#she may have encouraged; she may have been relieved; she may have genuinely disliked London;

[wonder-worker]

I wanted to make a more detailed post on Henry VI, but going by my record of unfinished posts, that's probably not going to happen anytime soon :( So here's another small excerpt from a contemporary letter which I think is very revealing, and which I personally haven't ever seen historians quote before.

From Ghent, on the 4th of April 1461 (CSPM):

"The king here [Henry VI] ordered King Edward as a traitor and rebel to the crown to return to his obedience. King Edward replied that he was no traitor, but the rightful king, and if he came to show obedience he would leave something to be remembered. For this the king here [Henry] had the messenger beheaded. The new king, enraged at this act, promised to have the noblest head from among the king's followers."

...This is a very different image of Henry VI and his role in the Wars than what we're used to seeing, both in general histories of the period and in pop culture-esque media. What is presented here is a power play between two kings, and Henry was clearly the one in charge of his own side: he declared his rival king a traitor, ordered him to return to obedience, and beheaded the royal messenger as a symbolic and literal punishment. While the Yorkists may have framed Henry as, in the words of George Neville, "a puppet of a king", trying to downplay his role for their own political benefit, reports like this give us the clear impression that their claims seem to have been very different from reality.

We don't objectively know if this incident actually happened, though it most likely did. But as I mentioned earlier, what's more important is what it tells us about the impression contemporaries actually had of Henry VI's role. It's a far cry from the popular idea of a "role-reversal" between him and Queen Margaret: the image of her as a figure of superior authority taking charge of a passive and incapable Henry is non-existent in this letter, which instead shows Henry as the decision-maker. Again, if Margaret was truly believed to be the one in charge, contemporaries would have surely drawn attention to her: they had no problem emphasizing her role during Henry's capture in 1460, or when they were separated in the decade after. When they were specifically together, however, sources like these give us a different impression. This matches the letters I quoted earlier about Berwick and indicates that contemporaries reporting ongoing events clearly regarded Henry as the active leader of his side. (What you think of his actual capabilities or the wisdom of his decisions is not relevant).

Here's another example that shows us that Henry was perceived as being clearly involved in resistance to Yorkist rule. It's about the conspiracy backed by the Earl of Oxford in 1464, which was quickly foiled by the Yorkists and led to a bunch of people getting their heads chopped off. It's written by Antonio Della Torre, Edward IV and Warwick's own envoy:

"Their plan was as follows : to follow the king [Edward] as his servants towards the North, as his Majesty was not going to take more than a thousand horse and their two thousand or more, and once among the enemy they were to attack the king and murder him and all his followers . In the mean time the Duke of Somerset, who was at Bruges and is still there, was to descend upon England, and King Henry was also to come with the Scots, and the Earl of Pembroke from Britanny."

We get a similar impression as the ones above. The idea that Henry was sitting passively and doing nothing while his queen and allies tried to win back his throne for him just doesn't hold up: Edward IV's own envoy tells us that he, Somerset and Jasper Tudor were working together to try and take down the Yorkists and were coordinating an attack that they would all (including Henry in his own right) be involved in. Again, away from Yorkist propaganda which de-emphasized his role for their own political purposes, Henry's role and involvement as King (or deposed King trying to win back his throne) was demonstrably recognized by most contemporaries.

In general, I think historians tend to gloss over primary sources like this because they're more "standard". Henry's doing what he (by the requirements of his time period) "should" be doing, and so it's not viewed as provocative or worthy of mention. But that's exactly why it should be highlighted more. When we speak of Henry's illnesses, of his capture in 1460 and post 1465, of his role after he was technically released in 1470-71 (I say technically because he was under the Nevilles' control during that time), we're speaking of very unique situations which cannot be used to extrapolate his role and actions, or Margaret of Anjou's role and actions, or their political dynamic with each other (ie: a "role-reversal"), under more "ordinary" circumstances. Sources like these are the ones that matter far more in that aspect.

