masteroftheveiledthreat
Banned
I'm saying it should not have been done that way but often was. For centuries all over the world. I'm suprised RDOY didn't have an "accident"
with the Lancastrians giving him a great big funeral.
Henry V and Henry VI of England
- Thread starter masteroftheveiledthreat
- Start date
I'm saying it should not have been done that way but often was. For centuries all over the world. I'm suprised RDOY didn't have an "accident"
with the Lancastrians giving him a great big funeral.
I'm saying it should not have been done that way but often was. For centuries all over the world. I'm suprised RDOY didn't have an "accident"
with the Lancastrians giving him a great big funeral.
Often?
William I didn't kill Edgar the Atheling.
Henry II didn't kill Stephen's son.
Edward IV didn't kill Henry VI until pretty late.
Trying to think of other examples for England post-Conquest (which I know the most about).
It would make far more sense in a medieval context to have Richard and his ancestors as loyal vassals than to go around killing them all.
I can't speak for other cultures like say Japan, but medieval Europe seems to have been fairly reluctant to go around killing people just because they might be pretenders as opposed to imprisoning them.
Byzantium used blinding, but that's more Byzantine preference for blinding as a means of getting rid of someone.
I can think of a 2 more examples where a rival may have been eliminated:
Henry Holland Duke of Exeter by blood he might have been able to carry a Lancaster banner after the death of Henry VI and was also a commander of some of the Lancastrian victories (Wakefield and St Albans), but he was reputed to be violent and unstable so didn't get very far. He was estranged and eventually divorced by his Anne, the sister of Edward IV. Anyways, on the return trip from the French expedition "he fell overboard and drowned" but there were rumours he was pushed over on Edward IV's command.
Arthur Duke of Brittany
Henry Holland Duke of Exeter by blood he might have been able to carry a Lancaster banner after the death of Henry VI and was also a commander of some of the Lancastrian victories (Wakefield and St Albans), but he was reputed to be violent and unstable so didn't get very far. He was estranged and eventually divorced by his Anne, the sister of Edward IV. Anyways, on the return trip from the French expedition "he fell overboard and drowned" but there were rumours he was pushed over on Edward IV's command.
Arthur Duke of Brittany
Arthur was only disposed of after rebelling, however, he wasn't struck down to prevent that from happening.
And rumors are unreliable to say the least.
If someone was going to be striking down the (OTL Yorkist) line, they'd logically do it with a nine year old boy - Edmund Mortimer, Richard's uncle.
But "killing a nine year old boy" would be pretty drastic in this era.
And rumors are unreliable to say the least.
If someone was going to be striking down the (OTL Yorkist) line, they'd logically do it with a nine year old boy - Edmund Mortimer, Richard's uncle.
But "killing a nine year old boy" would be pretty drastic in this era.
Fair. In that case, most of the rivals struck down (at least among those listed) were eliminated after active rebellion but not before.
If Henry V lives longer he probably has more than one son - his widow went on to have at least two by Owen Tudor.
So even if HVI still goes mad, Richard is never Lord Protector - the King's younger borther is. So TTL he's nothing like as important
If Henry V lives longer, there are major butterflies here. If there's a younger brother for Henry VI (perhaps one like Henry V or his brothers), does Henry VI continue to rely on favourites like Suffolk or Somerset? In a regency, I would see Henry VI's brother taking command rather than York and this changing the dynamic rather significantly. If Henry V has other children and they have children of their own adding to the line of succession, does someone like York think he can rebel or eventually take control of the throne?
Of course this is contingent on Henry V and Catherine of Valois having more surviving sons, and there are a lot of possible outcomes here I suppose. In RL, Catherine of Valois seemed to be fertile, giving birth to an heir in a short period of time to continue Henry V's legacy and then going on to have 5 or 6 children later in life in a short period of time (including 3 sons). I believe most if not all of these children lived to adulthood. But of course anything could happen if Henry V continues to live to get in the way of Catherine of Valois giving birth to a brood of Lancastrian heirs... History points to the outcome of Henry VI having uterine half-brothers who were unquestionably loyal (Jasper Tudor never switching sides) but an interesting what if is him having full blooded brothers.
