role. In Watts’s thesis, Margaret seemingly emerges from nowhere in the crises of the 1450s – if she had played a role in the governance of the realm or in the maintenance of Henry VI’s (fictional) royal will prior, Watts does not consider it. And yet she surely would have played such a role. Intriguingly, Watts mentions in passing that, amongst others, Alice Chaucer, Duchess of Suffolk was accused of treason but just as Watts does not name her, he also does not go into detail of the accusations against her and her co-accused, nor does he explore the influence she might have had at court, as the wife of Suffolk or the friend of the queen. Thankfully, he does not subject Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester and aunt of Henry VI to the same anonymity – but the case against her is given succinctly, with little deep analysis and the prospect of her own influence is ignored. Henry VI’s royal will is always a fiction created and directed by men – the access to Henry and the power these women had is largely unrecognised and unanalysed by Watts.

This is a work of political history. The debates and mysteries of Henry VI’s reign and personality, such as the dichotomy of holy fool and sainted king, the nature of his mental illness, the issues at the heart of the minority, whether Gloucester was murdered or not, the failure in France, are not gone into. The focus is purely on the political. In some ways, this can feel frustrating and worrying but then Watts is not pretending to write anything but something focused entirely on the political. He is not focused on the personal.

In the end, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship is thought-provoking, original and intelligently argued. I would recommend this to anyone seeking to understand the issues of Henry VI’s reign or the lead-up to the Wars of the Roses conflict. I don’t, personally, find myself wholly convinced by Watts’s arguments and there are weaknesses in them – but even so, for me, this is a book that you have to read if you wish to understand and certainly speak about Henry VI’s reign with any kind of authority.

[Tracy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent review of various policies regarding notions surrounding the debt kings owe to their people. They must be good to their people; we can understand how this might be difficult for a person to achieve and yet how necessary that is to attempt.