It is possible that he was being cunning and devious. History of royalty, at least what is known to outsiders, is somewhat suspect, in my opinion. The victors, the survivors, are the ones who pass down the stories, and I expect there is some bias in the way the stories get relayed to us. So there is always some doubt about how accurate those stories are.
Still, whatever the motivation for his actions, there continued to be those who sought to be near the king. If they were disposable pawns as you suggest, or if Henry were simply hotheaded and intolerant of things not going to plan, either way he wound up banishing and killing a number of people. I know it would give me pause. Being near the King seems to have been dangerous.
But then I suppose that Henry was able to sell the stories that they were disloyal to him, had committed treason, and so forth. And if that were the case, then perhaps it is not so amazing that others continued to want to be near him. They would have believed that these others had actually plotted against the King, something which they themselves had no intention of doing. So they would have figured that they had nothing to worry about. Then only later, when they were falsely accused would they figure out that perhaps the previously executed people might have also been falsely accused.
I would bet there were plenty of people who, seeing the great numbers of people being executed by the King, were quite reticent to be near him.
But I guess there would always be ambitious people who would be drawn to be near the seat of power. Sometimes that kind of desire can override the caution one might otherwise exercise.
reply
share