WI: Henry VI of House Lancaster Not Insane
- Thread starter Chirios
- Start date
Henry VI
Not being insane does not mean that he would have made a good ruler. How much of France would it be physically possible for England to conquer? A more realistic outcome would be a partition of France between England and Burgundy.
Also, by the time Henry VI came of age the war had already clearly turned against England. Lancastrian France was down to little more than Normandy and Guienne.
Anjou and Maine might also have been retained for a time had Henry not married Margaret of Anjou, but probably not for long.
Anjou and Maine might also have been retained for a time had Henry not married Margaret of Anjou, but probably not for long.
Last edited:
Henry VI not being insance won't probably affect the events in France much. He was born in 1421, Joan of Arc came around when he was 10 and minor. The English probably still get defeated in France, but do have a more competent and capable ruler when Henry's minority ends.
Why do I mention Joan of Arc? Because after her death, the French clearly had the advantage over England.
This might butterfly the War of the Roses though or at least delay it. A more competent Henry VI could better handle the government and Duke Richard of York would probably not complain about his rights if Henry is a more capable king.
Why do I mention Joan of Arc? Because after her death, the French clearly had the advantage over England.
This might butterfly the War of the Roses though or at least delay it. A more competent Henry VI could better handle the government and Duke Richard of York would probably not complain about his rights if Henry is a more capable king.
Henry VI
I agree. And how long is Parliament going to be able to keep the war finances going? It was extremely expensive at that point. Charles VII is going to still cause trouble, and the alliance with Scotland will help to weaken the English cause in France.
Henry VI
I agree. Henry could still be blamed for the post war economic difficulties. It's hard to say that this would have led to civil war.
Exactly. Although the Valois still decisively keep the French crown, England won't be having its own succession crisis down the line.
Personally, I think it's a bit of luck in genetics POD; after all there's a consensus that Henry VI inherited his madness from his maternal grandfather Charles VI, so if Henry V and Catherine of Valois get lucky...
Henry VI's mental illness, in my opinion could be a decisive factor in the War of the Two Roses, and the imprudent interference of Queen Margaret of Anjou in the government affairs.
A little fact: The mental illness run into the Bourbon family, who bring them to the Valois. Queen Jeanne de Bourbon, mother of Charles VI, suffered of constants bounts of depression, like her father and siblings, and it's said that she had a complete mental breakdown after her seventh childbirth.
As I read the OP it calls not only for a saner Henry VI but one with military leadership skills on a par with his father. In other words he takes after his father instead of his maternal grandfather. Is it realistic for any Lancastrian to 'conquer' France? No. Is it reasonable that a compentent and popular Henry VI could combine with the Burgundians to pressure France into a more stable division where Lancastrian England retains Calais, Normandy and a fairly robust Gascony, Yes. More importantly, a competent and popular Henry VI, with a good marriage and heir, perpetuates the Lancastrian dynasty and reduces York to a wealthy but powerless cadet branch. No War of the Roses and the greatest loss to our time is no Shakesperian "Richard III", but a Henry VI parts 1 and 2 as sequels to Henry V.
Henry VI's biggest challenge would thus be his cousin Louis XI, if he's the same man from OTL.
Well considering that Catherine of Valois is also the mother of Henry VI's Tudor half-brothers and neither Edmund nor Jasper displayed madness in their lifetime, it could be said that the Lancastrian cause got extremely unlucky genetically.
Okay, so, Henry VI isn't insane, but isn't timid and had a good head on his shoulders for military tactics and strategy. He is also relatively prideful, feeling that his regency council has squandered his father's legacy. Therefore instead of following the peace and conciliation plan, he decides to go back to war with France. He runs a successful series of military campaigns and retains Calais, Normandy and Gascony. Because of his war with France, he doesn't marry Margeret of Anjou, but instead marries the daughter of a British noble, possibly Suffolk or Salisbury.
What then?
What then?
Henry VI
Could England still finance these wars, which by then had become extremely expensive and a drain on the English economy. And what about Joan of Arc?
If his OTL cousin Louis XI is still the conniving chessmaster in this scenario, then he may end up like Charles the Bold: militarily successful initially, yet outgambitted. Knowing Louis, at the end of it all France might be stronger.
Oh, remember Joan's entire campaign season was done during the regency.
Perhaps yes. After Henry V's success at Agincourt, when England actually started conquering land, Henry switched the tax burden to France - after all, the French could hardly expect to go entirely tax-free as everyone gets taxed by someone, and it was in that era a legitimate demand that land which had resisted a new occupier could expect to face monetary demands - indeed, not levying extra taxes on conquered land was seen as an act of "buying" the loyalty of new subjects. This means that England hadn't actually been funding the war since 1416 or so. England can therefore afford to either recommence war taxation, or Henry VI's council can continue fleecing what parts of France they control - or both, of course.
The old adage, of course, goes that any Parliament is willing to pay taxes so long as the war is being won. If the English are in some way successful (doesn't necessarily mean a total re-conquest of Paris and France as a whole) then Parliament will agree to levy taxes it might otherwise resist.