*Two other things to point out:

Re the idea of Henry being a "puppet of a king": the fact of the matter is that his enemies had very real political reasons such framing him in such a manner; their claims can't necessarily be taken at face-value and viewed as the default "truth" about Henry's actual role and involvement in politics at the time. This applies for 1461-65 and also for the late 1450s (where government records prove without a doubt that Henry VI was involved in ruling the country, while being heavily advised/handheld by his council and advisors. Things like Loveday, and the Yorkist trial referenced in the 1459 attainder, also make it clear that he was ultimately the one deciding policies towards the Yorkists. I do think Margaret became more active in asserting royal interests - their letters in support of John Hals make it clear - and she was involved in running the crown prince's lands, but I'm not sure we can unquestionably claim that there was some kind of "role-reversal" between them, or that Margaret was actually the one ruling England and deciding policies, during that time. Ultimately, it's a lot more speculative and uncertain than that - and Henry was nowhere near as inactive as is often assumed. Evidence is clear that he did make decisions and involve himself in administration and military. And if this is the case - which it is - then the question arises: what was the point of a role reversal in the first place? Margaret is usually credited with assuming leadership because of a passive and ineot Henry, but we now know that he was not passive. So we can and should question the idea of her needing to take charge at all.

While this narrative of passivity has stuck the most with Henry VI, it's important to remember that he was far from the only King to be framed in such a manner. Mang others were as well, in different-yet-ultimately-similar ways. Like I said, it was a very convenient narrative to use by political enemies to downplay and diminish the position and authority of the king when they were trying to oppose him. For Henry, he's also affected by the fact that 1) he ultimately lost his throne twice, 2) he was constrained and controlled by York on different occasions in the late 1450s and by the Nevilles in 1470-71, 3), he was out of action from late 1460 to early 1461 and from 1465-70, which made Margaret take the leading role in the Lancastrian cause, and 4) Tudor efforts to promote his piety and canonize him as a saint relied on narratives of passivity rather than action. Put together, the way Henry viewed in general histories, though frustrating, is not especially surprising. However, to get a better picture of his actions when he actually was capable of making them, and to understand how his role was actually perceived by contemporaries away from Yorkist propaganda, these few excerpts I've posted are probably some of the most reliable sources we have.

...This was supposed to be just a few paragraphs long, rip. But either way - this is just my own analysis & opinion, feel free to agree or disagree (or both!). But I thought these few things were worth pointing out - at least, they definitely gave me a very different impression of Henry's - and by extension Margaret's - role in the early 1460s, which can perhaps also be considered when analyzing them in the late 1450s as well :)

Friendly reminder that Francesco Coppino and Prospero di Camulio, contemporaries who were literally getting their information from predominantly Yorkist circles, were both explicitly clear that it was Henry VI who decided to surrender Berwick to Scotland.

Camulio: "King Henry has given away a castle [town] called Berwick, which is one of the keys of the frontier between England and Scotland." Coppino: "[Scotland has] received from the same Henry the town of Berwick, on the frontiers of Scotland, which the Scots have long claimed as their right from the English, as the excellently well furnished guardian of their frontiers, and the place to which King Henry repaired as an asylum after the battle."

The idea that Margaret of Anjou was principally involved in the surrender, or that she was the one who actually made the decision, is based on nothing but assumption. Two direct contemporaries, both speaking of ongoing events as they unfolded, who were both getting information from Yorkist-held England, both clearly believed it was Henry who was responsible for this course of action. Neither of them mention Margaret. Sure, you can argue that it was merely rhetorical, and that they were simply automatically attributing such an important decision to the King rather than the queen - but rhetoric is nonetheless extremely important and helps us understand how historical figures were perceived at the time. Margaret's enemies would surely not have hesitated to broadcast her involvement had it actually been true, and Coppino in particular had shown no qualms about criticizing her in favor of the Yorkists before. If she was genuinely believed to have been responsible, and if the Yorkists were actually claiming that she was at the time, I see no reason why Coppino or Camulio would not have emphasized her role in their letters. What these samples instead indicate is literally the opposite: that their contemporaries - probably including the Yorkists who were putting out the information that Coppino and Camulio reported - actually believed that Henry was the one making the decision. I think it's a very large and very unnecessary stretch to go against actual evidence and claim otherwise by placing the responsibility on Margaret instead.

Additionally, these small samples may also reveal what people at the time - once again including the Yorkists - actually thought of Henry's role in the war on a broader level, away from direct Yorkist propaganda which would obviously and perhaps understandably seek to de-emphasize it: namely, that Henry was perceived as the one making decisions and deciding the courses of action for his own side.

Source: Excerpts from the Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Existing in the Archives and Collections of Milan