I don't see why he wouldn't. He might rely on his brothers if any as well, but Suffolk and Somerset still are buttering him up, and still being treated accordingly.
As for someone like York - yes, because York's basis for this isn't changed by Henry VI having brothers or nephews. He has the (according to him) better claim, and misgovernment is still a possible issue.
Biology points to the fact that its not certain he would have any brothers, or any that survived childhood, however. Is it possible? Yes. Can it be assumed? No.
Of course York's claim continues to stand. But if Henry VI has a brother, York is less likely to be seen as Henry VI's heir (even if it takes a long time for Henry VI to have a son of his own). If there's always an heir ahead of York, the dynamic changes.
Someone like York always has a claim and may even press it, but in RL York is many years into the conflict before to asserts his blood claim (originally he said he wanted to be one of the King's advisors and restore good government). Even when he asserts his blood claim many of his own supporters think he's gone too far suggesting he should dethrone an anointed monarch (ie God's appointed). Also York's claim as heir general through female ancestors isn't universally recognized as being superior to Henry VI's claim as senior male heir.
I agree Suffolk and Somerset may still be around, but Henry VI may not be as dependent on them if he has a full-blooded brother around. Of course there are lots of possible outcomes, at least one of them is Henry VI not being so dependent on favourites.
Last edited:
And that's not more problematic with more people between him and the throne - either you accept that what he's doing is justified and that his claim is stronger, in which case all Henry's kin are just as illegitimate (for want of a better word), or you don't, in which case having more brothers doesn't really make York going too far even more so.
I don't think that them being around in and of itself makes him less dependent on favorites. Henry favored them because they appealed to him, that's still there.
To pick an earlier Henry, having a brother didn't influence Henry III much.
masteroftheveiledthreat
Banned
Was I limiting it to just pretenders? Otherwise, William Rufus, perhaps. Italy in the 1400's, maybe. And I wasn't limiting this to western cultures by any means. I am going to have to google that bit about Henry II. Didn't Stephen's son die in a boating accident while the war was ongoing, or was the Henry I's son?
Was I limiting it to just pretenders? Otherwise, William Rufus, perhaps. Italy in the 1400's, maybe. And I wasn't limiting this to western cultures by any means. I am going to have to google that bit about Henry II. Didn't Stephen's son die in a boating accident while the war was ongoing, or was the Henry I's son?
Well, in the context of arguing Richard Duke of York being "removed" makes sense, I'm not sure what else we should compare other than potential or actual pretenders.
And as for not limiting it to Western cultures - well, it's kind of irrelevant what people in cultures wildly different than medieval England did in regards to how surprising (or not) Richard and his ancestors not being "removed".
On Stephen's sons:
http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND, Kings 1066-1603.htm#_Toc321390514
Baldwin died young, Eustace died of illness before his father, and William "surrendered Pevensey, Norwich and other strongholds in England and Normandy to King Henry II in 1157. He was knighted by Henry II at Carlisle in 1158[FONT="][322][/FONT]. Robert of Torigny records that "Guillelmus comes Moritonii" died "1159 mense Octobris" while returning from serving in the Toulouse campaign, that he died without children and that King Henry II retained his county[FONT="][323][/FONT]. "
I'm not sure those examples are very good ones to use, Elfwine.
In the case of Edgar the Ætheling, William kept him in his household as a hostage for a year or so, until he got himself involved in a rebellion against William. When William found out, he fled to Scotland, where he was involved on numerous occasions with sponsoring more rebellions. When William attacked Scotland, Edgar had to flee to Flanders. Some eight years after Hastings the King of Scotland persuaded him to make peace with William, but William's poor treatment induced him to go to Italy to make a new life for himself there. When William died, he joined William's son Robert and one of his principal advisors in helping him to attack and dethrone William II. This was hardly a harmonious relationship between deposer and deposee.
