Last modified: November 11, 1999
Contents
1) What were the Wars of the Roses?
The Wars of the Roses in their most basic sense were a series of
related dynastic conflicts in Fifteenth Century England. (ie. Who gets to
be the King and who gets to control the King.)
1.1) Why were they called that?
Easy. They weren't. The rose association came gradually through
the Tudor period culminating with Shakespeare's portrayal of the two sides
plucking roses from the garden symbolizing their mutual animosity. Even Shakespeare
didn't refer to them as "the Wars of the Roses." It looks as though that reference didn't
appear until Sir Walter Scott in the 19th Century. Red and white roses were among the
badges of each side but were not the exclusive badges as the name might have us believe.
1.2) When did they start?
Ahhhhh...now this one is considerably harder to answer. Most historians would place
the beginnings of the Wars with the first official battle at St. Albans in 1455. That is by no
means the only date that historians give it though. Many consider it to be when Henry IV usurped
the throne of Richard II in 1399. Certainly, that gave the excuse for the Duke of York to claim
the throne, but in my opinion his claim was more of an afterthought. It was years after St. Albans before
York advanced his own claim to the throne as being better than Henry's. Furthermore, that claim
wasn't even supported by his own followers. It wasn't until after Wakefield and the death of
York that Parliament made his son, Edward, the King using the events of 1399 as the reasons.
Still other
historians put forth dates throughout the 1450's. Some feel that St. Albans was too non-commital to be
considered the first battle and look instead at the events of 1459 and 1460. Some feel that it was with
Jack Cade's Rebellion in 1450 (a peasant uprising encouraged by York). Others feel that the Wars
were simply an extension of a private grudge between the Percies and the Nevilles and draw on a conflict
of theirs in 1453. More would use that same year, but would claim that it was the mental breakdown
of Henry VI that brought about the wars. For my own purposes, I tend to stick to the idea that
they began in 1455 with St. Albans, though as you can see I am in no way the final word on the subject.
1.3) How did they originate?
For the same reasons as above, that's a difficult question to answer. However, I'm going to set aside
the dispute concerning the date of their origins and rather go into the events immediately preceeding
St. Albans in 1455. First of all, Henry VI was a weak king and had been through his entire reign. He
was a good man (he set up the Eton and King's colleges), but a very bad king. Therefore, the government
was primarily run by the Queen's favorites, notibly Somerset. York and many others were upset at the
quality of Somerset's abilities and wanted him out. In 1453, a couple of events occured which made that
possible. First, the enormously unpopular loss of the Hundred Years War against France. Second, Henry's
breakdown leaving him unable to rule. Three choices were out there as possible temporary replacements.
Somerset, York, and Queen Margaret. Somerset was, as I've mentioned, extremely unpopular and in 15th England giving
a woman control of the throne just wasn't done. That left York who was made Protector of the Realm.
One of his first actions was to arrest Somerset and place him in the Tower of London. In 1454, Henry
regained his wits, Somerset was freed, and York retired to his lands to marshall his forces. In May 1455,
the Queen called a council to which no Yorkists were invited. York left his lands and marched with Warwick and
Salisbury to demand to be heard by the King. They met the Lancastrians at St. Albans in 1455 and the Wars began.
1.4) Did York have a legitimate claim to the throne?
The simple answer is yes. He was a direct descendent of Edward the III (the original breaking point of the Yorkists and Lancastrians) and therefore had a claim. The real question, then, is "was York's claim as good or better than Henry's?" Here we fall into some grey territory that requires a bit of history. In 1377, Edward III died leaving Richard II as his heir (Richard being the son of Edward's eldest son, the black prince, who had died a year before his father). Many, however, disliked Richard II and he was overthrown in 1399 by his cousin who became Henry IV. This is the important point in this issue.
Richard handed over his throne to Henry (with some...ummm..."convincing"). Furthermore, Parliament then accepted Henry IV as king as they would his son and grandson, Henry V and Henry VI. So we have to ask...is a King who got his throne by questionable means a legitimate king if he is approved by Parliament? And if not, can his entire line be declared null and void at a later point?
