Rate the Lancaster/York Monarchs

[Stolengood]

...again, just a fairly self-explanatory exercise. The grouping of monarchs in this way is just for convenience's sake.

(Oh, and you must explain WHY you chose as such in posts below. Multiple choice is for the fun of it, AND so you can have your pick of which Yorks and Lancasters you most favour or disfavour! )

 

[Stolengood]

...really, nobody?

 

[Just a Rube]

Well, Henry VI is the worst; leaving aside the loss of France (which is difficult to avoid), his waffling and general poor decision-making led to the Wars of the Roses, which were definitely avoidable. Even during the Wars of the Roses he was nothing more than a symbol, spending much of it locked in a tower; Margaret of Anjou was pretty much the driving force preserving the Lancastrian cause. Richard III is the second-worst; his entire reign was essentially spent dealing with rebellions one after the other, until he was finally defeated and killed; all because he managed to alienate even many Yorkists with his usurpation, thus reviving the essential dead Lancastrian movement.

I put Henry V as the best, but a very strong case could be made for Edward IV. They are both similar in some ways; young, brilliant military leaders who go from victory to victory, and made some domestic reforms as well, while having unrealistically ambitious foreign policy goals, especially with respect to France. I gave Henry the edge because Edward's later reign was marred by the split with Warwick (which briefly led to his deposition) and the growing split between the Woodvilles and Richard, and I consider his foreign policy to be more counterproductive.

Of course Henry VII blows them all out of the water.

 

[Simreeve]

Well, Henry VI is the worst; leaving aside the loss of France (which is difficult to avoid), his waffling and general poor decision-making led to the Wars of the Roses, which were definitely avoidable. Even during the Wars of the Roses he was nothing more than a symbol, spending much of it locked in a tower; Margaret of Anjou was pretty much the driving force preserving the Lancastrian cause. Richard III is the second-worst; his entire reign was essentially spent dealing with rebellions one after the other, until he was finally defeated and killed; all because he managed to alienate even many Yorkists with his usurpation, thus reviving the essential dead Lancastrian movement.

Agreed about Henry VI.
Strongly disagree about Richard III, whom I've voted for -- despite the unfortunate shortness of his reign -- as the best. The uprisings that he had to fight against weren't entirely his fault after all (and it's not as though none of the other Lancastrian and Yorkist monarchs had to deal with rebellions or at least treasonous conspiracies too, is it?) and would probably have ended with Bosworth, whilst to his credit we have [for example] legislation that _
1/ abolished the monarch's right to collect 'benevolences';
2/ established the right to bail in criminal cases;
3/ decreed that there would be no tax on printed material.

 

[Stolengood]

...you know you can vote for more than one best and worst king, right? Best and worst of the Lancasters, and best and worst of the Yorks? That's the point of the multiple choice, here.

 

[Jonathan]

Edward V of England, reign of 86-day saw him start no war amd shed no blood. Being killed at the age of 13 makes his reign more pungant.

While Henry V had everything, he was King of England and Heir to the Kingdom of France, so all he had to do was wait for, Charles VI of France to die and he would have been King of the two nations, but no, what does he do. Goes and died.

 

[Just a Rube]

Agreed about Henry VI.
Strongly disagree about Richard III, whom I've voted for -- despite the unfortunate shortness of his reign -- as the best. The uprisings that he had to fight against weren't entirely his fault after all (and it's not as though none of the other Lancastrian and Yorkist monarchs had to deal with rebellions or at least treasonous conspiracies too, is it?) and would probably have ended with Bosworth, whilst to his credit we have [for example] legislation that _
1/ abolished the monarch's right to collect 'benevolences';
2/ established the right to bail in criminal cases;
3/ decreed that there would be no tax on printed material.

I'd argue that his actions more or less reignited a conflict that had mostly died out. The Lancastrians were essentially dead as a political force (most of their leaders being either killed or imprisoned in the aftermath of the Readeption of Henry VI in 1470 and the subsequent raids). Jasper and Henry Tudor were essentially the only ones of significance still free. The last major Lancastrian raid was in 1473, a decade beforehand, and had been a minor affair that had quickly fizzled out. Sure, Henry Tudor was a potential nucleus for rebellion, but a weak one, and mainly a diplomatic problem (convince the Bretons and French not to sponsor him) rather than a military one.

