Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444

To what extent does the reign of Henry VI initiate the decline of royal authority during the period
c.1399 – 1485?
The decline in royal authority from the period 1399-1485 was not resultant of Henry VI’s reign over
England, the decline was initiated from Richard II however over the period of 1399-1485 continued to
decline due to overmighty subjects, who were always searching for ways to increase status, wealth and
provenance. Kings relied on subjects to abide by and uphold their opinions, however people such as
Henry Bolingbroke (future Henry IV), Richard duke of York and Richard Neville, known as Warwick the
king maker took advantage of their high positions to oppose the kings they served to further themselves.
Control over the court and military power are two other very important factors in which one can base an
argument on, the reign of Henry VI is seen as the initiation for a decline in royal authority, however it can
be argued it was a result of factors such as: overmighty nobility, control on the running of the country and
military prowess.
This is the view from historian K.B. McFarlane on the character and personality of Henry VI.
1
Childlike and unimposing in appearance, Henry VI suffered insanity in 1453-55 and may never have
fully recovered his mental health. He was no athlete, no soldier or jouster and no orator. Henry showed
little inclination or aptitude for either the hard graft of government or for military command.
K. B. McFarlane, publisher of books such as Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights, was a historian
who believes that Henry VI contributed to a decline of Royal Authority. McFarlane is acknowledged as
one of the most influential historians throughout the 20th century and possessed huge knowledge over
Medieval England, prior to his passing in 1966 there was an accepted view which many historians like
Michael Hicks believes McFarlane’s view is slightly outdated and there’s strong evidence that Henry VI
wasn’t as bad a king as many previous historians make him out to be. Michael Hicks is a historian who
believes that there was a ‘Royal Slump’ during Henry VI’s reign however it wasn’t Henry who initiated
it. Michael Hicks is a professor at a University and is one of the most highly respected historians in his
field to date and is a very reliable source to use, and with 2a contradictory view to McFarlane, both
historians are relied upon to use because they both have vast knowledge and ability on Henry VI and the
other kings I’m focusing on
This first focus is on how overmighty subjects were responsible for a decline in royal authority however
not initiating in the reign on king Henry VI. Control over the subjects is vital for a king to be
authoritative, and it’s a key factor in which Kings needed to be strongest as any sign of weakness proved
detrimental to a king’s reign and throughout this period the nobility were the demise of royal authority.
Henry VI was a king at a time where many noble figures such as: Richard, Duke of York and Richard
Neville also known as Warwick the King maker were fighting for personal gain all the time. Henry by
nature was a pious king and overmighty subjects tried to take advantage rather than aid him such as
Richard, Duke of York putting huge amounts of pressure on Henry VI and the court itself, Henry
however stood by his divine right to rule. These actions aren’t limited to Henry VI, Richard II was an
example of this, the nobility saw weakness in the king, traditionally the Monarch was always first and all
subjects below however the introduction of the Lord’s Appellant changed this, the five political figures:
Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, son of Edward III and thus the king's uncle; Richard
Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel and of Surrey; and Thomas de Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. These were later
joined by Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Derby and Thomas de Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham. Proof of
these nobles being overmighty as a collective was that they staged an armed rebellion ridding Richard II
1
K. B. McFarlane, ‘The Wars of the Roses’, in idem, England in the 15th Century (London, 1981), 231–61
2
Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444
of any real power, and this was a stepping stone for Henry IV, Henry Bolingbroke former Lord Appellant
member, usurping the throne from Richard II. The absolute control and power of Kings changed after this
and thereafter began a decline in royal authority, this is because people saw that the nobility as a
collective could be more powerful than the king, Overmighty nobility didn’t begin in Henry VI’s reign an
example of this is that Henry IV had problems mostly with Owen Glendower, descended from the Princes
of Wales rebelling and not being content under the new Lancastrian rule. Glendower burned and
destroyed many towns along the coasts of England and challenged Henry like no other against a king
since Henry himself with Richard II. With Henry’s ill-fated attempts to control the rebellion began a
decline in respect for the king, the repercussions of this were that Henry IV thought that there was nothing
stopping another member of the nobility from usurping him, meaning he had to try and regain support.
This is a source written in the chronicle of Adam of Usk, and describes how Henry IV’s coronation lead
to a decrease in royal authority
3
Three ensigns of royalty foreshadowed for him three misfortunes. First, in the procession he lost one of
his coronation shoes: whence, in the first place, the commons who rose up against him hated him ever
after all his life long. Secondly, one of the golden spurs fell off: whence, in the second place, the soldiery
opposed him in rebellion. Thirdly, at the banquet a sudden gust of wind carried away the crown from his
head: whence, in the last place, he was set aside from his kingdom and supplanted by Prince Henry.’