York's is another interesting situation. He was the great grandson of Lionel Duke of Clarence who was Edward III's second son and therefore officially nearer the throne than Henry who was the son of John of Gaunt (Edward III's third son). (*grin* still following me here?) However, York's claim is made questionable by the fact that two of his direct line were women. (Lionel's daughter Philippa and York's mother Anne). Lineage through women at that point in time was always questionable legally (you might remember the first English Civil War between King Stephen and Queen Maude). So depending on one's interpretation of the laws at that time, either one might be more legitimate. I will say, however, that when York made his first bid for the crown, even his own followers refused to support him. It was only after his death that his son Edward was declared king by an act of Parliament.
1.5) Was this a civil war then?
I would have to say yes, though in many ways it doesn't share the typical effects of a civil war. Life pretty much moved along despite the conflicts. The actual armed conflicts were few and far between, the country tended to prosper, international relations came and went as much as ever. Though the Wars of the Roses have the unenviable distinction of containing the bloodiest battle ever fought on English soil (Towton), in general they can't compete with the destruction of the English Civil War or even the conflict of Stephen and Maude. Towns were generally left alone and it was the practice of the winners to spare the commoners at the end of the battle (though the opposing nobility was generally doomed).
1.6) Who won?
There are really three stages to the wars (others might argue only two, but....); the first was the Yorkists vs. the Lancastrians which ended with Edward IV (Yorkist) as king. The second was the Yorkists vs. the Kingmaker in which Edward succeeded but I would (and do) argue that luck played a tremendous role there. The third would be Richard III vs. Henry VII in which Henry was victorious bringing on the Tudor dynasty. For those of you keeping score, Henry's claim to the throne was also through a woman (His mother, Margaret Beaufort).
1.7) Every other site I have gone to has the Wars of the Roses
and the Hundred Years Wars together... what is the difference, or are they the same?
The two are tied together in a number of ways, but are essentially different
events. The Hundred Years War was begun in the early 1300s and came about from
the claim of Edward III that he was the true king of France. There is a lot
behind that and it's often difficult to seperate the propaganda of the times
from the actual events, but it boils down to Edward's claim of the french
throne.
England did quite well in the beginning of those wars (which actually ran over 100 years) and claimed a lot of French territory. And it ran through a number of kings...Edward III, Richard II (Edward's grandson), Henry IV (who led a rebellion to take the throne from Richard and was Richard's cousin), Henry V (Henry IV's son and best known for the battle of Agincourt where England's meager force decimated the vastly superior numbers of the French, primarily due to terrain and the English Longbow), and finally Henry VI. Henry VI was no great leader and generally speaking his advisors were little better. It was during his reign that Joan of Arc led the French to several great victories before being captured by Burgundy, sold to the English, and burned as a witch. It was all downhill for the English from there and by the time the war "ended" around 1453 all the English still held in France was a small northern port called Calais.
The Wars of the Roses were in part brought about by the disatisfaction of many
about what they considered the poor handling of the end of the war. That isn't
by any means the _only_ origin of the Wars of the Roses, but it generally
considered to be one of them. The other great connections between the two wars
is that Henry VI was ruler through part of each, French and English relations
during the Wars of the Roses was a result of the Hundred Years War, and of
course the fact that only 2 years or so seperates the end of one from the
beginning of the other. In fact, in the mid 1470s (amidst the Wars of the
Roses) the English King Edward IV renewed the claim on the French throne and was
paid by the French King, Louis XI, not to invade.
Primarily though, the Wars of the Roses were a civil war dealing with the
heirarchy of Britain's leaders lasting from 1455-1485. They are often
mentioned together though as the one seems almost to slide right into the
other.
2) I've been to your page...where does Warrwykk come from?
