I never understood the Wars of The Roses when I was at school (give me the Saxon times any day) but I'm now getting into it. Right now I'm on team Lancaster because Margaret was just sticking up for her useless husband but I'll see as I learn more. I'm from Gloucestershire so I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other. Thanks for the video.
You make some excellent points! The fact that the crown actually passed through Lancaster for 3 generations is a huge point in their favor. Though, I disagree with the house affinity importance especially since they are technically the same house. Richard was the heir to Henry VI even by male only rules before his son was born. Parliament promising the throne to the Yorks after Henry died basically just meant disinheriting 1 infant whose legitimately was already in question. The Lancasters weren't really that "established" if there was literally 1 questionable heir standing between them and the Yorks which isn't surprising as they didn't rule for that long. The York's right to the throne was no leap even without the Mortimer claim but with it the only thing that stood against their right was Henry's anointing. Parliament didn't want to depose Henry because of the war it would start which happened anyway and oaths of loyalty. Otherwise, they and the people understood what the Mortimer claim meant (The Lancasters were (possibly) not rightful kings) and the lack of heavy repercussions for opposing the weak King Henry VI probably encouraged them even more. If it weren't for the efforts of Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian kin then the House of Lancaster would've crumbled much faster than it did. Also, Edward III's preference for Lancaster doesn't have much weight because England's crown was a male preference primogeniture system meaning the Mortimers were next in line after Richard II. The rules of succession generally always supersede a dying King's lofty succession plans and even if they mattered, Richard II who was also an unquestioned King saw the Mortimer's as his heirs. They were the natural heirs which is why Henry IV was seen as a usurper in the first place; he arguably wasn't next in line! This is not a case of new rules being applied retrospectively. The strength of the Lancastrian's came mainly from the strength of the king in question and the alliances within the nobility they were able to build because all 3 of them faces challenges from the lingering Mortimer claim. Perhaps the York claim was the weaker but the fact is that they were able to use this little detail to depose the Lancasters and take the throne.
Brilliant! You explained lots of details & background I didn't know, & that were very helpful! It's funny tho; I've always had that pragmatic view: "Richard II was making a mess of things, Henry IV taking over was best for the country, so I'm a Lancastrian. Then Henry VI's making an even bigger mess, Edward IV taking over is better, so now I'm a Yorkist. Then Richard III... Yeah, nah, bring on Henry VII- so I'm a Lancastrian again, or am I a Tudor-ist??" It tallies what I've learnt elsewhere- that there IS no 100% definite "best claim"; there are always technicalities, & pragmatism & the good of the country WILL come into it when you get a Henry VI on the throne. I like your point about society not being on a uniform trajectory from "bad" to "good"! (By our definitions.) Another thing I get ranty about, especially as a fan of the Middle Ages- no, they weren't all filthy with bad teeth; go forward a few centuries for that (Versailles, YUCK!), but other things then were "better" than in mediaeval times. (And we do too much judging full stop!)
Good video the succession laws changed over time as the 15th century progressed. Same thing happened in the Hundred Years War. There are a lot of parallels between the House of Lancaster and the House of Valois. Both claimed inheritance through the male line and both ultimately prevailed in their respective conflicts. Henry VI was Charles VI's grandson both of them went insane and lost their crowns. The main difference was the age of their sons. Charles VII was already a man when his father died and could rule. Whereas Prince Edward was a young child. I think this played a big part in why so many people chose to support the Duke of York and later Edward IV.
Not too fussed about it really. I understand why historians like to break up Plantagenets into Anjovins, Plantagenets, Lancaster and York as it makes them easier to manage. But Lancaster and York were undisputedly male-line Plantagenets so I guess I would say Richard III.
