Henry VI
Henry V died unexpectedly in 1422 and his son, King Henry VI of
Henry recovered in 1455 and once again fell under the influence of those closest to him at court.
AND NOT ONLY
Henry V died unexpectedly in 1422 and his son, King Henry VI of
Henry recovered in 1455 and once again fell under the influence of those closest to him at court.
The wars were fought largely by the landed aristocracy and armies of feudal retainers, with some foreign mercenaries. Support for each house largely depended upon dynastic factors, such as blood relationships, marriages within the nobility, and the grants or confiscations of feudal titles and lands.
The unofficial system of livery and maintenance, by which powerful nobles would offer protection to followers who would sport their colours and badges (livery), and controlled large numbers of paid men-at-arms (maintenance) was one of the effects of the breakdown of royal authority which preceded and partly caused the wars. Another aspect of the decline in respect to the crown was the development of what was called bastard feudalism by later historians, although the term and definition were disputed. Service to a lord in return for title to lands and the gift of offices remained important, but the service was given in support of a faction rather than as part of a strict heirarchical system in which all ultimately owed their loyalty to the monarch.
Given the conflicting loyalties of blood, marriage and ambition, it was not uncommon for nobles to switch sides and several battles were decided by treachery.
The armies consisted of nobles' contingents of men-at-arms, with companies of archers and foot-soldiers (such as billmen). There were also sometimes contingents of foreign mercenaries, armed with cannon or handguns. The horsemen were generally restricted to "prickers" and "scourers"; i.e. scouting and foraging parties. Most armies fought entirely on foot. In several cases, the magnates dismounted and fought among the common foot-soldiers, to inspire them and to dispel the notion that in the case of defeat they might be ransomed while the common soldiers, being of little value, faced death.
The name House of Lancaster is commonly used to designate the line of English kings immediately descended from John of Gaunt, the fourth son of Edward III.
But the history of the family and of the title goes back to the reign of Henry III, who created his second son Edmund, Earl of Lancaster in 1267. This Edmund received in his own day the surname of Crouchback, not, as was afterwards supposed, from a personal deformity, but from having worn a cross upon his back in token of a crusading vow. He is not a person of much importance in history except in relation to a strange theory raised in a later age about his birth, which we shall notice presently. His son Thomas, who inherited the title, took the lead among the nobles of Edward II's time in opposition to Piers Gaveston and the Despensers, and was beheaded for treason at Pontefract.
At the commencement of the following reign his attainder was reversed and his brother Henry restored to the earldom; and Henry being appointed guardian to the young king Edward III, assisted him to throw off the yoke of Mortimer. On this Henry's death in 1345 he was succeeded by a son of the same name, sometimes known as Henry Tort-Col or Wryneck, a very valiant commander in the French wars, whom the king advanced to the dignity of a duke. Only one duke had been created in
His second daughter, Blanche, became the wife of John of Gaunt, who thus succeeded to the duke's inheritance in her right; and on the 13th of November 1362, when King Edward attained the age of fifty, John was created Duke of Lancaster, his elder brother, Lionel, being at the same time created Duke of Clarence. It was from these two dukes that the rival houses of Lancaster and York derived their respective claims to the crown. As Clarence was King Edward's third son, while John of Gaunt was his fourth, in ordinary course on the failure of the elder line the issue of Clarence should have taken precedence of that of
As for John of Gaunt himself, it can hardly be said that this sort of politic wisdom is very conspicuous in him. His ambition was generally more manifest than his discretion; but fortune favoured his ambition, even as to himself, somewhat beyond expectation, and still more in his posterity. Before the death of his father he had become the greatest subject in
Nevertheless the suspicion with which he was regarded was not altogether quieted when Richard II came to the throne, a boy in the eleventh year of his age. The duke himself complained in parliament of the way he was spoken of out of doors, and at the outbreak of Wat Tyler's insurrection the peasants stopped pilgrims on the road to
Another marked incident of his public life was the support which he gave on one occasion to the Reformer Wycliffe. How far this was due to religious and how far to political considerations may be a question; but not only John of Gaunt but his immediate descendants, the three kings of the house of
Accusations had been made against John of Gaunt more than once during the earlier part of Richard II's reign of entertaining designs to supplant his nephew on the throne. But these Richard never seems to have wholly credited, and during Gaunt's three years' absence his younger brother, Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester, showed himself a far more dangerous intriguer. Five confederate lords with
HOUSE OF YORK, a royal line in
Yet it was founded upon strict principles of lineal descent. For the duke was descended from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the third son of Edward III, while the house of Lancaster came of John of Gaunt, a younger brother of Lionel. One thing which might possibly have been considered an element of weakness in his claim was that it was derived (see the Table) through females — an objection actually brought against it by Chief Justice Fortescue. But a succession through females could not reasonably have been objected to after Edward III's claim to the crown of