Well, if you can't figure it out from my page, my focus of interest (though, in truth, I follow anything and everything from that time) is the Kingmaker, Richard Neville Earl of Warwick. My own identifier comes from a series of 15th Century letters (that anyone interested in the time should get hold of) called the Paston Letters. Among them is a letter written from Neville (though probably by a scribe) in which his name is signed "Therle Warrwykk".
2.1) Why was he (Richard Neville) important?
Alright!!! Soap box time. :-) Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, was not known as the kingmaker for nothing. Shakespeare called him the "proud setter up and puller down of kings." He is often considered the most powerful baron to have ever lived and I would go so far as to argue that there could have been no Wars of the Roses without his involvement. He was considered a hero by the commoners due to his effectiveness on the sea and in Calais. It has been argued that he wasn't so much the last of the great barons as the first of the great statesmen. He was a man of boundless ambition and boundless energy to make things happen. He set the political groundwork in the first years of Edward's reign that remain in effect until Oliver Cromwell. Most argue that he then betrayed Edward to claim more power for himself. I argue the opposite; that Edward betrayed his cousin in order to claim more power for himself. In the mid 1460s Edward began to exercize royal power in his own right after leaving it in Warwick's hands for so long. However, he did not claim his power as a king might, but instead did so in a underhanded manner. He allowed Warwick to make wedding plans for him never telling anyone that he had already secretly married....He allowed Warwick to make alliances with France while he secretly made ties to Burgundy....he advanced one of Warwick's brother in rank, but in so doing effectively ended his landed influence....He removed power from another of Warwick's brothers while that brother was ill in bed. The whole of Edward's actions in the mid to late 1460s seemed to be designed for the sole purpose of weakening and humiliating the man who had helped give him the throne. I would argue that Warwick had little choice but go to war with Edward. And this he did, capturing and imprisoning Edward at Warwick castle (meanwhile holding Henry VI captive as well. Warwick is the only man in history to hold 2 Kings of England captive at the same time). When he was forced to free Edward, he fled to France and allied himself with the Lancastrians. He then returned to England and chased Edward out of the country, placing Henry back on the throne. Edward returned with Burgunian assistance and finally defeated and killed Warwick at Barnet (though I've argued and continue to argue that Barnet was decided by luck alone and no great generalship of Edward's). So Warwick was pretty important. :-)
2.2) Would I know anyone else from the wars?
Probably. Most people are familiar with one of Britain's most notorious and contraversial kings, Richard III. Otherwise...though few people have heard of Henry VII himself, most know the Tudor dynasty of which he was the first.
2.3) So was Richard III a villain?
I am not getting into this one. They've been arguing this point out for 500 plus years now and no one has yet to conclusively prove one way or the other. All the web pages I've seen so far seem to lean toward Richard III being a much maligned King who has suffered greatly from Tudor propaganda over the years (including Shakespeare). So unfortunately the web only shows one side of the argument and I have a long standing point of not getting into it. I will go so far as to say, though, that Richard III has been "tried" on several occasions by different courts in this century and in every case he's been judged not-guilty due to lack of evidence against him. Take that as you will.
2.4)I know the Tudors; that's Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth, right? So what did they have to do with all this?
Yup, that's them. They personally didn't have much to do with the wars, though Henry VIII did kill off some of the last remaining Yorkist claims to the throne during his reign. But Henry's father, Henry Tudor or Henry VII was the individual who defeated Richard III and was arguably the "victor" of the Wars. Henry VII also married the daughter of Edward IV and thus tied the Yorkists and Lancastrians back together again (at least that's what his propaganda usually said).
2.5) Okay...so I know the Yorkists and the Lancastrians; Who are the Plantagenets that I hear about?
All of the above. :-) The Plantagenets are a royal lineage of which both the Yorkists and Lancastrians are a part of. The Plantagenet line began with Henry II who ruled from 1154 to 1189. The line then continues through the following...Richard I (the lionheart), John (He and Richard are the ones from Robin Hood fame), Henry III, Edward I (the "bad guy" from Braveheart), Edward II (who came to a very messy demise. Look it up. It's pretty nasty), Edward III (started the 100 years war), Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI (startin' to recognise the names yet?), Edward IV, Henry VI again, Edward IV again, Edward V, Richard III. With Richard's fall at Bosworth, the Plantagenets end and the Tudors begin.