Hi Gareth, I'm curious what you think of King Henry V and the role he played in this conflict? I am a fan of the House of Lancaster but I really don't like Henry V. My reasoning is this Henry V was a ruthless, cruel man obsessed with conquering France instead of ruling his own country. He spent the majority of his short reign 1413-1422 fighting in France, terrorizing the French, and was determined to force Charles VI to declare him his heir. None of this was helping England in fact the war bankrupted the country. Henry V wasn't as popular in his lifetime as he later became in hindsight. A big reason he died so young was because he couldn't stop fighting his war with France. Which is how he got dysentery. He married Catherine of Valois but only had one child with her before his death. Henry VI, who inherited his father's throne when he wasn't even one year old. Perhaps Henry V thought his English throne was safe because he had so many brothers and Beaufort uncles, later cousins, to protect his son's claim. However, this ended up backfiring on him because Henry V allowed the Mortimer kids to live. He miscalculated what a threat they could be to his descendants. He executed Richard Duke of York's father for treason but allowed his son to live this proved a fatal mistake as the boy had a stronger claim to his throne through the female line. It seems to me the Wars of the Roses could have been avoided if Henry V had focused more of his efforts on the home front. Securing his rule in England by eliminating any male claimants to the English throne.
Thank you for such a thoughtful question. I think Henry V is the archetype of an effective King but not necessarily a good man. I don’t blame his pursuit of France for the Wars of the Roses. I think his effective utilising of all resources in England shows just how well he was able to govern despite being often absent. I agree with Christine Carpenter, that the wars of the roses was caused solely by the peculiarities of Henry VI’s Kingship and his personal inadequacies for the role. I also draw heavily from John watts’s work. If you haven’t read Carpenter and Watts on the Wars of the Roses and Henry VI, I recommend both. They are heavy going texts but it is clear from your question that you have the intellectual resources to understand and enjoy their work.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Thank-you for the recommendations I will definitely check out Christine Carpenter and John Watts. I've read Desmond Seward, Allison Weir and Dan Jones' accounts of the Wars of the Roses. They're pretty good as well. Fair point about Henry V I still think he wasn't the best long-term planner though. We modern day readers can be that way with Henry VIII too. He always gets a bad rap for being a tyrant (which he was) but I'd say he was also an effective king in many ways. Who is your favorite character from the Wars of the Roses? Margaret Beaufort I presume? Mine is Jacquetta Woodville mother of Queen Elizabeth Woodville.
Wondering why you think Richard Duke of York was an unlikeable person who someone wouldn't want to be friends with? Are there sources pointing to negative personality traits if his? I have always thought he was well liked. Edward IV seems to have been a very charismatic leader and I always assumed he got this from his father. I would love to hear other perspectives on this as it's a perspective I know little about.
It’s always tricky to ascertain the character of 15th century types, but the nobility who knew York, treated him with great caution. He was popular as a figure of reform with the gentry/commons but they wouldn’t really have known him personally. By contracts, his son Edward IV was what we would call a “people’s person.” He was similar to his grandson, Henry VIII in that he could both charm people and put them at their ease or in instil fear in them.
As much as I'm a huge fan of Henry V it's Richard Duke of York who has the better claim because of his mother Henry II was king through his mother Matilda (daughter of Henry I) and this was 300 years before Richard Duke of York and Henry VI
That was as the result of a special agreement between Stephen and Matilda. The rules governing the succession were not standardised after that point. Edward III had entailed the throne heirs male. So it’s tricky.
@@pr-tj5by it did. My point is that rules of succession were not standardised or used consistently then. So it’s difficult to argue that this creates any kind of meaningful precedent
Raichu the Coolest Cutie one of the projects on ‘my list’ is to do some proper research into LGB monarchs. My initial read is that the evidence for it is stronger in the case of Edward II than Richard II. But I’d need to do a lot more work. What do you think?