Later on, the chronicler remembered further details. ‘One of the nobles [gold coins], at the time of his
making the offering in the coronation Mass, fell from his hand to the ground; which then I with others
standing by sought for diligently and, when found, it was offered by him.
This source is the events on Henry IV’s coronation and is an example of a decline in royal authority as
Henry’s coronation was cursed with bad omens because Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne from
Richard II. Therefore, Henry’s coronation, written by Adam Usk shows a decline in Royal authority and
this shows there was a decline in authority that wasn’t initiated by Henry VI. The source is one which can
be relied upon, the reason for this is that Adam Usk being neutral, this being more of an historical article
rather than Lancastrian propaganda. Adam Usk served Henry Bolingbroke and supported him against
Richard and as he is stating the mishaps in Henry’s coronation indicates we can relied on more than
others. Using the source, we can determine that Henry Bolingbroke struggled to establish authority from
the day of his coronation meaning that Henry VI reign didn’t initiate the decline in royal authority.
In the reign of Henry VI, the nobility was very strong and were always looking for advances in wealth
and status such as William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk and Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset. These
two men ran the country due to what is described as Henry’s inability to rule, however taking advantage
of the king by advancing their positions such as Somerset becoming Henry VI’s chief minister above
Richard, Duke of York who was father to Edward IV and Richard III. The decline in Royal authority was
aided by the Nobility, it can be argued the major decline was the Wars of the Roses, where the nobility
decided who took the crown or not. Political figures such as the Earl of Warwick, also known as Warwick
the King maker who was instrumental in the disposition of two kings, Henry VI himself and Edward IV,
originally a Yorkist he helped Edward take the throne, he did this by his vast wealth which trumped the
rest of the nobility, proof of the crown losing authority is that Warwick didn’t want to take the crown
himself instead choosing to advance his own house and titles proving a decline in royal authority. The
reason why this shows a decline is that the crown is meant to be the most coveted position and
whomsoever bears the crown has the most power however people were shown the most powerful man in
England didn’t have to be the king. Again, proof of overmighty nobility being a major cause of a decline
in Royal Authority was Richard, Duke of York, he was a trusted man at court as well as hugely
ambitious. Henry VI’s court was divided by Richard and Edmund Beaufort, this continued and worsened

3
The Chronicle of Adam Usk 1377-1421 – Adam of Usk – Taken from The Reign of Henry IV
Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444
until Richard was sent on a mission to Ireland, banished from England, in 1447 and didn’t return until
1450. Richard was also next in line to the throne after the death of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, this
shows a lack of control on Henry VI’s part as he had his heir to throne upset, angry and a political rival,
Richard was gathering support and this left Henry VI’s crown vulnerable and ready to be usurped, what
Henry did have was that many people believed Henry had the divine right to rule, this helped Henry VI
maintain the crown longer as well as possess the authority to be king.
This is a primary source written by Jack Cade, and it reflects how the commoners felt about the men in
charge of the country.
4
The king should take about his noble person men of true blood from his royal realm, that is to say, the
high and mighty prince, the duke of York, exiled from over sovereign lord’s person by the suggestions of
those false traitors the duke of Suffolk and his affinity.
Jack Cade was a leader of a popular rebellion in Sussex in 1450. He marched against the king’s
councillors for their misrule, gluttony and control over king Henry VI, what makes this source valuable is
that it reflects the views of how the commoners felt towards the people who were in the kings service, and
the fact that many people rallied behind Jack Cade demonstrates that most saw people such as the Duke
of Suffolk and Duke of York as people who were using their status and high positions to better their own
well-being. Jack Cade’s motives were to rid the court of men such as Suffolk, and would look to shame
Suffolk to gather more support for his cause. The reason this source demonstrates a decline in royal
authority is because even the common people knew of the overmighty nature of those around Henry VI,
and people like Jack Cade recognised that men such as Suffolk would continue to benefit from Henry
VI, leading to the commoners recognising Henry’s struggle as king and how Henry didn’t manage to
control those around him, showing a decline in Royal Authority.