3) Okay, so we know what they are...now why do we care?
Good question. And truthfully the answer depends on your point of view. Will not
knowing anything about the Wars of the Rose affect your life in any major way? Probably
not, unless you're in a pub trivia challenge or a gameshow. Can understanding the
Wars help to clarify at all why the world is the way it is today? Yes. How much, though,
rather depends on your point of view. For instance, the
Tudors were well down the line for inheritance of the crown so it could
easily be argued that any effects they had on England were a direct
result of the Wars of the Roses. Therefore one could argue that the
Anglican Church having been founded by Henry Tudor was a result of the
Wars. Or the British Pound coin which was minted first by Henry VII (The
pound was a monetary unit before that, but it wasn't until 1489 that the
first actual coin was minted).
The English Rennaissance is generally assumed to have begun in 1485. The
date is rather arbitrary actually and different historians offer different
dates, but most accept 1485 as the date between the mediaeval and the
modern world in England. In that fashion, the wars affect our view of
periods of history. At least so far as England would be concerned; the
ancient age runs to the sacking of Rome in the 400s, the Middle age runs
until 1485, and we're in the modern age. So it's a VERY important date in that
regard.
Politically, the wars brought about a major change as well. Up to the
wars, the Kings of England held their power in a feudal system. That is,
Barons controlled land at the discretion of the Kings. However, if (such
as in the wars) certain Barons actually had more influence than the kings,
it could be disasterous and frequently was (Hence the deaths of Edward II
and Richard II). The end of the Wars was also the end of baronial power.
The kings consolidated power into their own hands and their lords truly
became subjects. This lasted until the Fall of Charles I and the rise of
Parliament in the mid-1600s.
So the Wars brought about a governmental change that lasted nearly 2
centuries.
So as you can see, the effects of the Wars really depends on what degree
you attribute to them. They could be anything from a semi-pointless civil
war that weeded out some of the nobility, up to the line between the
middle and modern worlds in which case nearly anything that has happened
since in England and the countries it has affected has been loosely a result of
the wars (and yes...I do realise that argument can be used for any historical
event).
3.1) Why didn't I learn about this one in school?
I wish I could say. Unfortunately, it appears as though the Wars are generally only sparcely covered if at all. I've had an
English history professor who felt the Wars were too complex to deal with in class. Another
professor of mine looked at the wars in their most simplistic stereotypical form and decided it wasn't
worth bothering with. I can say that if you didn't study it, you're not alone. I've run a survey in England which showed the Wars to be woefully
understudied. A similar study sponsored by Warwick Castle showed that only 14% of English adults could place the
Wars in the right century. When asked to identify what roses are associated with either side 39% of adults believed the
red rose was York, while only 36% believed white. Similarly 38% associated Red with Lancaster and 37% believed White. Little better
than guesswork would give. Alas.
3.2) Where would I go to learn more?
You could try my Wars of the Roses links at www.geocities.com/Area51/cavern/5123/index.html for more information on line.
Or check your library for 15th century England. There are a couple different societies dedicated
to trying to clear Richard III's name, and most who get into R3 find themselves soon engulfed
in the rest of the Wars. There are links to both the R3 society and the R3 Foundation on the above links page.
3.3) Are there any newsgroups or listserves about the Wars of the Roses?
Yes. As of November of 1998, a Wars of the Roses listserve was created to serve a desire of those of various interests in the
Wars of the Roses and the 15th Century in general. To join this list, go to www.onelist.com and
do a search for warsroses. This will bring up the list archives and instructions on how to join in.
3.4) How about any organizations?
Absolutely. For one thing there are a bunch of Richard III Societies out there (check my