When Henry IV had his final succession statute passed through
Parliament he made no provision for the throne beyond his children and
their offspring. Neither the Beauforts, the Yorks, or even the Hollands
got so much as a line. This was quite understandable, given that he had
four sons and two daughters. No one could have been expected to
anticipate that those six young people would produce but two legitimate
heirs between them. Of these, Blanche's son, Rupert of Germany, died in
1426. The other was the future Henry VI, who would turn out to be
(arguably) the least capable person ever to rule this country.
That
Henry IV had doubts about the Beauforts (especially the eldest, who was almost certainly conceived in Sir Hugh Swynford's lifetime) seems to be clear
from his decision to explicitly exclude them from any rights to the
succession in his exemplification of Richard II's statute of
legitimisation. But - at the time - any prospect of the Beauforts
getting a sniff of the crown was remote in the extreme, and Henry's
exclusion of their claim was almost an irrelevance.
Once Henry V
had dealt with the Cambridge Plot and gone on to win the Battle of
Agincourt, the prospects for the Lancastrian dynasty looked rosy indeed.
A few years on, with the Duke of Burgundy murdered by supporters of the
Dauphin, Henry found a powerful ally in the new Burgundy (Philip the
Good), and soon afterwards concluded the Treaty of Troyes with Charles
VI, by which he (Henry) was declared Heir and Regent of France, and
married to Charles's daughter, Katherine of Valois. The Dauphin (future
Charles VII) was disinherited.
This might be seen as the
high-water point of the entire Lancastrian dynasty. What could possibly
go wrong? Well, for a start, there was an awful lot of France still to
conquer, and the people living there had not simply laid down their arms
and accepted Henry on hearing of the Treaty. Meanwhile, Parliament,
back in England, was already growing reluctant to pay for the necessary
war. As they saw it, Henry had won his (not England's) realm of
France - great! Now it was now up to that realm, not England, to pay
the cost of putting down the 'rebels' who so inconveniently still
occupied the greater part of it. This probably seemed quite reasonable
to the Honourable Members, with their typically English dislike of
paying tax. However, assuming that the war was to be won, it was a
completely unrealistic attitude to take.
Henry's next brother in
age, Thomas, Duke of Clarence was killed at the Battle of Bauge (21
March 1421). Clarence made the mistake of advancing on the enemy without
his supporting archers, and the result was a costly defeat, both in
terms of men killed and captured and in the boost the victory gave to
French (or technically Armagnac) morale. Among those captured was the
head of the Beaufort family, John, Earl of Somerset. He was to remain a
captive until 1438, though it must be said he was not much missed.
So
matters stood when King Henry died on 31 August 1422, at the relatively young age of 35. Ironically, he never wore the crown of
France as his father-in-law, the hapless Charles VI, contrived to
outlive him.
Some authors have suggested that if Henry had lived,
things might have turned out differently. I doubt it, because it
wouldn't have made the English Parliament any more generous, and that
was the key factor. As Regent of France Henry was succeeded by his
brother, John, Duke of Bedford, one of the most able rulers to emerge in
the entire middle ages. Bedford was an efficient soldier, politician and
administrator. He proved the former by commanding at the Battle of
Verneuil (17 August 1424) which was in some respects a more crushing
victory than Agincourt. His skill as politician and administrator
prolonged the life of the English Kingdom of France, and it's unlikely
that anyone (even Henry V) could have done much better.
Bedford's
task was not made easier by his only surviving (and younger) brother,
Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. Gloucester was to prove something of a
loose cannon throughout his remaining career. He was Protector of
England (during Bedford's (usual) absence from the country), but his
official powers were limited, much to his frustration. When he was not
arguing with his uncle, Bishop Henry Beaufort, he was 'marrying'
Jacqueline, Countess of Hainault and Holland, and fighting against
England's ally, Philip of Burgundy, in an attempt to secure her
inheritance. (I say 'marrying' because, inconveniently, the lady already
possessed a living husband, and in due course the Pope declared her
'marriage' to Humphrey invalid. Not that matters were quite that
simple.)
Humphrey went on to marry his former 'wife's'
lady-in-waiting, Eleanor Cobham. This was clearly a love match, not
least because it seems Eleanor was his mistress before he married her.
However, they were fated not to have children together, and Humphrey's
only offspring, Arthur and Antigone, were illegitimate.
Bedford's
own marriage, to Anne of Burgundy, was arranged for reasons of state,
but nevertheless it proved a successful one at a personal level.