After the Wars of the Roses when Richard III sat on the throne, relations with nobility were no better due
to already alienating Henry Percy, Duke of Northumberland by choosing his own nephew, John De La
Pole, as leader of the council in the north. Richard’s actions can be linked to the rebellion of Henry
Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham which Richard never managed to recover from, left low support from
subjects for Richard, this mirrors Owen Glendowers rebellion in the reign on Henry IV, both objectives of
these rebellions left both kings significantly weakened and vulnerable. People saw both kings as usurpers
to the throne, Richard III allegedly stealing the throne from his nephew Edward V. Providing more
evidence that Henry VI didn’t initiate a decline in royal authority in regards to the nobility as he wasn’t
the first king in the period of 1399-1485 to face rebellion against the crown. The problems lie with over
ambitious men such as Edmund Beaufort and Henry Percy, believing they deserved more than their
current title and status, due to Henry IV being the first person to usurp the throne, he initiated the idea that
kings could be overthrown and there didn’t have to be the one Plantagenet blood line, and not only the
Plantagenet’s had the divine right to rule England.
The focus of this next section is looking at how each king ran the country, and how Henry VI did not
initiate a decline in royal authority. Control over the functioning of the country and government was
perhaps Henry VI’s weakest trait, Henry failed to control political figures such as Suffolk and Somerset
from taking advantage of him, as well as Richard, Duke of York. It’s accepted that Henry needed support
to rule, his pious and trusting nature meant that he struggled to notice people around him taking
advantage of his kind nature such as Somerset. However, Henry VI strove to be a good king with actions
such as strengthening relations with the church, forever seeking advice from those around him,
trustworthy or not, and allowed his own personal beliefs to be overruled for ideas he thought may better
the realm, all in all signs of a good king. Henry VI unfortunately inherited a financial chamber with no
4
Jack Cade’s manifesto, quoted in Sarah Newman, Yorkists and Tudors, 1450-1603, Oxford, 1989, p. 42 – Lancastrians to
Tudors – England, 1450-1509 – page 153 – Andrew Pickering
Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444
funds what so ever, his father’s foreign conquests became so expensive nothing was left for his
successors. In my opinion some of Henry’s actions were just as good as many successful kings, Henry
tried to encourage education with actions such as building King’s College in Cambridge, Eton College in
Windsor as well as encouraging forgiveness in cases as Richard, Duke of York.
This is a view of Michael Hicks, and Hicks argues that people don’t realise the struggles in which Henry
VI was faced with being king.
5
Henry’s many critics, both contemporary and modern, have overlooked the sheer impossibility of
governing mid-15th-century England. Inheriting an unwinnable war against the might of France, Henry
was plunged into a 15th-century credit crunch that bankrupted him, denied him both revenues and access
to credit and enraged his subjects, who expected government somehow to solve its problems…
This view by Michael Hicks demonstrates a change in opinion over Henry VI in recent years. Using
evidence the validity of this source becomes apparent, when Henry VI came to the throne he had a task
that was incredibly hard to over-come. Especially due to having no financial stability, an empty treasury
due to Henry V’s hugely expensive wars in France, Henry didn’t have an opportunity to establish
anything himself. 6Before Henry VI’s reign annual income was around £120,000 (55 million today) but
during the reign of Henry VI it had fallen to a low of £45,000 (£21 million today) this was a result of the
inability for anyone to pay taxes as the economy was stagnated and no-one had any money left, 85% of
people lived in poverty. Also trying to control the court would have been incredibly difficult for Henry to
do, this is because there were too many people who were ambitious and looking to take advantage of him,
such as Richard Duke of York.
Richard II from his minority appeared to be ready to become king after the peasant’s revolt led by Wat
Tyler in 1381, where a young Richard II personally met the rebels to resolve the issue and was very
successful, this shows that as a king many thought Richard would have a long successful reign as King.
However, as an adult Richard II struggled to control the court and didn’t have the backing of those around
him, it can be argued worse than Henry VI, in due part because of the Lords Appellant, it was put in place
because Parliament didn’t trust Richard II not to do anything rash, like going to war with France such as
he wanted to do. Richard alienated his uncles by appointing Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford to the coveted
title of Marquis of Dublin, Richard II also could be violent and angry and unpredictable. In 1383, hearing
of the failures of Bishop Dispenser’s expedition to Flanders, he rushed southwards to lead an army across
the Channel, only to abandon the idea a few hours later. Those in his Privy council were largely in-
experienced as Richard preferred younger men rather than those whom may have more ability. It was
Richard II’s unpredictable nature and extravagance which initiated a decline royal authority in terms of
control of government because it gave excuses for ambitious men around him to seize more power such
as Henry Bolingbroke did. Henry VI, was also unpredictable but had more qualified people around him,
even though it can be argued they were ambitious they also had the best interest for the realm.
