How could the Wars of the Roses have been avoided if Henry VI survives to adulthood?

Was it practically inevitable that civil war in England between the Lancastrian and Yorkist factions of nobles would have broken out in England in the 1450s because Henry VI had bouts of mental illness and was regarded as a weak and effectual king, and had bouts of mental illness?
 
Henry bouts of illness aside he wasn't the principal problem. Arguably the outbreak of conflict had more to do with the long standing feud between the powerful Percy family and the Neville family, the favouritsm of the Queen Consort for the Beaufort family at the expense of Richard Duke of York (who was financially damaged by his service in France and Ireland and hadn't been compensated by the crown) - all of these factors led to the sporadic armed conflicts resulting in Henry's deposition.
 
Henry bouts of illness aside he wasn't the principal problem. Arguably the outbreak of conflict had more to do with the long standing feud between the powerful Percy family and the Neville family, the favouritsm of the Queen Consort for the Beaufort family at the expense of Richard Duke of York (who was financially damaged by his service in France and Ireland and hadn't been compensated by the crown) - all of these factors led to the sporadic armed conflicts resulting in Henry's deposition.

I agree. The war of the roses was almost entirely caused by the Beaufort's pissing in Yorks face.
 
Was it practically inevitable that civil war in England between the Lancastrian and Yorkist factions of nobles would have broken out in England in the 1450s because Henry VI had bouts of mental illness and was regarded as a weak and effectual king, and had bouts of mental illness?
Er, Henry VI did live to adulthood. He even had a son, Edward of Westminster, old enough to fight and die in the wars of the roses.

Removing the Wars of the roses might work with some modifications to Henry's regency, but, as has been detailed, they came about due to other causes than Henry's immaturity (although a stronger monarch might have charted a different course).
 
Er, Henry VI did live to adulthood. He even had a son, Edward of Westminster, old enough to fight and die in the wars of the roses.

Removing the Wars of the roses might work with some modifications to Henry's regency, but, as has been detailed, they came about due to other causes than Henry's immaturity (although a stronger monarch might have charted a different course).

I can't imagine the wars of the roses breaking out if Henry V was still around. And if they had, he'd have sailed back from France and crushed everybody involved.
 
I can't imagine the wars of the roses breaking out if Henry V was still around. And if they had, he'd have sailed back from France and crushed everybody involved.
There are thirty odd years seperating Henry's death and the onset of the wars of the roses. So assuming that he lives the entire time is probably a bit of a stretch. That said, Henry V surviving longer may delay the war of the roses, or significantly alter their nature.
 
I meant did the survival of Henry VI to adulthood make the Wars of the Roses practically inevitable?

Perhaps, in that the proximate causes were a result of his reign. Then again, if henry VI never survives to adulthood, some manner of succession crisis will probably boil over during the interregnum.
 
I meant did the survival of Henry VI to adulthood make the Wars of the Roses practically inevitable?

Thats more of an interesting question

It does though tie in with how well his uncles would have got on as king, and as one of them was basically screwed over by everyone else you could have a completely different civil war if they are the first steps to the throne

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top