Richard's coup alienated the Woodvilles and their supporters. He also executed Hastings, thus eliminating a previous pillar of support for the Yorkist regime. Whether Buckingham was initially loyal to Richard and then decided to rebel or he was already actively planning his rebellion, the conspiracy further undermined Richard's position and provided Henry VII with various significant supporters. Meanwhile, the commander of Hammes defected to the Lancastrians, thus freeing the Earl of Oxford and providing Henry with a fiercely loyal and talented commander.

So Richard essentially spent the entirety of his reign eroding his own support and strengthening Henry Tudor. He may have passed some decent legislation, but he utterly failed to secure the loyalty of the nobility, and thus left himself open to a coup. He was also quite poor at PR for a medieval monarch, as can be seen by the numerous rumors that the Tudors were able to spread about him, even at the time (in addition to the Princes in the Tower, there were also rumors he was planning to marry his own niece, which his opponents made hay with). The vast majority of the Tudor army at Bosworth was made up of former Yorkists whom he had alienated.

 

[Mikestone8]

I put Henry V as the best, but a very strong case could be made for Edward IV. They are both similar in some ways; young, brilliant military leaders who go from victory to victory, and made some domestic reforms as well, while having unrealistically ambitious foreign policy goals, especially with respect to France. I gave Henry the edge because Edward's later reign was marred by the split with Warwick (which briefly led to his deposition) and the growing split between the Woodvilles and Richard, and I consider his foreign policy to be more counterproductive.

Not to mention their contrasting performance re the succession.

Henry V left the throne to a nine-month-old baby, at a time when England had a huge foreign war on its hands. Yet the child was seen safely through to manhood, and for all his incompetence it would take years of bloody civil war to bring him down.

Edward IV, by contrast, left his to a son who had only a few years to go before being of age, yet the boy was swept away in weeks, and the uncle who supplanted him lasted only a couple of years. This was the worst performance [1] of any adult king between Stephen and James II - even King John did better.

Of course Henry VII blows them all out of the water.

Agreed.


[1] Not counting Richard I and II, who of course never had sons to provide for.

 

[Maeglin]

Given that Edward IV had two reigns, perhaps they could be separate options?

(Yes, so did Henry VI. But the second one hardly qualifies).

 

[Mikestone8]

...you know you can vote for more than one best and worst king, right? Best and worst of the Lancasters, and best and worst of the Yorks? That's the point of the multiple choice, here.

Is that really practical when the dynasties consist of only three kings each? In the case of Lancaster their would be only one serious ranking possible - henry V best, Henry VI worst, Henry IV somewhere in between.

It's even worse for the House of York, since of their three only one - Edward IV - reigned long enough for any meaningful judgement to be made.

 

[jpj1421]

King Henry V has a pretty jamming song, so I picked him for best.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Henry_Fifth's_Conquest_of_France

 

[Geordie]

Henry VI's reputation was summed up by one of my lecturers:

"In 1453, when he received news of Castillon, Henry VI fell into a catatonic state. This was a sizeable setback for the realm...[discussion of the regency/protectorate]... in December 1454, a disaster of unprecedented proportion hit England. Henry VI recovered."

That says a lot. If you're a better king while you're a vegetable than you are when you're able to rule, then you're obviously not great on the 'ruling'. Shakespeare's history may not always be the most accurate, but Henry, his wife and his advisers did "Lose France, and made his England bleed."

Edward IV did incredibly well to win his throne back in 1471, and must be applauded for it. That being said, he never should have lost it in the first place, and only did so due to some incredibly stupid decisions. Richard managed to reignite a conflict that had been dead for over a decade, essentially driving most of Edward IV's surviving partisans into the arms of Henry Tudor. Henry IV saw all sorts of instability, and effectively lost Wales for several years. Edward V ruled far too sgort a time to be worthy of being judged.

That leaves Henry V. I can't help thinking that, had he survived another twenty or thirty years, he might have lived long enough to become the villain. Look at Edward III in 1359, and then in 1377, for what I'm imagining might have happened if Henry had lived longer. As it is, he didn't, so I shan't judge him on possible ATL failures.


Henry V best. Henry VI worst.

 

[Stolengood]

That leaves Henry V. I can't help thinking that, had he survived another twenty or thirty years, he might have lived long enough to become the villain.

He wasn't the villain already?