Ammara Waseem I don’t think there’s any suggestion that Henry VII was illegitimate. You could argue that his father was and that his mother descended from a questionably legitimate line
It's also very possible that Henry VII was not really a Tudor at all. His grandmother (the dowager queen of England) was very hot and heavy with Edmund Beaufort. Denied the permission to marry her lover, she disappeared from court for some period, returning with a convenient (but not ever proven factual) marriage to a household servant and a child named (interestingly) Edmund. Edmund Beaufort was the brother of another Beaufort boy who fathered Margaret Beaufort....the same Margaret Beaufort who married the child-rapist, Edmund "Tudor", and produced Henry Tudor. Hmmmm....
@@scottscottsdale7868 No. Your Biden is a corrupt, sexual abusing (6 women with long standing charges), mass murderer (4 million slaughtered in the middle east alone), and an outright racist /who opposed desegregation, and had close, KKK buddies. He has a flithy crack head, corrupt son. Check out those laptop internet searches, loll! Biden is also completely useless, violent and now senile. He's mysoginist as well, and has set women's rights back over 200 years. He encourages the hacking of full term infants to death, denying them even the paltry comfort of pain relief - by law. Your party consists of some of the most evil, revolting, bent creatures ever to walk the planet! I suggest you take a long, long look in the mirror, Buddy, before you point fingers. Frankly, you disgust me!
This subject was broke down the best way possible. Great video
I never understood the Wars of The Roses when I was at school (give me the Saxon times any day) but I'm now getting into it. Right now I'm on team Lancaster because Margaret was just sticking up for her useless husband but I'll see as I learn more. I'm from Gloucestershire so I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other. Thanks for the video.
You make some excellent points! The fact that the crown actually passed through Lancaster for 3 generations is a huge point in their favor.
Though, I disagree with the house affinity importance especially since they are technically the same house. Richard was the heir to Henry VI even by male only rules before his son was born. Parliament promising the throne to the Yorks after Henry died basically just meant disinheriting 1 infant whose legitimately was already in question. The Lancasters weren't really that "established" if there was literally 1 questionable heir standing between them and the Yorks which isn't surprising as they didn't rule for that long. The York's right to the throne was no leap even without the Mortimer claim but with it the only thing that stood against their right was Henry's anointing. Parliament didn't want to depose Henry because of the war it would start which happened anyway and oaths of loyalty. Otherwise, they and the people understood what the Mortimer claim meant (The Lancasters were (possibly) not rightful kings) and the lack of heavy repercussions for opposing the weak King Henry VI probably encouraged them even more. If it weren't for the efforts of Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian kin then the House of Lancaster would've crumbled much faster than it did. Also, Edward III's preference for Lancaster doesn't have much weight because England's crown was a male preference primogeniture system meaning the Mortimers were next in line after Richard II. The rules of succession generally always supersede a dying King's lofty succession plans and even if they mattered, Richard II who was also an unquestioned King saw the Mortimer's as his heirs. They were the natural heirs which is why Henry IV was seen as a usurper in the first place; he arguably wasn't next in line! This is not a case of new rules being applied retrospectively. The strength of the Lancastrian's came mainly from the strength of the king in question and the alliances within the nobility they were able to build because all 3 of them faces challenges from the lingering Mortimer claim.
Perhaps the York claim was the weaker but the fact is that they were able to use this little detail to depose the Lancasters and take the throne.
Brilliant! You explained lots of details & background I didn't know, & that were very helpful! It's funny tho; I've always had that pragmatic view: "Richard II was making a mess of things, Henry IV taking over was best for the country, so I'm a Lancastrian. Then Henry VI's making an even bigger mess, Edward IV taking over is better, so now I'm a Yorkist. Then Richard III... Yeah, nah, bring on Henry VII- so I'm a Lancastrian again, or am I a Tudor-ist??" It tallies what I've learnt elsewhere- that there IS no 100% definite "best claim"; there are always technicalities, & pragmatism & the good of the country WILL come into it when you get a Henry VI on the throne.
