"How did a man with such good intentions cause such an outpouring of blood and horror? The answer lies in Henry himself. In an age of personal monarchy, the character of the ruler was of vital importance, and Henry’s proved to be his reign’s fatal flaw. For a medieval king, good intentions in themselves were of no use whatsoever. What mattered was the ability to turn intention into action. What mattered was royal will, and in that respect, Henry showed himself to be singularly lacking."

“Rumors of Margaret’s infidelity are not corroborated by any contemporary source, but through repetition they took on something of the veneer of truth, dangerously undermining the image that Margaret had carefully cultivated for the past four years.”

“But despite the political folly of these actions, on the rare occasions that Henry chose to assert himself, it was impossible to naysay him. He was a weak king, but he was still king.”

“Here, in essence, was the weakness of Margaret’s position – the same fundamental flaw that had beset every one of Henry’s chief counsellors. Regardless of which advisor was uppermost in the king’s confidence, delicately guiding his policy and applying firm will to his vacillating or disinterested rule, Henry would occasionally assert his royal will in a way that demonstrated invariably poor judgment and which almost always faced opposition.”

“In less than three hours of battle, York had achieved more than he had managed in five years of politics.”

“Folly and the negligence were becoming the recognized characteristics of Henry’s regime. Even in areas of his policy where he applied himself fully to the task, his interference could be a malign force.”

“Henry was capable of ruthlessness, as his treatment of the mad woman who railed at him about Eleanor Cobham demonstrated, but he was not consistent. ‘Justice without mercy is cruelty,’ as a contemporary proverb went, but ‘mercy without justice, folly.’”