After years of civil war between houses Lancaster and York, Richard III took the throne, although
suspicious circumstances historians agree that Richard would have made a good king given longer on the
throne. Beforehand Richard III had experience in authority being a liege lord and protector of the North,
something which Henry VI didn’t have any experience only coming to the throne as a baby leading to
Henry always had the pressured of the crown from a child which Richard and other kings such as Edward
IV and Henry V didn’t have. Richard however was faced with a lack of support after the rebellion of
Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, this managed to damage Richard’s reputation as his rebellion
amounted to many people turning against the king, another example being when William Stanley turned
against Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth 1485, when Stanley supported Henry Tudor instead of
5
Henry VI: A Misjudged King? By Michael Hicks. Published in History Today Volume 61 Issue 1 January 2011
6
Henry VI and the start of the wars of the roses – Page 33 – Roger Turvey – Hodder Education
Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444
Richard. This demonstrates royal authority was in decline again due as Richard III lost much support that
his predecessor, Edward IV gained over his reign. Many people still believed Henry VI had support of the
nobility, the birth right and papal support in his reign, even gaining support when disposed by Edward IV
for the first time. Richard III however didn’t have the birth right to sit the throne and the Papacy was in
dispute, whether or not he was the rightful king. 7Richard had posed as the continuity candidate, but now
he attacked the former regime for its corruption. This could only weaken his support and undermine his
credibility. The financial state of England throughout this period of 1399-1485 was a poor one, one of the
problems was war, Henry V for example spent so much on his foreign campaigns that he left no money
for the running of the country, this leads to huge discontent through the realm due to inflation and low
economic growth. As Henry V went further south, it costed more money for Parliament, and they were
regularly handing thousands of pounds which was a huge amount of money, this did frustrate people as
the poverty line was huge. The treasury was completely empty after the Wars of the Roses, after Edward
IV’s campaigns in France, it left England in serious debt. This can be seen as a factor in which Richard
III’s reign was so premature, this is because Richard had no financial support during his reign and
couldn’t implement any of his ideas.
This is now focusing on how Henry VI initiated a decline in royal authority in relation to military
strength. Military strength was crucial for medieval kingship, for a king to sustain the crown one had to
prove one’s strength on the battle field however this was not Henry VI. From birth Henry VI had huge
amounts of expectation upon him to achieve as much glory as his farther, Henry V, if not more. Henry
was a king always under scrutiny for being a ‘fool of god’ and not showing any interest in war of fighting
preferring to be pious and praise God instead. This alone represents a huge decline in respect and
authority because as the common expectation was for medieval kings to involve themselves and fighting.
Henry however relied on others to fight his wars for him, such as John, Duke of Bedford, Humphrey,
Duke of Gloucester even Margaret of Anjou showed greater military inclination than Henry himself. The
ramifications of Henry’s dis-interest meant people such as Richard, Duke of York and his son Edward,
future Edward IV, started to gain support from strong nobles such as Richard, Duke of Warwick. Henry
had the issue of that all kings before him in this period had all fought in confrontation: Richard II in the
peasant’s revolt, Henry IV when he usurped the crown and against Owen Glyndower and Henry V and
his notable wars in France. And the two kings after him Edward and Richard both fought in battle,
Edward IV in numerous battles including the battle of Barnet and Richard III dying in the battle of
Bosworth.
This is a primary source written from a Yorkist account and refers to how Edward IV fought at the Battle
of Barnet.
8
…he manly, vigorously assailed them in the midst of their strongest battle, where he, with great violence,
beat and bore down before him all that stood in his way.
As this is an official Yorkist account of the Battle of Barnet we can assume that this source was
propaganda for the Yorkist cause, the year it was written was 1471, meaning it was written after Henry VI
lost the throne and Edward IV reclaimed it for the second time. This account would have been to
convince people of Edward’s military prowess and ability, as Edward just took back the throne from
Henry VI, no doubt Edward would have to prove his strength to those whom may not have pledged for
him, and releasing this would change people’s opinions and allow Edward to be a more traditional king
who leads his fights from the front, such as Henry V did in France. To be different from Henry VI would
have been crucial for Edward IV because he would have to be appear to have done the right thing by
usurping Henry VI, therefore securing the English throne. What makes this source valuable is that is due
7
Richard III – David Hipson, History Review March 2010 – History review, page 37
8
J.Bruce (ed.) Historie of the arrival of King Edward in England Camden society 1839
The official Yorkist account of Edward at the battle of Barnet 1471
Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444
to it being a Yorkist account we know any similarity between Henry VI and Edward IV would prove
detrimental for Edward IV as took the throne, Edward IV had to be an improvement to Henry VI to gain
the support from Lancaster loyalists Edward IV had to be pictured as a warrior and someone whom will
improve the affairs in England.
