A discussion on how far King Henry VI was personally responsible for the collapse into civil war in the 1450’s.
This paper examines how the reasons for the collapse of English government in the 1450’s and the resulting ‘Wars of the Roses’ represents a hotbed of historical debate. It looks at how, although the thirty years of social turmoil that so rocked foundations of English society cannot be attributed to one single factor, the timing of its eruption perhaps can as it coincided with the reign of Henry VI. It attempts to analyze how far Henry was actually responsible taking into account his illness, incompetence and lack of authority. It also looks at the role played by factionalism or the chivalric vacuum created by the ending of the hundred years war and the role of other individuals at the time such as the Duke of York and Henry VI’s queen.
Henry’s personal control of patronage saw him give away many of the crown’s lands, helping tip the balance of the crown-subject relationship into relatively neutral fiscal territory. The king’s depletion of royal finances, though not an obvious cause of civil war, helped further the desperate state of the crown thus influencing its ability to deal with troublesome magnates. Henry spent lavishly on architectural projects such as Eton and Cambridge yet the most draining source of revenue cannot be attributed to him alone. The inheritance of the Hundred Years War from his father has perhaps helped lessen historical scorn for his financial incompetence yet the fact remains that he did little to rectify the crowns growing monetary crisis.