I like your point about society not being on a uniform trajectory from "bad" to "good"! (By our definitions.) Another thing I get ranty about, especially as a fan of the Middle Ages- no, they weren't all filthy with bad teeth; go forward a few centuries for that (Versailles, YUCK!), but other things then were "better" than in mediaeval times. (And we do too much judging full stop!)
Good video the succession laws changed over time as the 15th century progressed. Same thing happened in the Hundred Years War. There are a lot of parallels between the House of Lancaster and the House of Valois. Both claimed inheritance through the male line and both ultimately prevailed in their respective conflicts. Henry VI was Charles VI's grandson both of them went insane and lost their crowns. The main difference was the age of their sons. Charles VII was already a man when his father died and could rule. Whereas Prince Edward was a young child. I think this played a big part in why so many people chose to support the Duke of York and later Edward IV.
First time viewer. Loved it and made it all the way through. Can you please do a video about who had better claim than the Tudors?
Who do you consider to be the last Plantagenet king, Richard II or Richard III?
Not too fussed about it really. I understand why historians like to break up Plantagenets into Anjovins, Plantagenets, Lancaster and York as it makes them easier to manage. But Lancaster and York were undisputedly male-line Plantagenets so I guess I would say Richard III.
Not a criticism, in fact, it’s comforting to know that an expert gets a bit muddled with the Richards too😉
Hi Gareth,
I'm curious what you think of King Henry V and the role he played in this conflict? I am a fan of the House of Lancaster but I really don't like Henry V. My reasoning is this Henry V was a ruthless, cruel man obsessed with conquering France instead of ruling his own country.
He spent the majority of his short reign 1413-1422 fighting in France, terrorizing the French, and was determined to force Charles VI to declare him his heir. None of this was helping England in fact the war bankrupted the country. Henry V wasn't as popular in his lifetime as he later became in hindsight. A big reason he died so young was because he couldn't stop fighting his war with France. Which is how he got dysentery. He married Catherine of Valois but only had one child with her before his death. Henry VI, who inherited his father's throne when he wasn't even one year old. Perhaps Henry V thought his English throne was safe because he had so many brothers and Beaufort uncles, later cousins, to protect his son's claim.
However, this ended up backfiring on him because Henry V allowed the Mortimer kids to live. He miscalculated what a threat they could be to his descendants. He executed Richard Duke of York's father for treason but allowed his son to live this proved a fatal mistake as the boy had a stronger claim to his throne through the female line.
It seems to me the Wars of the Roses could have been avoided if Henry V had focused more of his efforts on the home front. Securing his rule in England by eliminating any male claimants to the English throne.
Thank you for such a thoughtful question.
I think Henry V is the archetype of an effective King but not necessarily a good man.
I don’t blame his pursuit of France for the Wars of the Roses. I think his effective utilising of all resources in England shows just how well he was able to govern despite being often absent.
I agree with Christine Carpenter, that the wars of the roses was caused solely by the peculiarities of Henry VI’s Kingship and his personal inadequacies for the role. I also draw heavily from John watts’s work.
If you haven’t read Carpenter and Watts on the Wars of the Roses and Henry VI, I recommend both. They are heavy going texts but it is clear from your question that you have the intellectual resources to understand and enjoy their work.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Thank-you for the recommendations I will definitely check out Christine Carpenter and John Watts. I've read Desmond Seward, Allison Weir and Dan Jones' accounts of the Wars of the Roses. They're pretty good as well.
Fair point about Henry V I still think he wasn't the best long-term planner though. We modern day readers can be that way with Henry VIII too. He always gets a bad rap for being a tyrant (which he was) but I'd say he was also an effective king in many ways.
Who is your favorite character from the Wars of the Roses? Margaret Beaufort I presume? Mine is Jacquetta Woodville mother of Queen Elizabeth Woodville.
Wondering why you think Richard Duke of York was an unlikeable person who someone wouldn't want to be friends with?
Are there sources pointing to negative personality traits if his?