Edward IV is best described, in terms on military prowess, is more like the kings before Henry VI, this is
due no less than Henry not being a very skilled and able commander as well as being a soldier. Even
though Edward lost support of political figures such as Warwick the king maker, he managed to regain
his crown and in search for glory arguably searching for more support and approval from those
whomsoever didn’t support him, Edward went to war with France. Edward’s campaign was one of
success, this is due to 9Edward’s secret negotiations with Louis XI of France, Edward secured an annual
payment of 50,000 crowns annually from the French, and a marriage alliance between Edward’s daughter
Elizabeth and the Dauphin of France, future Charles VIII. This shows that Henry VI did initiate a decline
in royal authority, in terms of military strength, Henry lost every gain made by Henry V in France, and
allowed himself to be usurped twice by Edward IV. Edward IV managed to be victorious against the
French, which is similar to Henry V, with Edward’s success in France it’s easy to determine that Henry
VI was responsible for the military decline in the period.
With the evidence given, we have we can conclude that there was a decline in the reign of Henry VI in
relation to military strength, however it was initiated by Richard II after he lost the throne to his cousin
Henry Bolingbroke. This is because after Richard II lost the throne it showed people that king could be
deposed with force. However, this wasn’t demonstrated again until the reign on Henry VI when he was
deposed by Edward IV. Richard II initiated the decline however it there wasn’t further decline until Henry
VI’s reign. The decline in Henry the VI’s reign was much larger than the decline in Richard II’s reign,
this is because England suffered more defeats abroad and the nation was plunged into civil war, which
inevitably, Henry VI lost.
In conclusion, a decline in royal authority was not initiated by Henry VI, however the decline began in
the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV. Henry VI furthered a decline however did not initiate it, this is
because in regards to overmighty nobility, the introduction of new ideas such as the Lord’s Appellant
which was established to monitor Richard II’s actions, this was the first time something like this was put
in place and it showed people that the king who sat the throne was weak. The decline furthered in Henry
VI’s reign from subjects such as Richard, duke of York and the duke of Somerset, however Henry VI
didn’t initiate the decline. A decline didn’t initiate during the reign of Henry VI in relation to how the
country was being run, the decline was initiated by Richard II, and the court and parliament not being
trusting of Richard, and this led to Richard II losing the throne in 1399. However, Henry VI did initiate a
decline in military strength, Henry failed to control the rebellions in his realm, he lost all Henry V’s gains
in France and allowed overmighty subjects such as Edward IV to take the throne. Overall the decline was
initiated by overmighty subjects in the reign of Richard II, men such as Henry Bolingbroke, and it was
overmighty subjects which caused the Wars of the Roses and the disposition of Henry VI.

Bibliography
1) The wars of the Roses and Henry VII: Britain 1450-1509 – Roger Turvey – Hodder Education
2)The Wars of the Roses – The bloody rivalry for the throne of England – Desmond Stewart
3) K. B. Mcfarlane, ‘The Wars of the Roses’, in idem, England in the 15th Century (London, 1981),
231–61
9
Edward IV: The Theatre of Monarchy – page 3 - By Hannes Kleineke. Published in History Review Issue 63 March 2009
Jake Kieran Welch Candidate number: 9557 Centre Number: 16444
4)Henry VI: A Misjudged King? - By Michael Hicks. Published in History Today Volume 61 Issue 1
January 2011 – paragraph 3 line 1
5)Printed in Alison Hanham, Richard III and his early historians, 1483-1535 (Oxford, 1975), p. 50.
6)Edward IV: The Theatre of Monarchy, By Hannes Kleineke. Published in History Review Issue 63
March 2009
7) Lancastrians to Tudors – England, 1450-1509, Andrew Pickering - OCR

The historians used:

K.B. McFarlane
Michael Hicks
The Sources used:
Chronicle of Adam of Usk
Jack Cade’s Manifesto
An official Yorkist account on the Battle of Barnet 1471