1455-1485 a rose by any other name?

The second half of the 15^th Century saw England plagued by an attenuated and bloody power conflict. Or really, a series of conflicts. For 30 years the country was the victim of pillaging bands of unpaid and unemployed soldiery, a period later glamourised as the Wars of the Roses. Not the chivalrous Lancaster v York medieval scrap of popular myth, but among the bloodiest civil wars in English history. Far from loyalty to one group or the other, people and factions often changed sides. France and Scotland stirred the pot, and by the end, having fought to a standstill, the male lines of both sides had been eliminated.

Supporters of two rival branches of the Plantagenet family struggled for control of the English throne, generating a dreadful spell of dynastic warfare. The question of succession dated back to the time of Edward III. The House of Lancaster descended from John of Gaunt, the third son of Edward. The House of York originated with Edward of Langley, his fourth son. Complex arguments surrounded the legitimate succession, including Edward III’s change to the rules of primogeniture, and the deposition of Richard II by the Duke of Lancaster (Bolingbroke) later Henry IV. With no major policy or ideological split, discord focused on the economic and social effects of the French wars, which had ended badly for England, and the mental incapacity of a weak King Henry VI.

Red and white roses?

The first myth to dispel is that of red and white roses for Lancaster and York respectively. It sounds like a cricket match with fair competition and with no hint of barbarity. At the time this conflict was usually called the ‘Cousins’ Wars’. And while Yorkists used the white rose symbol from early on, the Lancastrian red rose only appeared after Henry Tudor’s 1485 Bosworth victory. Participants held multiple titles, so various heraldic badges were used - falcons, boars, suns, stars etc. Livery badges were common. These signified a man’s immediate lord or permanent patron under the system of ‘bastard feudalism’ and excluded mercenaries. At Bosworth, Henry’s forces fought under the red dragon, and Richard’s under the white boar. The term Wars of the Roses was not used until the 1830’s, nearly 400 years later, when it was coined by Sir Walter Scott, referencing a scene in Shakespeare’s Henry IV part I. This depicts courtly characters demonstrating their allegiances by picking red or white roses in a garden of the Temple Church.

Henry V1

Henry VI, only son of Henry V and Catherine de Valois, became an infant king in 1422 when his father died. He also became the disputed king of France a few weeks later on the death of Charles VI. A shy, passive individual, Henry grew into an ineffective ruler. Inheriting the long running stop-start Hundred Years War, his reign saw the gradual loss of English lands in France. By 1453 Calais was England’s only remaining possession there.

Henry had married the French Margaret of Anjou (a key piece in the excellent board game ‘Kingmaker’). At first tensions over the lack of an heir were a concern, but in 1453 he managed to father a son, Edward. However Henry became increasingly mentally unstable and by common consent was clearly not fit to rule.

Gangster wars

Power was seized by various regional magnates vying with Queen Margaret and her supporters. Bands of private armed retainers, formed of soldiers back from France, proliferated. These groups fought their neighbours, paralysed the courts and basically took over what government there was. England was effectively sliding into a mob state.

Battle of Barnet 1471

The series of conflicts veered between minor skirmishes to enormous pitched battles. But the Victorian chivalric portrayal is quite false. Fighting was increasingly vicious as first one side then the other gained the upper hand. In one battle at Towton, near York, fought in March 1461 in a snow blizzard, an estimated 20,000 were thought to have died in a day. This number, with new archeological and other evidence, has recently been revised significantly downward. Whatever the actual figure, though, there is little doubt it was among the bloodiest battles ever fought on English soil.

Aside from the fighting leading opponents who survived were often summarily executed after a battle. The total killed during the wars was perhaps 50,000-75,000 but, as this toll was spread over 30 years, it might not then have seemed too costly in human life. Henry was captured and kept as a prisoner twice during the struggle. The Yorkist Edward IV seized control for a while and was made king. Then he was deposed by the Earl of Warwick, and then in power again. Finally in 1471 he had Henry murdered in the Tower. At the same time Henry’s only son, the 17 year old Edward, was killed at the battle of Tewkesbury.

Battle of Tewkesbury 1471

Peace interludes

There were some periods of relative peace when the fighting died down, particularly after 1471. But under the surface local scores were settled with the breakdown in law and order and a vacuum in royal authority. Indeed the last private battle in England took place in 1470 at Nibley Green, in Gloucestershire - Viscount Lisle’s army fought with Lord Berkeley’s over an inheritance still unresolved in the courts. All the time the sons and heirs of potential royal claimants were almost systematically being killed.

Curiously, foreign visitors often remarked on what appeared the settled state of England and its efficient government. Even allowing that these impressions were gained during lulls in the fighting, it might still seem strange. Probably the key here is that London, the South East and East of the country avoided the worst violence. These areas were where most foreign visitors would have appeared. Indeed, trade and industry were relatively untouched by the conflict. This was fortunate. The benefits were enjoyed by the succeeding dynasty.

Edward IV 

Succession problems

This period threw up some characters who later proved the mainstay of popular fiction and culture - Margaret, the White Queen and Elizabeth Woodville spring to mind, besides Warwick the Kingmaker. Whether the real figures would have been as appealing as their 21^st century media reincarnations is a moot point. But the Mills and Boon school of historical fiction has had some fun with them, and fans of this genre have acquired a colourful, if inaccurate, view of the associated history.

One final thought. Monarchists often claim royal succession as a sound, simple principle in choosing a head of state. Disputes may not always be as disastrous as the ‘Wars of the Roses’, but monarchs might be too young, too ill or otherwise inadequate. In practice, succession is often challenged. But without a way to change things, bar killing or deposition, the inflexibility of this brittle procedure would seem obvious.