Today is the 550th anniversary of the murder of King Henry VI in the Tower of London.
Normally his death is commemorated by the Roses and lilies ceremony in the Tower when representatives of his two great foundations of Eton and King’s College Cambridge lay flowers in memory of their founder. Such an act of piety, however low-key, is a gracious gesture to him.
Academic historians of the fifteenth century tend to see the King very much through the lens of political success or failure and are usually less than impressed by what they see in his personal reign after the end of his minority in 1436. They may be charitable - though a few cutting remarks escape their pens and word processors - but they are not usually complimentary.
Writers of historical fiction, and the fifteenth century is a happy hunting ground for such as these, tend overwhelmingly to favour the Yorkists, swoooning over King Edward IV and his Queen, let alone King Richard III, and the Lancastrians get short shrift. That in itself is an interesting phenomenon.
Such however was not the reaction of English men and women in the fifteenth century. In the previous post I commented on the verdict of the Croyland Chronicle about the King’s death:
‘May God spare and grant time for repentance to the person, whoever he was, who thus dared lay sacrilegious hands upon the Lord's anointed! Hence it is that he who perpetrated this has justly earned the title of tyrant, while he who thus suffered had gained that of a glorious Martyr’.
Polydore Vergil, writing admittedly in the time of King Henry VII, who saw himself as the heir of King Henry VI, wrote of him as
“a man of mild and plain-speaking disposition, who preferred peace before wars, quietness before troubles, honesty before utility… there was not in this world a more pure, honest, and more holy creature”
That there was a popular cult of the King Is clear. Whilst he was on the throne popular criticism was not unknown as shown by R.L. Storey in his study of political disorder in the 1450s - yet when dethroned and certainly when dead there was genuinely popular cult - it seems to have had appeal to the poor and the marginalised. He appears to have been seen as a King who was concerned for, on the side of, the vulnerable and weak.
This developed under the Yorkists - notably the statue ordered to be removed from York Minster in 1479 - and under King Henry VII was encouraged. The proposed shrine chapel at Westminster May not hold the remains of King Henry VI and bear the name of its builder King Henry VII but this richly endowed and spectacular chapel appears to have been so intended.
His former chaplain and later Carthusian monk John Blacman Life of the King - the text is available online at
Henry the Sixth, a reprint of John Blacman's memoir : as well as a paperback - has been queried by some historians as to its veracity but its rather artless style suggests authenticity.
This is a facility I am unaware of at shrines today..,
If he was a failure as a King - the one Weak King in our history according to Sellers and Yeatman’s definitive 1066 and All That - the question remains as to why he was so popular as an intercessor, and indeed why had he retained the loyalty of so many of his subjects?
I have long thought and will venture to
suggest that we might consider a model based on the reign of King Richard II - who never attracted a saintly cult, although he had tried to
encourage one fir King Edward II. The parallels are fairly obvious with the problems of a royal minority and of succeeding a famous father and grandfather. However this line of argument does not seem to attract much attention. 1399 was not such a gulf, and the nature of English kingship changed more by personality of he who wore the crown rather than any inherent change.
As a boy King Henry seems to have been deliver raised to be pious - as a child what else could his tutors offer to do. They could hope that he might develop like his father, who was not just a skilled ruler and warrior but was also seriously devout. A pious serious minded warrior administrator was what the monarch needed to be to continue the work of his illustrious father, Devotion could at least be inculcated young during the child King’s lengthy sojourn at the abbey of Bury St Edmunds. After that hopefully would come martial and administrative skills.That alas was not to be.
After a relatively successful minority, though seriously marred by clashes such as that in 1425 between the King’s great-uncle Bishop
Beaufort and his uncle Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and the resurgence of the Valois monarchy after 1429, the King ruled from 1436 onwards.
King Henry VI and Queen MargaretFrom the Talbot Shrewsbury Book. British Library Royal 15 E vi Image: Historic Roysl Palaces
King Henry was not averse in the years 1436-53 to assert his prerogatives - and in that way he resembles King Richard II at the same age. There were unpopular favourites, complacency leading to neglect of the great Duchy of Lancaster network of patronage which had served his father, grandfather and great grandfather so well, muddle and indecision in government, lack of funds, partisanship, the failure to moderate factions - there were no equivalents to the Appellants to stop him, no equivalent of Radcot Bridge until the crisis years of 1449-53. There was fear as to the succession and as with Richard the creeping loss of territory in France, aggravated by fears as the King moved to negotiate a peace with his uncle King Charles VII, with the French playing a waiting game. All this resulted in serious clashes, fatalities, the desire for revenge, civil war, deposition, all alongside causing and caused by the King’s frail mental
health.
Yet despite his infirmity after 1453 and all these problems he still commanded loyalty. Sometimes it was strained and bonds snapped, but many did remain his supporters. This was not, I think the mere self-interest of those who were in and who were out at Court. I think Lancastrian loyalism has been underrated. Just to dismiss him as weak and beset by mental problems does not do justice I think to a monarch who, however maladroitly, showed tendencies towards an assertion of unfettered authority not dissimilar to King Richard II. The court culture also suggests similarities that do not appear to have attracted that much attention.
Too often I sense that discourse about the King and his reign does not break out of long-established paradigms that reflect now out-dated interpretations of the fifteenth century.
In the late fifteenth century he often appeared
The example is at Stambourne church in Essex
sows the two patron Saints of the dual monarchy he inherited, SS Denis and George, the Great East Anglian martyr King St Edmund and King Henry VI side by side on the screen.
A unique survival, sadly damaged, but still
striking, of what was clearly a well produced woodcut showing the King surrounded by votaries which survives in a Bodleian volume can be seen
here
Rather like King Charles I, King Louis XVI and Emperor Nicholas II he continues to attract affection and devotees, although the parallels are not too strong - in their cases revolution destroyed them and their system. In England the revolution was over sixty years after King Henry’s death.
In some ways, as a dutiful peace loving monarch he has more in common with the contemporary cult of Bl Charles of Austria.
Modern attempts have been made to further his cause, but seem to have faltered at present according to this post
The Henry VI Society
The Prayer of King Henry VI
Lord Jesus Christ,
who created,
redeemed, and preordained
me to be this that I am,
you know what you wish to do with me;
do with me in accordance
with your will,
with mercy.
Amen.
