The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 05-05-2014, 02:59 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 987
Could anyone give me the title of a really great book on the War of the Roses........I have always been interested in that time period of European History? Thanks! Sherry
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 05-05-2014, 04:31 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nice Nofret View Post
Sorry to disagree; I have a more sombre look on wars - for me, both sides and the country lost during the war of the roses. By chance alone Henry Tudor outlived the other claimants and was a strong enought personality to rule. His claim on the throne was weak - He got his claim from the battlefields; an tiny bit from his mother and a hug lot from his wife.
I disagree here.

Both sides lost out during the war, and after it. The Lancaster and York lines were decimated through the war. The country lost out during the war, but I think it won in the end. Following Henry VII's accession the throne had 60+ years of stability in its monarch, under Henry VII and Henry VIII, more than 100 if you count until the death of Elizabeth I. While there were problems in each of the subsequent reigns, and many attempts to contest the rights of each of the Tudor monarchs to rule, the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII brought a stability in the monarch not seen since before the War began.

Henry VII had a much stronger claim than people like to admit. Not simply through his bloodline - although the fact is that he was the senior male claimant through his descent from John of Gaunt (disregarding the fact that his great-grandfather was born out of wedlock). The senior male claimant through John's legitimate children was the king of Portugal - which meant that the Lancasters had a choice between supporting a claimant through the Beaufort line or supporting a foreign monarch. This is not the weak claim that people like to pretend it is.

Even without Henry's very valid blood line, there is also the fact that he won his throne on the battlefield. This makes his claim as strong as the claims of Edward IV, Henry IV, Stephen, and William the Conqueror. Heck, this makes his claim stronger than that of Edward IV or Stephen as he, unlike them, made sure that his rival claimant was dead.

Marrying Elizabeth of York did not make Henry's claim stronger. They were not co-monarchs, he did not rule jure uxoris. He married her because marrying her strengthened the claim of their children - Elizabeth could not inherit her father's throne because she was a woman, but her sons could inherit through her, much like Henry had inherited through his mother. Henry had a claim because of his bloodline that became a bigger one when he defeated Richard III. Marrying Elizabeth of York was just icing on the cake - marrying her helped get him the support of some of the Yorkist supporters who didn't want to support Richard.

Further, Henry did not outlive the surviving Yorkist claimants by chance. He didn't even outlive all of them - the fact that there is to this day a Yorkist claimant is proof of that. Henry outlived the next claimant, Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, because he had him executed. He did not outlive the Poles, the next claimants, who would then try to rise up against Henry VIII, only to be exiled and executed.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 05-05-2014, 07:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,543
One of Queen Margaret of Anjou's wedding gifts was a French-made collection of romances presented to her by the Earl of Shrewsbury, John Talbot.
The frontispiece features Henry VI and Margaret crowned.
John Talbot is kneeling before them.
The King's chamberlain and counselors are grouped behind Talbot.
Peeking from behind the chamber's walls are enormous daisies, Queen Margaret's (Marguerite's) emblem.
Queen Margaret, consort of King Henry VI, tried to introduce silk weaving into England. She brought in foreign weavers.
Margaret became the patron of the Sisterhood of Silk Women, a guild based in Spitalfields, London.
On the morning of October 13, 1453, Queen Margaret had a son who was called Edward.
The Queen had him named after Henry VI's favorite saint, Edward the Confessor, on whose feast day the child had been born.
From 1399 onwards, the government of King Charles VI of France steadfastly refused to recognize Henry IV as king of England, denouncing him as a traitor to his lawful sovereign and referring to him when addressing English envoys, as "the lords who sent you".
Queen Philippa's New Year gift to her husband King Edward III in 1333 was a silver cup, ewer, and basin.
The ewer was decorated with figures of Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, King Arthur, and Lancelot.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-11-2014, 02:30 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
Hello, just wanted to bring this up for questioning. I have barely gotten a grasp of Plantagenet/War or Roses/who what why etc.
But in my minimal research it seems that York had the better claim and were the rightful Kings but that Lancaster had the overall better kings.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 05-11-2014, 03:00 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,436
The Plantagenets (1154-1399)

Back then the line of succession wasn't as defined as it is now. Women were ignored. The very young were ignored. A lot of it was you capture the King and then get rid of him and now you're King.