I have been nursing a speculation that Henry VI's insanity was not in fact hereditary. It is hard to think that that of his grandfather Charles VI was not, as Charles's mother Joanna of Bourbon, her father Peter I of same and his father Louis I ditto are all reported as being mentally unstable. Four consecutive generations of insanity seems unlikely to be coincidence. However, of the children of Louis I (who as far as I can see was the first sufferer, I can't find that any of his immediate ancestors were afflicted) who were sane, so were their children. Ditto the children of Peter I. And of Joanna. And of Charles VI himself.
With the one exception of his daughter Catherine, mother of course of Henry VI. The fact that the insanity appears never to have skipped a generation before suggests to me that it couldn't; that it was a gene you either inherited or didn't, in the inscrutable process of recombination. And if you didn't inherit it and so were sane yourself, naturally you could not pass it on.
Now this is all guesswork and maybe there's something I haven't thought of, or something I don't know about Henry's maternal relatives. But given that I may be correct, what did then cause Henry's insanity, and how might it be averted to fulfil the conditions of the OP? My further speculation is this: by all accounts Henry was of somewhat limited intelligence, in fact I have seen borderline subnormal suggested, and of less than robust character. I would suggest that the many trials of his reign were enough to cause mental breakdown through sheer stress.
The answer then would be to reduce the stress, which would require a better situation for the realm when Henry came of age, and supportive ministers and counsellors who would take much of the burden of reigning. A wise and supportive wife would also be a major factor; Margaret's loyalty and energy were both admirable, but she was hardly the wisest of women and probably added to Henry's burdens, not reduced them.
To make more concrete suggestions, have not-so-good Duke Humphrey suffer a fatal accident early on, so his abler brother John could get on with things without distraction, plus prolong John's life somewhat. Then marry Henry off earlier, to someone of similar age, and endow her with all Margaret's devotion and rather more than her wisdom. Another thread suggested a Scottish princess, which would have to be a daughter of James I. An excellent idea, especially if part of a package which keeps Scotland allied with England rather than switching to France.
Another way would be to make Henry a different person altogether by having Henry V marry someone else, and earlier; prime candidates would be Catherine's older sister, Richard II's widowed Queen, and the sister of Eric of Pomerania for whom negotiations were opened during Henry IV's reign. Henry VI being a couple of years rather than well over a decade from his majority upon succession, and also being of decent intelligence and stronger character, would make a big difference.
But I see the OP is requiring the same person, only sane. In which case back to my original proposal of the wise counsellors, who will have to set about conquering France with Henry at their (figure)head. If the conquest sticks and England and France become one realm, we are of course looking at a different world. Think the Lord Darcy stories with a later POD and no magic. Could be fun, would certainly be different from most everything that actually happened.
With the one exception of his daughter Catherine, mother of course of Henry VI. The fact that the insanity appears never to have skipped a generation before suggests to me that it couldn't; that it was a gene you either inherited or didn't, in the inscrutable process of recombination. And if you didn't inherit it and so were sane yourself, naturally you could not pass it on.
Now this is all guesswork and maybe there's something I haven't thought of, or something I don't know about Henry's maternal relatives. But given that I may be correct, what did then cause Henry's insanity, and how might it be averted to fulfil the conditions of the OP? My further speculation is this: by all accounts Henry was of somewhat limited intelligence, in fact I have seen borderline subnormal suggested, and of less than robust character. I would suggest that the many trials of his reign were enough to cause mental breakdown through sheer stress.
The answer then would be to reduce the stress, which would require a better situation for the realm when Henry came of age, and supportive ministers and counsellors who would take much of the burden of reigning. A wise and supportive wife would also be a major factor; Margaret's loyalty and energy were both admirable, but she was hardly the wisest of women and probably added to Henry's burdens, not reduced them.
To make more concrete suggestions, have not-so-good Duke Humphrey suffer a fatal accident early on, so his abler brother John could get on with things without distraction, plus prolong John's life somewhat. Then marry Henry off earlier, to someone of similar age, and endow her with all Margaret's devotion and rather more than her wisdom. Another thread suggested a Scottish princess, which would have to be a daughter of James I. An excellent idea, especially if part of a package which keeps Scotland allied with England rather than switching to France.
Another way would be to make Henry a different person altogether by having Henry V marry someone else, and earlier; prime candidates would be Catherine's older sister, Richard II's widowed Queen, and the sister of Eric of Pomerania for whom negotiations were opened during Henry IV's reign. Henry VI being a couple of years rather than well over a decade from his majority upon succession, and also being of decent intelligence and stronger character, would make a big difference.
But I see the OP is requiring the same person, only sane. In which case back to my original proposal of the wise counsellors, who will have to set about conquering France with Henry at their (figure)head. If the conquest sticks and England and France become one realm, we are of course looking at a different world. Think the Lord Darcy stories with a later POD and no magic. Could be fun, would certainly be different from most everything that actually happened.
If only Charles the Bold would have had half the political skills of Philip the Good...
Anyway back to the main subject, you might be right, but a capable Henry VI is in very good position. Furthermore Burgundy is a natural ally, so things might be more difficult for the 'king of Bourges'.
Last edited:
As far as considerations of realpolitik are concerned, Burgundy will be supporting Henry - but with him in a stronger position than in OTL perhaps he could present a third side to the conflict.
Henry VI
Interesting observations. I've often heard that with more stable times and better economic conditions, Henry VI could have reigned reasonably well..