#whoever's idea it was Scotland was very obviously going to want a proper confirmation from the *king*
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
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 the claims of later chronicles. 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
#henry vi#margaret of anjou#english history#my post#I want to make a longer post detailing the clear indications we have that Henry *was* perceived as the active decision maker of his side#which indicates that contemporaries did not really think that there was some kind of giant 'role-reversal' between him and MoA#but until then the gist is:#after Henry was rescued in 1461 contemporary letters clearly emphasize his own actions; they mostly did not attribute decisions to Margaret#we also know he and Margaret separated when she headed off to the continent;#that he seems to have been involved in border-raids against Yorkist England;#*and* that he avoided capture until 1465#if Henry was entirely passive throughout it all and entirely dependent on Margaret to make decisions#I do not understand how any of this would have been possible#Instead Henry & Margaret seemed to have had more of a partnership with Margaret focusing on gaining international support#which she was very well-suited for given her powerful foreign connections#& with her taking on leadership in his absence (mainly due to imprisonment/incapacity) rather than all the time/when they were together#and like I said when it comes to Berwick contemporaries clearly believed it was Henry's decision#but also like. let's hypothetically assume that Margaret was the driving force behind it. please think of this situation logically.#whoever's idea it was Scotland was very obviously going to want a proper confirmation from the *king*#who was. yk. the actual authority of the country#even if Margaret was the one encouraging this surrender Henry's approval and agreement would have still been required#if not by the Lancastrian party then by Scotland#and again this is assuming that Margaret was actually the driving force behind it. there's no indication that she was#but ultimately contemporaries very clearly believed *Henry* was responsible#we don't know what MoA actually thought of it or what her actual involvement was (she could may encouraged it; she may have misliked it;#she may have simply been told after the decision had already been made)#but ultimately even in the most extreme case - which is contradicted by actual evidence - the final say would have been Henry's#it would be nice if this was reflected by historians?
14 notes
·
View notes