Hello everybody, thought this would make a really good chat.
Im currently doing about the war of the roses in my degree, so thought we could look at the causes of it. Who would like to make the first contribution?
Printable View
Hello everybody, thought this would make a really good chat.
Im currently doing about the war of the roses in my degree, so thought we could look at the causes of it. Who would like to make the first contribution?
I suppose the major personal rivalries only began with the relationship between Duke Humphrey, his protege Richard of York, and the crown, the treatment of Humphrey made it clear to all the magnates that the crown was wary and bitter of their power. That bloody thirsty Frenchy, Margaret of Anjou was, imo, the driving force behind the isolation of York in Ireland along with her freinds like Sommorset, it was all avoidable, a case of personalities and not historical "forces".
I think a major contributing factor was the fact that Margaret of Anjou was intent on protecting her own interests at the expense of powerful magnates, in this case Richard of York. He did after all have a good claim on the throne himself, some would say better than the current monarch Henry VI but I am of the opinion that it wasn't a motivating factor immediately, indeed evidence does suggest he didn't have designs on the throne at all for some time and it can easily be suggested that the fact he finally did claim it was out of utter desperation as Margaret was intent on limiting him incredibly.
Given the fact that York had managed to ally himself with the Nevilles, it was incredibly naiive to think they could simply sweep him under the carpet and rid him of any influence. The fact that the favoured party by Margaret was inept and utterly unable to run the country efficiently was part of the reason for York's party gaining so much popularity in the first place. The loss of Bordeaux was a crushing blow, along with the fact that Henry himself suffered a catostrophic mental breakdown and their complete incompetence with the countries finances it all made it too easy for some form of opposition against them to be created, to limit the premier magnate in England to a backseat was an idea which beggars belief.
Margaret was so determined to firstly protect her own rights and, when Henry first suffered a breakdown, protect her newly born sons. Whilst it is admirable that she did indeed protect her son so much, it also shows a huge naiivity in politics, for instance she ceeded Berwick to the Scots in exchange for aid, completely oblivious to the fact that it was greatly offensive to the English populace to do so.
York wasn't given much choice in the end, having achieved victory at St. Albans in 1455 you would have imagined that he would be given some sort of power, but slowly but surely he was pushed back out into the cold yet again and persecuted even more, which led to his claiming of the throne, which shocked everyone.
In my opinion, it was Margaret who started it by fighting for her own interests so fervently without considering the whole picture.
EDIT - Great thread Shades, my favourite period of history!
Interesting points guys.
The loss of Normandy and Aquatiane imo where major factors. If im not mistaken, Somerset was incharge of Normandy, and York blamed him for its loss. York wanted him tried on this factor.
Many nobles came back after losing territory. Add to this the loss of pride in losing territory to the enemy so quickly. This to me showed the kings as being a weak monarch.
Finance also was a major problem, the loss of the wine trade and the debts from the ongoing conflict and the costs of running the french territories must have had an effect.
So we all agree that Margaret of Anjou was a callous and savage woman, who's scheming against York forced him into open cnflict with her. However, his handling of the situation was idiotic, to say the least, by laying his hand upon the throne he lost whatever sympathy he migh have held with the opposing camp and gave Margaret the reason she needed to kill him.
It was incredibly risky to claim the throne like he did, but in my opinion it was the last desperate action he could take. He had already taken power with force at St. Alban's but had quickly been ousted once again and back to square one, so for that reason I can see why he claimed the throne, even if it was just what Maragret was waiting for. His claim did have a knock-on effect though for his son, who of course became a very successful monarch and helped stabalise England after crushing the Lancastrians twice at Towton and Tewkesbury.
You're correct Shades, York did blame Somerset for the loss of Normandy and I think part of his huge dislike for Somerset was because he lost a huge tract of land and received, if anything, undue favour from Margaret, who was of course rumoured to have been sleeping with Somerset, although that is most likely Yorkist propaganda. Naturally though, their closeness was pretty blatant, where as when York gained power he tended to be less biased and worked with both sides for the good of England.
I would say it'd be hard to argue against Margaret being one of the biggest factors in starting it all certainly, had she not tried to keep York in the cold so much I doubt he would have ever reacted the way he did, after all when St. Alban's was done he swore an oath of allegiance to Henry again to prove his loyalty was to Henry, not his government. I think the sad thing is that although Henry was weak, he wasn't disliked by the Yorkists at all but his inability to govern those below him who were provoking the Yorkist faction was his downfall. Had he reigned them in following St. Alban's and demanded equal rights to govern for both sides, it is likely the WotR would never have occurred in the first place.
well, one must also remember, that with all the rivalries and personal intrigues between somerset and york, the role (or lack of) of Henry VI. the fact that he showed weakness and lack of restraining the two houses of york and somerset, as well as Margeret, was the cause of the war dragging on beyond St.Albans, which in itself was quite an interesting battle. whoever knew Somerset would die under a wierdly named tavern?:clown:
so basically, the war had multiple causes:
1-loss of the hundred years war.