I have always thought he was well liked. Edward IV seems to have been a very charismatic leader and I always assumed he got this from his father.
I would love to hear other perspectives on this as it's a perspective I know little about.
It’s always tricky to ascertain the character of 15th century types, but the nobility who knew York, treated him with great caution. He was popular as a figure of reform with the gentry/commons but they wouldn’t really have known him personally.
By contracts, his son Edward IV was what we would call a “people’s person.” He was similar to his grandson, Henry VIII in that he could both charm people and put them at their ease or in instil fear in them.
Claim to France was through Isabella of france, wife of Edward ii
Brilliant!
Thank you, Jen
As much as I'm a huge fan of Henry V it's Richard Duke of York who has the better claim because of his mother
Henry II was king through his mother Matilda (daughter of Henry I) and this was 300 years before Richard Duke of York and Henry VI
That was as the result of a special agreement between Stephen and Matilda. The rules governing the succession were not standardised after that point. Edward III had entailed the throne heirs male. So it’s tricky.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 It was an agreement but it still happened, it was also still 300 years earlier regardless
@@pr-tj5by it did. My point is that rules of succession were not standardised or used consistently then. So it’s difficult to argue that this creates any kind of meaningful precedent
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Why have you deleted my reply?
@@pr-tj5by are you sure I have?
Richard II had the best claim. His was an indisputable one.
Raichu the Coolest Cutie yes. There’s no doubt about that. The question is, once they wanted rid of Richard, who was the next best choice.
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Off-topic: Edward II and Richard II both had male favorites and were suspected of being gay. I wonder what you think of it?
Raichu the Coolest Cutie one of the projects on ‘my list’ is to do some proper research into LGB monarchs. My initial read is that the evidence for it is stronger in the case of Edward II than Richard II. But I’d need to do a lot more work. What do you think?
@@royalhistorygeeks6034 Haven't really done any research yet. Looking forward to your videos!
Raichu the Coolest Cutie thank you
Whoopps, you meant that Richard II was a child King, right?
Ginna Parker I did - added a correction in the notes
I'm On The Lancaster Side💯!!!🌹
So wasn't Henry the Seventh illegitimate.
I hate Lancaster I'm a York Stan
Ammara Waseem I don’t think there’s any suggestion that Henry VII was illegitimate. You could argue that his father was and that his mother descended from a questionably legitimate line
It's also very possible that Henry VII was not really a Tudor at all. His grandmother (the dowager queen of England) was very hot and heavy with Edmund Beaufort. Denied the permission to marry her lover, she disappeared from court for some period, returning with a convenient (but not ever proven factual) marriage to a household servant and a child named (interestingly) Edmund. Edmund Beaufort was the brother of another Beaufort boy who fathered Margaret Beaufort....the same Margaret Beaufort who married the child-rapist, Edmund "Tudor", and produced Henry Tudor. Hmmmm....
The Lancastrians had a better claim
Brady Cutler, Richard Duke of York had the better claim through his mother, 2nd comes before 3rd obviously
Are you single 😘😘😘😘
Henry VI was the Joe Biden of his day!
Au Contra ihre. He was the Trump of his day.
@@scottscottsdale7868 No. Your Biden is a corrupt, sexual abusing (6 women with long standing charges), mass murderer (4 million slaughtered in the middle east alone), and an outright racist /who opposed desegregation, and had close, KKK buddies. He has a flithy crack head, corrupt son. Check out those laptop internet searches, loll! Biden is also completely useless, violent and now senile. He's mysoginist as well, and has set women's rights back over 200 years. He encourages the hacking of full term infants to death, denying them even the paltry comfort of pain relief - by law. Your party consists of some of the most evil, revolting, bent creatures ever to walk the planet! I suggest you take a long, long look in the mirror, Buddy, before you point fingers. Frankly, you disgust me!
@@scottscottsdale7868 Henry the sixth was like neither of those. Because none of them was a catatonic schizophreniac.