The title says it all, what if Henry VI was killed at the First Battle of St Albans? IIRC, he was wounded by an arrow in OTL, so let’s say he is less lucky here and the arrow kills him. How does this affect the Yorkist cause? In OTL Richard of York was able to obtain a pardon from Henry VI following the battle, freeing him and his allies from all charges of treason. Obviously here, he will not get that pardon and is, by law a traitor to the English throne. So might York go for broke and attempt to seize the crown as a last ditch effort to save his skin? Who becomes regent for the 2-year old Edward of Westminster (my guess is Buckingham gets it). Might a civil war erupt and if so who comes out on top?
WI: Henry VI dies at the First Battle of St Albans?
- Thread starter RedKing
- Start date
York is traitor so there is no WAY he is getting crown.
Westminster will NOT die at 17 ITTL since he is undisputed king with NO need to fight for his rights.
Why will there be war? No succession crisis here
Westminster will NOT die at 17 ITTL since he is undisputed king with NO need to fight for his rights.
Why will there be war? No succession crisis here
True, but his main supporters (and some of his most powerful allies), Salisbury and Warwick are also traitors and may also support him in a last ditch effort to save their skin. Westminster’s position is also tenuous since he is a child king and the last two child kings England had were subpar to say the least. Though the English nobility is likely to rally around him against the York and friends.
So does the battle shake out the same, except for the fact that the stay arrow that hits Henry comes in a few inches off and strikes him fatally?
I feel like it's a bit of a clusterfuck. There seemed to be some disbelief in the aftermath of the OTL battle that things actually got to the point of violence. (And, of course, once it did, there was no going back. The county was already a toxic stew of resentment and politics -- adding blood feuds to the mix made civil war inevitable.) In ATL, the death of king would surely turn those on the sidelines strongly against the emerging Yorkist faction, and the death of the king's favorite would remove the most obvious and immediate problem for the royalists. York may in fact surrender himself to royal custody in some act of chivalry, expecting mercy from wiser councilors now that Somerset is gone -- only to find a vengeful Margaret ready to take his head. And if he doesn't, well, there's no chance the king's murderer is going to take control of the regency. This wasn't 1399 -- people didn't hate Henry, they, like the French a half-century prior, just didn't know what the hell to do with a mad king.
How exactly will it shake out identically if Henry is killed? Henry being killed is HUGE win for his enemies here
And who will support Yorkist king instead of Henry's sane son? Richard is regent at best
Warwick, and I am sure a lot of others. Edward of Lancaster is practically a baby, so no one knows if he is sane.
Yeah, this makes the Wars of the Roses even more chaotic, it’s a child vs a man who has committed a mortal sin. Neither choice is good, it really boils down to a choice of who is the lesser of two evils.
I imagine there would be a good few who defect from York’s army following the Battle and some of his allies may even abandon him, since Warwick was disgusted at how Richard treated Henry VI in captivity in OTL, so imagine his reaction to Richard killing him. Surrendering might not be Richard’s worse choice here, though it depends on how much influence Margaret of Anjou wields in the Regency here.
I am imagining Margaret of Anjou, ordering
Yeah, Henry VI’s death is Richard’s main impediment to taking the throne/regency here, since he has committed a mortal sin and a fairly religious era and most Englishmen hated Henry VI’s advisors not Henry himself.
I had forgotten that Buckingham was captured following the Battle, so that hurts the Lancastrians cause. As for the questions about Westminster’s paternity, I have read they didn’t start until as 1460, when the Act of Accord was brought into effect. Though, Richard of York’s best bet here is to press his claim ASAP, before word of Henry VI’s death spreads across all of England.
Edward’s youth is the main obstacle he has to keeping the throne, but it’s worth nothing most of York’s enemies and those who were neutral towards him are likely going to oppose him since he has committed a mortal sin. Plus some of his own men may desert him here (a few soldiers defected in OTL following the Battle of St Alban’s, so imagine how many will defect here when Henry VI is outright killed, especially since he (Henry) originally wanted a diplomatic solution). Then again Richard does have the manpower and money from his own lands here to take the throne. So it’s sort of 50/50 here.
Yeah, Warwick and Salisbury will support Richard, since it’s their best chance at saving their skin, however Richard’s supporters from OTL may not join him here since he has just destroyed the popularity he had.
I am not sure “a lot of others” would join Richard here. At this point his entire goal was to remove the King’s evil counsellors from power, but here has killed said evil counsellors and the King, which is way too far for many. Plus many religious people will oppose him since he has committed a mortal sin of killing a King. Also Warwick was reportedly disgusted at how Richard treated Henry as a prisoner, so I can only imagine his reaction to Richard’s men killing the King, so he may defect in a bid to get a pardon here. Again it could go either way as to who gets the throne in this scenario,
Yeah, this is going to be the biggest problem towards Richard getting the throne + his reign assuming he gets the throne here.
I just don't see how York could claim the crown at this time. It took five more years of dysfunctional government before York felt compelled to claim the throne in OTL -- and, when he did, parliament rejected his claim! Even with an actual Yorkist army outside the capital, York could only get parliament to recognize him as Henry's heir. In ATL, the favorite at the root of misgovernment is dead and York has instigated a battle that killed the king. This strikes me as a moment of extreme weakness for York, not strength.
The English deposed legitimate kings Edward II, Richard II, and Edward V and others had narrow escapes, so I don't see why deposing or disinheriting Edward of Lancaster is a problem, except for Margaret. The situation is very similar to that of Richard II and Bolingbroke.
Except it's not at all. Richard was intensely unpopular, except with an ever-shrinking number of favorites. Bolingbroke was universally popular (at least until he got himself crowned).
Henry isn't unpopular. The understanding of his condition is widely known at this time. The anger is on the figures who surround him -- most especially Somerset. York is quite unpopular.
As for Edward II, he was forced to abdicate in favor of his son. York is not his son and Warwick's rumors that Westminster was Beaufort's bastard weren't taken any more seriously than Warwick's rumors that Edward IV was a bastard.
Margaret would kill them all because she LOATHED York and his ilk IOTL. If she could have them be "accidentally" flattened by a cart, she would.
VVD0D95
Banned
She’d probably wait, doing anything g to his kids will make her life messy as all hell
Her life is as messy as hell anyway. Her husband's dead, she's a French woman in England being Regent for her son, her son's just a child-King and there's York vying for the throne and he'd get support. God knows that getting them out of her life would make things, at least mentally, somewhat easier for her.