Dan Jones wrote an excellent book called The Plantagenets it covers the time from the Anarchy to Henry IV overthrowing Richard II. He doing a second book dealing with Henry IV to Richard III
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 05-11-2014, 03:42 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,378
I wouldn't necessarily say that one had better monarchs than the other. It's a bit more complicated than all of that, and things aren't really on even ground there.

The Yorks had a better claim in the sense that they were of the more senior line, albeit through female descendants, than the Lancasters. However, the Lancasters came to power through conquest, therefore making their claim stronger overall.

A comparison would be the the Stuarts vs. the Hanovers; from a technical standpoint, the Stuarts have the stronger claim as they're descended from the more senior line. However, the Hanovers claim comes through a means of parliamentary conquest, therefore their claim is the stronger one overall.

As to which dynasty was a better one in terms of rulers, well that's hard to compare. Henry IV and V ruled for a collective 23 years as adults. Henry VI may have "ruled" for 39 years before he was overthrown the first time, but he was less than 1 when he became king (contrary to what Skippyboo's said, the very young were not ignored during the Plantagenet years, they were just easier to overthrow). Henry VI wasn't a good king when he himself was reigning though, and his failures as a monarch are what lead to the War in the first place. Had Henry VI been a good king - or even a sane king - then the Yorks wouldn't have been so successful in pursuing their cause.

As for the Yorks... Edward IV wasn't necessarily a bad monarch. He came to the throne after a period of chaos and did his best to try to restore order. However, he upset a lot of people because he didn't allow them to control him in the same manner that Henry VI had been controlled. Had Edward come to the throne through a more natural means of succession his reign may have been more successful. As for his successors - Edward V and Richard III, well, Edward's "reign" lasted for mere months and was during his minority, so we have no clue what kind of monarch he would have been. Richard reigned for 2 years, all while fighting for his throne. He may have been a great monarch himself had circumstances been different, as it seems like the actual reigning-type things he did were fairly successful. It's not what he did that he's remembered for, it's the chaos his ascension caused and his overthrowal.

I think it's important to remember when comparing the two dynasties that the Lancasters had essentially 40 years of reining under relative internal stability (under Henry IV, Henry V, and the minority of Henry VI) before things went bad. The Yorks on the other hand came to the throne in chaos, continued to reign throughout chaos, and only lasted on the throne for about 20-25 years. It's not entirely fair to say that the Lancasters in general were better monarchs than the Yorks as the circumstances were just too different.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 05-11-2014, 03:55 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,370
The Plantagenets (1154-1399)

I googled my first question and it said Lancaster won because of Henry VII. I think officially that is right but in a way I see both of the sides winning because Lancaster became King and York it's queen, and their children obliterated the individual houses by uniting them.
I do wonder if one reason Henry and Elizabeth worked so well to end the wars was because they were but at the same time weren't true figureheads of the houses, she was a woman and he was barely a Lancaster.
The main reason I thought Lancaster had the better kings was because Henry IV V and VII. Edward IV did seem to be a good king and military man but his marriage kind of doomed the House of York.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 05-11-2014, 05:37 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,436
The Plantagenets (1154-1399)

Example of being young being passed over -Arthur of Brittany was the son of Geoffrey son of Henry II. Geoffrey was the younger brother of Richard the Lionhearted but older brother to John. When Richard died the English nobles backed John instead of Arthur who was a young child. Arthur was backed by Philip of France was then captured by John and died in mysterious circumstances similar to what happened with the princes in the tower and Richard III.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 05-11-2014, 05:51 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,378
Hmm...

