The Plantagenets (1154-1399)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :)
 
Edward I: Longshanks and Hammer​
:castle2::castle2::castle2::castle2::castle2::castle2::castle2:

I like the fact that Edward III had a new balcony constructed outside Isabella's rooms at Woodstock. It is always more pleasurable to enjoy the scenery when viewed from a grand balcony.

Richard, Duke of York, (1411-1460) married Cecily Neville. Her father had to buy Richard's marriage from the Crown, which held him in wardship. What was the monetary value of the purchase?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my favourite times in English history.

Also covered by my favourite historical novel -Katherine by Anya Seton.
It is the story of a real young girl, Katherine de Roet (daughter of a Flemish squire) who becomes mistress of, and eventually marries, John of Gaunt, son of Edward III. Her sister is Phillipa, lady in waiting to Queen Phillipa and wife of Geoffrey Chaucer.

Katherine and John are the ancestors of the Lancaster line.
 
Richard III DNA tests uncover evidence of further royal scandal | UK news | The Guardian

This is an article from last year but I just ran across it....so perhaps the Plantagenets aren't even who we thought they were...or even farther back maybe.


LaRae
All that that DNA test proved was that somewhere in the 18+ generations and 500+ years there was a break in the male line - most likely in the Beauforts. There were only four generations from Edward III to Richard III (Edmund of Langely>Richard of Conisburg>Richard Duke of York>Richard III) and 18+ to the current Beauforts - who have been rumored to have had a couple of cuckoos in the nest since the 1800s. There were THREE different x-chromosomes in the Beaufort line and none of those matched Richard's... Also, the Yorkist claim to the throne was actually via Lionel of Clarence's (2nd son of Edward III) daughter and her descendants - one of whom married her York cousin (Lionel>Philippa>Roger Mortimer>Anne Mortimer m Richard of Conisburg) so it wouldn't have been affected by any break in the York line.
 
Back
Top Bottom