Henry VI killed at St. Albans (1455)

While reading Dan Jones' The Wars of the Roses, I stumbled across something that I thought was interesting (emphasis mine):

In the middle of the melee stood the king himself, terror presumably spreading across his pale, round face, for the son of Henry V had managed to reach the age of thirty-three without ever having stood before a siege or in the chaos of a battle. Like the best of his lords, he was imperfectly armored, and he was lucky to survive when a stray arrow bloodied his neck.

This begs the question, what if Henry actually did die at St. Albans? His son, Edward of Westminster, was about a year and a half old. I'll save my thoughts on the scenario for a little later.
 
The Duke of York hasn't claimed the throne yet.

So Edward of Westminster would be Edward IV. Now that begs the question. Who would be the regent?
 
Still civil war probably

The Duke of York hasn't claimed the throne yet.

So Edward of Westminster would be Edward IV. Now that begs the question. Who would be the regent?
As the professor said, "whoever got to him first" and have the power to keep the regency

IOTL there were tussles, including some fighting, over whether Richard of York or nobles favoured by Margaret of Anjou would be the regent for Heny VI during his incapacity.

Expect more of the same, possibly bloodier after the Battle of St Albans.

And at some point either Richard or his eldest surviving son will probably have to claim the throne themselves. In order to avoid being eventually destroyed by the Lancastrians. IF, as I suspect, the gulf between them and Margaret had become too great to be bridged by one agreeing to the other being in power.

Well, that's from memory of the situation in the 1450s as portrayed in my last OU module anyway.
:D
 
I feel like this is almost the worst possible scenario for York - his men can't be seen as killing the king, it would destroy his reputation. A lot of his power came from the perception that he was more popular with the people than Somerset and the rest of the Lancastrian lot. I could be wrong, but I believe Margaret and Prince Edward were still in London during the battle. So the way I saw this playing out was that most of London would turn on York and refuse to let him enter the city, while Margaret makes herself Queen Regent and her son King Edward IV. York and Warwick go into exile (Ireland?), while Margaret propagandizes that York murdered the king, declaring him a traitor and seizing his holdings, and tries to create a sort of cult of sainthood around Henry VI. The moment, however, that her regime becomes unpopular or has a major misstep, York would take the opportunity to come back and oust Margaret and her faction from power. Maybe what happens is that York spreads gossip that little Edward IV is a bastard of Henry Beaufort or someone, and that Margaret conspired to have Henry killed in battle and blame York for it. Thus, he's able to declare the throne in his own right, and if he's able to seize Edward, he might put him to death in the tower (probably making it so that the Lancastrian claim shifts to Henry Beaufort...), while continuing to venerate the memory of Henry VI, except shifting the blame for his death towards Margaret rather than himself.

Anyways, are there any thoughts on the little scenario I constructed?
 
I don't think he would bastardize Edward IV. He is no threat after all, and in the War of the Roses, he only claimed the throne in 1460. At this point, he only wanted to be the leading noble of the realm.

Much better to take control of Edward IV rather than bastardize him and declare himself king. After all, York is not as stupid as his son Richard III. Keeping Edward IV alive would keep the Lancastrians calm and divide them. Bastardizing Edward IV would simply outrage the Lancastrians and unite them against him and provoke Civil War. Killing an infant king would brand him a child murderer and alienate much of his subjects.

And in this timeline, the greatest weakness of the Lancastrians, Henry VI himself, was gone. So York would have to thread carefully.

Look at Richard III. He ensured the doom of the House of York by killing his nephews. York would know that the best insurance from a revolt of much of the country would be to show that he is the best man to look after the interests of Edward IV.

My bet would be that Margaret of Anjou would strike a deal with York, in that York would be regent, in exchange for ensuring Edward IV on the throne. After all, Margaret fought for his son to be king. If she can stomach a deal with Warwick, she could deal with York to ensure her son's security on the throne.
 
Last edited:
I don't think he would bastardize Edward IV. He is no threat after all, and in the War of the Roses, he only claimed the throne in 1460. At this point, he only wanted to be the leading noble of the realm.

Much better to take control of Edward IV rather than bastardize him and declare himself king. After all, York is not as stupid as his son Richard III. Keeping Edward IV alive would keep the Lancastrians calm and divide them. Bastardizing Edward IV would simply outrage the Lancastrians and unite them against him and provoke Civil War. Killing an infant king would brand him a child murderer and alienate much of his subjects.

And in this timeline, the greatest weakness of the Lancastrians, Henry VI himself, was gone. So York would have to thread carefully.

Look at Richard III. He ensured the doom of the House of York by killing his nephews. York would know that the best insurance from a revolt of much of the country would be to show that he is the best man to look after the interests of Edward IV.

My bet would be that Margaret of Anjou would strike a deal with York, in that York would be regent, in exchange for ensuring Edward IV on the throne. After all, Margaret fought for his son to be king. If she can stomach a deal with Warwick, she could deal with York to ensure her son's security on the throne.

Good points, thanks for your thoughts. :) I don't know if Margaret would deal with York to let him be regent though, seems like that would be hard to accomplish if his forces accidentally killed her husband. It would be more practical but I don't know if sheer pragmatism would rule here.

EDIT: The reason I had York in my scenario declare Edward a bastard was because it was an easy way have York try and delegitimize the Queen and her councilors, and try and make people angry at her rather than angry at himself, so that he could come back and seize power after being in exile and tainted as a traitor. Then it just felt like if he crossed that bridge already and managed to seize power, he wouldn't be able to just be regent for Edward IV. Regardless, you have some good points why that probably wouldn't be his course of action.

The most likely answer is probably that Margaret and her councilors hold on to power and rule England until Edward reaches his majority, while York eventually dies in exile, dies on the battlefield trying to take power, or is captured and executed at some point. I just don't think York would ever be able to form any kind of coalition government in this scenario.
 
Last edited:
Top