Talk:Mitchell's page/@comment-27029179-20151002094548

Firstly, I agree with your decision to put feuds between nobles in immediate factors or events that turned the possibility of conflict into a reality. This is because while nobles feud, the judgement becomes cloudy which affected the advise given to the king, which would be to suit their own benefit. As well as this, nobles feuding - such as the Percy's and the Neville's, lead to others taking sides and starting to create uncertainty between groups. This created the possibility of conflict into a reality as nobles, such as the Percy's and the Neville's were willing to do whatever it takes to get their way. However, the part I have to disagree with is your choice of putting Henry VI's failure in 'the factors that made conflict more likely but still not certain'. This is because Henry's failures had little effect as it was the nobles that were making the conflict between themselves which wasn't to do with Henry failing. Another reason why I disagree with your choice is that Henry's failures only made the possibility of conflict there, not increasing the chances as he was an underlining cause to feuds. One area I have reconsidered is Henrys recovery (1454). This is because I did not see his recovery in as big of a disaster. Henrys recovery lead to outbreaks of violence between York and Somerset as well as involving the Percy's and the Neville's which made the feud bigger and a greater power struggle. If Somerset's intentions were true having accused them of treason then majority of the nobles would of stopped him, so Somerset's first move was probably intentionally false. Releasing Somerset from the tower of London was significant and it lead to a greater wedge between him and York, as York's plan was failing. However, now I realise that it would of fitted in better in a higher category than the one you have put it in as the evidence shows that it sparked more between the nobles.