I think Lancaster won because while Henry VIII may not have been a Lancaster himself, he had been identified as the heir to the Lancasters. The Lancasters may have died out, and in the male-line they certainly had, but in Henry they had a relatively close blood relative who they named as heir - similar to how later on the Tudors would die out in the male-line, but would be succeeded by a Tudor descendant in James I.

The Lancasters won because it was the guy they chose who ended up on the throne. The Yorks lost because the guy they chose - be it Richard III, Edward, 17th Earl of Warwick, or the Poles - didn't end up on the throne.

I don't think the fact that Henry and Elizabeth were figureheads of the houses was actually as significant as people want to think. Henry was successful because he was able to decisively defeat Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, putting himself in a power position when opposing the Yorkist rebellions that occurred during his (and later his son's) reign. The marriage was a reconciliation in that it gave the Yorkists who weren't happy with Richard III a reason to switch sides, but don't kid yourself - they were switching sides.

In looking at which House had the better monarchs, you're making a mistake including Henry VII. Henry was their heir, but he was a Tudor, not a Lancaster, monarch. Including him would be like saying that Edward VII was a Hanoverian monarch. Related to them, yes, but not of the house.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 05-27-2014, 06:01 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,788
Daughter of York: The Life of Anne of York

Daughter of York: The Life of Anne of York | Lauren Johnson
__________________
December 5th,2014 -Death of H.M.Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 07-08-2014, 05:51 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,788
Was Edward the Black Prince really a nasty piece of work?

BBC News - Was Edward the Black Prince really a nasty piece of work?
__________________
December 5th,2014 -Death of H.M.Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07-08-2014, 02:13 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,788
Edward III and the Hundred Years War


Edward III and the Hundred Years War
__________________
December 5th,2014 -Death of H.M.Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07-08-2014, 09:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Was Edward the Black Prince really a nasty piece of work?

BBC News - Was Edward the Black Prince really a nasty piece of work?
Which son of Edward the Black Prince was the Bishop of Limoges godfather to: Prince Edward of Angouleme or Prince Richard of Bordeaux?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 09-01-2014, 08:28 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 1,543
Edward IV actively supported William Caxton's invention and popularization of the printing press.
In April 1444, Rene of Anjou met William de la Pole, the Earl of Suffolk, at the court of his brother-in-law Charles at Montils, near Tours.
The Earl of Suffolk proposed for Marguerite of Anjou on behalf of King Henry VI of England.
In February 1447, King Henry VI formally opened Parliament in the refectory of St. Edmund's Abbey.
In The Wars of the Roses, Alison Weir wrote:

From 1452 onwards the Queen (Margaret of Anjou) endeavoured to court popularity with the people, believing that the best way to earn it was by conquering Aquitaine and restoring peace to Henry's disturbed territories.
In Kings & Queens of England, Nigel Cawthorne wrote:

Henry VI was little interested in government. Instead he was very pious, concerned only with religious observance and education. As a result, his court was torn apart by rivalries between powerful ministers.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 09-03-2014, 10:05 PM
LauraS3514's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: San Jose, CA, United States
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Edward IV actively supported William Caxton's invention and popularization of the printing press.
And it was his brother Richard III who removed the tax on imported books and accumulated an exceptional library which he obviously both read and understood in at least three languages: there are hand-written commentaries by him in many of them in those same three languages.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 10-19-2014, 04:34 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 9,788
The Death of King John

The Death of King John - Medieval manuscripts blog
__________________

__________________
December 5th,2014 -Death of H.M.Queen Fabiola of Belgium
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
angevin, british history, edward i, edward ii, edward iii, edward iv, edward v, henry ii, henry iii, henry iv, henry v, henry vi, king john, lancaster, middle ages, plantagenet, richard i, richard ii, richard iii, wars of the roses, york


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]