In the case of Henry and Stephen's son, neither side fully won The Anarchy, so the adoption of Henry over Stephen's children was a legal compromise. There was no deposition - Stephen was allowed to keep his throne - so there was technically no reason to do away with rivals, not least because doing so would probably be seen as an invalidation of the treaty and would lead to a resumption of The Anarchy. On top of this, Stephen's line was weak anyway - his eldest son had just died, leaving no issue, and his only remaining (legitimate) children were his daughter Marie, who was currently a nun and therefore hardly a strong choice, and Stephen's youngest son William who was barely 16 or 17 and who promptly started scheming to have Henry II murdered and had to flee to Normandy anyway. Given that his own father had turned his back on William and he had never been crowned - not even crowned as heir, as Kings of England liked doing to their eldest children in this era - it's likely that he wouldn't have been believed to have had much support and therefore would've been treated as insignificant.
In the case of Edward, it took him five years after being crowned the first time even to get possession of Henry, who was in hiding in Scotland, and then he promptly kept him locked up in the Tower of London. After Henry's restoration and then re-deposition, Edward did in fact have him killed.
So to summarise: in two cases, the deposed King wasn't kept as a loyal vassal but was in fact kept under close observation under lock and key. In the other case, the "dethroned" man was allowed his own land but lost it in months after plotting his own overthrow of the new King, and ended up fleeing England. In all three cases, the "deposed" were actively involved (maybe not intentionally in Henry's case, but that was a symptom of his mental condition) in attempted coup d'etats. In short, keeping a deposed man alive really was an inviable state - if you tried it, you knew that you were going to be backstabbed. After a while, by the 14th century, they just stopped trying to keep them alive.
"Not harmonious" and "lethal to deposee" are two different things.
And Richard or his ancestors haven't been crowned either. And it's not even entirely clear Edmund was Richard (II)'s itnended heir.
Sure. But that still leaves several years before Henry was killed - as opposed to killed on sight.
That still leaves the two that died as dying AFTER causing trouble, not as a preemptive blow.
Oh very true, but my point was that I personally just can't see a situation where a deposee is left unharrassed and willingly becomes a "loyal vassal" as you put it. Either they are left alive but prove too much trouble and end up either in prison or in exile, or they are killed. Those are the only feasible options to my mind.
According to Alison Weir (Britain's Royal Families) Katherine had three sons and two daughters by Owen Tudor. One daughter died in infancy, all the others reached adulthood.
Not conclusive of course, but it sounds as if Henry V had every prospect of further issue, including male issue, if he had lived longer.
One other point. If any of Henry VI's younger brothers marry English heiresses, that could represent a significant accession of strength to the Lancastrian side in the WotRs, should these still happen. One particularly large butterfly would be if a Royal brother snapped up the heiress to the Earldom of Warwick, who OTL nmarried one Richard Nevill and gave him the political clout which turned him into the "Kingmaker".
No but he also had a grown-up son, which was even better.
Suppose he had no siblings, just one young son, and there'd been a grandson of Arthur or Eleanor of Brittany out there disputing his title. He could really have been up the creek.
That's probably true, but a deposee and a potential pretender are not the same thing - and even Henry (I have trouble counting Edgar as a deposee) wasn't killed right away - Edward tried "prison" first.
So while I'm sure that if there was reason, Richard or an ancestor would be killed, striking just to remove anyone who has a claim other than the House of Lancaster is another thing entirely.
Mike: Having a grown up son didn't stop him from having favorites - and of course Edward had to grow up before that could apply (obviously not as big an issue with younger brothers).
Why would Henry VI's brothers need to marry heiresses? Remember that all of Henry V's brothers (3 of them) were created Dukes (Clarence, Bedford and Gloucester) by their father (Henry IV) and all 3 of them died childless. One of them (Clarence) died in battle before Henry V himself died and there seemed to be little interest in continuing their own lineages, so there's every chance that at least 2 or all 3 could still end up childless. That's three prime Duchies that Henry V can simply reinstate with his sons as title-bearers. Even if the original Dukes have issue, Henry V can simply create new titles for his children. They don't need to marry heiresses to create powerbases for themselves.