2-feud developing between York and somerset.
3-Margeret interveneing and scheming with Somerset for her benifit.
4-finally, weakness on the part of the king.
no one cause was alone to lead to this shameful waste, but rather all added feul to a fire, so to speak.
Yes, the Hundred years war was a major factor, such defeat leading on from a period of such victory takes its toll upon the subjects of the incapable king in charge. This loss cannot be attributed to anything but inability on the part of those in charge of the defence of France, primarily the men of the house Beaufort.
2-feud developing between York and somerset.
Wasn't it York and Lancaster?
no, not at the begining. at the begining, it was york and somerset. when the King and his Margeret butted in, and took up arms against York, in wake of St. Albans (and somerset's death), then it truly became york vs. Lancaster (as Henry VI was from the house of Lancaster).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I'd argue the problem started two generations prior to that, with Bolingbroke's siezure of power. The scene was pretty much set during his (or rather, Richard's) reign, and only briefly stalled by the generally uniting presence of Henry V.
I Disagree, Henry V created a sense of right and justice about the Lancaster claim to the throne by his massive conquests in France. The friction came about due to Henry VI's lack of all Kingly qualities and easy manipulation at the hand sof his wife. Richard of York never showed any signs of a traitorous character prior to his embaressment by D'Anjou and general shaming by the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
I expect that had Humphrey and York been able to dominate the court and England's governance a civil war would as always have been on the cards, this was England after all, yet the chances of it being played would have been minimal, instead of certain.
no. definitly Henry VI. as he was too weak to act for himself. one comtemporary chronicle basically said, that even though he was a holy person (he apparently prayed much), with good intent, he was surrounded "by many bad men". It didn't help that parts of England were reeling from the aftermath of the jack cade rebellion (IIRC Kent), which added to the discontent of the nobles, and commen folk. this in my opinion would have showed York that henry couldn't do much, if not his inability to restrain D'anjou. that ould have helped forthur undermine his standing, and hence, stablity in the court..Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
I had a book in Kuwait about the war, with lots of primary sources. thank god for Arab memorizing ability.:beam:
Henry was a sorry soul, he was undoubtedly by anyones standards a good man, but it is important to remember that was just not cut out to be King. What made him such a nice person made him such a bad King and sadly he suffered a mental breakdown which can be bad enough for anybody, but for a King is can be catastrophic, whilst most would have people around them trying to help them, he had people plotting and power grabbing behind his back.
Maragaret, though, imo, is still the major culprit, imo her love wasn't for the King, but her son, I assume this because of the way she manipulated her husband, of course feminist historians make her out to be a Saint, but sadly they are letting their ovaries cloud their judgement on that one. Whilst she had some admirable qualities, she was also a manipulative woman who favoured her friends over men of huge power, and she paid the price for it as she watched her son and husband die before living out her life elsewhere.
Some interesting points guys. This is a summary of what I put in my essay on the subject for my degree:
Sir John Fortescue's The Governance of England, warns of the dangers of weak leadership in the governing of a state. It discusses the outcome of a king in debt, it talks about the dangers of having ‘over-mighty’ subjects and finally it warns of the wise choosing of a king’s council.
Fortescue warns of the consequences of over powerful nobles, “Here he shows the perils that might come to the king by over-mighty subjects” . He goes on to talk about those nobles giving battle to their king “ We have also seen recently in our own realm, some of the kings subjects give him battle, by occasion that their livelihood and office were the greatest of the land”
M.H.Keen describes Richard of York as being “after the king, he was the greatest landowner in the realm” [Keen, England in the Middle Ages, P2]. This describes a powerful lord, second only to the king. Richard’s quarrel was not with the king but with the Duke of Somerset. This quarrel was not over land, or inheritance, or local influence; it was a political feud [Keen, England in the Middle Ages, P1]. However, this feud would put the Yorkist up against the Lancastrians, and eventually develop into civil war.
Fortescue also talks about a king’s council and how it should be chosen “…from the greatest lords of the land”, it should also be made up of wisest and most powerful in the realm, these men should swear an oath to the king and take no reward from any other man, except the king.
When we use these descriptions to compare what historians say about Henry VI, we can see we have problems. Macfarlane suggests that Henry VI failed in good lordship “he did not build up a body of noble retainers who owned loyalty to him alone.
From the extract we can learn that the state of England in the fifteenth century was not good. Henry VI’s council were not the most powerful Lords, they had their own interest at heart, this combined with his bouts of illness divided the aristocracy into those who profited from his continuance on the throne and those who did not the house of York did not profit, thus they had no alternative but to take up arms.
Bibliography
O’Day, R. (2007) ‘Unit 3: English Society in the later Middle Ages: The end of the French Wars and the Wars of the Roses’ in A200 Block 1, France, England and Burgundy in the fifteenth century, Milton Keynes, the Open University.
Gibbons, Rachel C (ed) (2006) Exploring History 1400-1900. An Anthology of Primary sources, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Keen, M. England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History: The Wars of the Roses 1450-1461. Online resource on the course website.