 

[Geordie]

He wasn't the villain already?

Well, it depends who you ask. Most people tend to forgive a litany of sins if you can pull of an Agincourt and a Treaty of Troyes. Even better if Shakespeare is your speech writer for the old St Crispin's Day jamboree.

 

[Stolengood]

Well, it depends who you ask. Most people tend to forgive a litany of sins if you can pull of an Agincourt and a Treaty of Troyes. Even better if Shakespeare is your speech writer for the old St Crispin's Day jamboree.

He kind of stole France to increase his own "manhood". And then, of course, he killed prisoners following the Battle of Agincourt. That's pretty villainous.

 

[Mikestone8]

He kind of stole France to increase his own "manhood". And then, of course, he killed prisoners following the Battle of Agincourt. That's pretty villainous.

Killing Frenchman would not make him a bad king as understood in 15C England. If anything, rather the reverse.

 

[Stolengood]

Killing Frenchman would not make him a bad king as understood in 15C England. If anything, rather the reverse.

They were prisoners, though; even back then, it was kind of against the conduct of war. You don't kill prisoners.

 

[Simreeve]

Well, it depends who you ask. Most people tend to forgive a litany of sins if you can pull of an Agincourt and a Treaty of Troyes.

Even though that basically benefitted only Henry and those nobles to whom he granted fiefs in France, and the main effect as far as his [earlier] realm of England was concerned was taxation to pay for the war... What did he actually do for this country, to be voted "the best"?

 

[Tonifranz]

Even though that basically benefitted only Henry and those nobles to whom he granted fiefs in France, and the main effect as far as his [earlier] realm of England was concerned was taxation to pay for the war... What did he actually do for this country, to be voted "the best"?

Let us not judge medieval monarchs by modern standards. Let us judge them on standards of their times. And on how people see what an ideal king should do by the people who matter during those times. And on that score, based on the judgment of those times, he certainly is better than all the other Lancastrian and Yorkist monarchs.


He's better than Henry IV, VI, and Edward IV, V, and Richard III. For this thread at least, that's enough.

 

[Geordie]

He kind of stole France to increase his own "manhood". And then, of course, he killed prisoners following the Battle of Agincourt. That's pretty villainous.

...and pretty controversial, even at the time, according to most sources. It's probably the topmost of the 'litany of sins' I mentioned. That and leaving his realm with a ridiculously expensive almost unwinnable war to finance. I wasn't saying I forgive him, but most English people with enough knowledge to know enough about him to even answer the OP would overlook such actions due to his military victories. That being said, it wasn't considered totally beyond the Pale. As I understand it, most of those who were upset about it were bewailing the loss of ransom monies, rather than the moral horror. Plus, this is a period where Royal Dukes can be murdered by their cousins at official parleys. It wasn't popular, but it wasn't considered evil either.

Even though that basically benefitted only Henry and those nobles to whom he granted fiefs in France, and the main effect as far as his [earlier] realm of England was concerned was taxation to pay for the war... What did he actually do for this country, to be voted "the best"?

Look at the competition.

Henry IV usurped the throne and lost Wales for a decade, as well as facing various other uprisings. Edward IV was militarily pretty useful, but as a ruler, incompetent enough to be run off his throne. His marriage to Elizabeth was politically and diplomatically naive, and his cack-handed way of dealing with it exacerbated the problem tenfold. Warwick was busy marrying him off to Bona of Savoy when he was already hitched. Warwick may have rebelled anyway, but that sort of humiliation certainly didn't help keep him loyal. He was also pretty indolent, and any useful governmental reforms happened by accident, not design.

Any good intentions Richard III may have had are meaningless, seeing as his only real achievement as king was reigniting a decade dead conflict, and losing his throne and life as a result. Edward V was there for such a short time, he's often literally forgotten about. The last one to consider is Henry VI. Foreign disasters, peasant rebellions, civil war, madness, and losing the throne, not once but twice. He couldn't win a "who was the best king?" competition if he was the only entry.

This doesn't make Henry V a success. Edward III and Henry VII would blow him out of the water, but neither of them are eligible. He's the best of a bad lot. The only people one could even consider in his stead are his father and Edward IV, as the other three clearly can't win a raffle. If Henry IV and Edward IV are the competition, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Henry V. It's close, though. I haven't read a lot about Henry IV, so a bit more research could sway me towards him.