Unfortunately, it also remained childless. This may help to explain why
Bedford was so quick to marry Jacquetta of Luxembourg after Anne's
death. It is sometimes suggested that the swift remarriage angered
Anne's brother, the Duke of Burgundy, but if so it was only in the way
of one more straw on the camel's back. Philip's attachment to the
English alliance had been waning for some time. He was able to see the
way the wind was blowing. Bedford's death (14 September 1435) made
matters still worse and left the English leadership in some disarray,
but the Congress of Arras was already in progress at the time. Although
the English were invited to take part, the terms offered to them were
totally unacceptable. Burgundy, on the other hand, was accommodated and
was happy to make a separate peace with Charles VII. From that moment on
the English Kingdom of France was doomed (if it was not already) and
the remarkable thing is not that it ultimately fell, but that it
struggled on until 1453.
Objectively, the English probably ought to have accepted the Arras peace, however harsh, as it would have left them something
of their conquests. However, this is to ignore the political situation
in England. Hardliners such as Gloucester essentially regarded the
acceptance of anything short of the terms of the Treaty of Troyes as
bordering on treason. This was a totally unrealistic view to hold, in
view of the improvement of the French position in both political and
military terms, but questions of personal and national honour were in
play, and common sense was banished from the equation.
Henry VI
began his personal rule at the age of 16 in 1437. While the depth of his
incompetence was not yet apparent, even the most able of rulers would
have faced a daunting task. The kingdom was next door to bankruptcy and
quite unable adequately to finance the cost of fighting the ongoing war
in France. The reinforcements sent abroad gradually grew smaller in
number, and it was increasingly difficult to find commanders of a
suitable rank who were willing to participate. While the war had, in the
past, been profitable for some private individuals - if not for the
nation - anyone with any sense could calculate that the opportunities
for profit were shrinking by the day, while on the other hand there was a
much increased prospect of being captured and having to pay ransom
oneself. In other words, the war was an increasingly bad investment.
As
for the Lancastrian dynasty, it now comprised, as far as males were
concerned, Henry VI and his Uncle Humphrey. It scarcely helped that
these two were completely at odds as to how to settle the war, the King
being for peace at almost any price, while Gloucester was of the 'one
last heave' school, and believed that a suitably large English army
(preferably led by himself) would smash the French in another Agincourt
and enable the English to impose their own terms. (It was actually an
academic argument, as Parliament was not willing to finance the cost of
such an expedition, and it's questionable whether enough men could have
been put together even had the taxes been forthcoming.)
The
Duchess of Gloucester's ill-advised attempts to find via astrology
and/or magic whether she was to bear a child, and for how long Henry VI
would live were a perfect gift to Gloucester's political opponents. Her
fall from grace (which involved not only penitential parades through
London but life imprisonment for the unfortunate woman) had consequences
for her husband, whose remaining political influence was virtually
destroyed overnight. Since they were forcibly divorced, Gloucester
could, in theory, have married again but in practice he did not. So when
he died on 23 February 1447, the sole remaining legitimate male member
of the Lancastrian family was Henry VI himself. (Unless you count the
Beauforts, and as far as legitimate accession to the throne or the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned, you really shouldn't.)
By
this time, Henry had secured a sort of peace (no more than a short
truce bought at the cost of great concessions) and as part of the
bargain had married Margaret of Anjou. Though in due course this union
produced a son, Edward, it would appear that the deeply-religious King
found married life something of a chore. There is no real reason to
assume that Prince Edward was not fathered by Henry, but there were
rumours around that he was not. Rumours were of course a commonplace of
medieval England. (They were often slanderous, and are only taken
seriously by historians when they are negative and concern Richard III.)
The
Lancastrian dynasty, which within living memory had seem rock solid and
beyond challenge, was now on its last legs. The loss of Lancastrian
France was inevitable, given the crown's lack of resources. However,
there were many in England all too ready to blame the disaster on the
shortcomings of the King and his advisers. Henry's limited political
skills, his tendency to put complete trust in certain favoured
counsellors to the exclusion of his powerful cousin, York, and the
rising influence of Queen Margaret all added to a toxic political
mixture. Of course, in addition to all this, the King was increasingly
troubled by mental health problems that at times left him catatonic for
months on end. These attacks gave York a couple of opportunities to rule
as Protector, but the usual way of things was that as soon as the King
recovered he went back to his reliance on Queen Margaret and whichever
Somerset was currently alive.
Despite his dismal record as a ruler, very few people seem to have disliked Henry VI personally,
and that is one reason why he survived in power as long as he did.
Indeed, it might be argued that even York and his allies did all they
could to keep Henry on his throne. It was only after the Battle of
Wakefield and the death of York himself that the Yorkist faction decided
they had no choice but make a clean sweep.
Reblogged from Murrey and Blue
