i'm going to try to simplify this whole mess for everyone... The Wars of the Roses

the wars of the roses

unless you've studied this period in english history (and even for some of us who have) it is hugely complicated and confusing and you think that all that really happened was that it let shakespeare to write 'henry V' and 'richard III'. oh, and you might have heard something about princes in towers, but do you even really know who they were or why it was significant that they were locked up (and probably killed)? it's doubtful. but, it's important to know history (and even more important when it's actually really exciting when you get down to brass tacks- if you can see through all of the bullshit.

SO- let's start it slow. you know that if a king dies the throne passes to his eldest son. if that son dies it passes to his eldest son NOT to his brother or brothers. Herein lies the start of the kerfuffle that would be the Wars of the Roses.

Just a brief lineage here (and yes, this if from memory- not wikipedia)

we started with William I who conquered in 1066 then-

William II then-

Henry I (Henry I had no sons, only a daughter named Maude or Matilda- depending on who you ask, Henry wanted her to take the throne. Upon his death the nobles freaked and essentially installed her cousin Steven to the throne- this led to a long a drawn out civil war which ended in a treaty that stipulated that upon Steven's death, Maude's son Henry would ascend to the throne NOT Steven's son, thereby putting the lines of succession to rights by having Henry I's grandson on the throne) so-

Steven I

Henry II (will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?- oooh, he's a post in himself)

Richard I (who was never really around and historians say was most likely gay which is why he got married and then promptly sent her to a convent never to see her again)

John I (this is Prince John of Robin Hood fame. We should all know him because he was such a right bastard that by 1215 he had lost the empire that his father and richard had left him and in that very year they made him sign the Magna Carta- if you don't know why that's important, call me. we have to have a talk). then-

Henry III (who caused his own little revolt with a great man leading the charge- Simon de Montfort- again, worthy of his own post). then-

Edward I- hammer of the Scots. surely you've seen Braveheart- as horribly inaccurate as it is. then-
Edward II- then-

Edward III- now this is where our troubles begin to emerge. The Plantagenet line started way back with Henry II. Just so that you know, we are talking about Plantagenet Kings here. Edward III had a whole mess of sons (and I mean a whole mess of them). His eldest Edward, the Prince of Wales, better known as The Black Prince, was all set to take the throne. Sadly, he died before daddy did. So, upon Edward III's passing, his eldest son Edward's eldest son took the throne (which is how it SHOULD be). So, we then get-

Richard II- here starts the real trouble. Richard died without an heir and so one of Edward III's grandsons stood up and took over (through a very weak claim to the throne he had because his Dad was John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster- one of Edward III's sons). So, now on the throne we have a deviation from the actual line, although they are all still Plantagenets (meaning all descended from Henry and Edward III). now we have---

Hervy IV- who was a Plantagenet, but a Lancastrian king, meaning that he came from the side of the Duke of Lancaster. There was another side of this family as well. It stemmed from Edward III's son, Edmund, the Duke of York.

Now, the York side of the family was a little miffed because they thought (and rightfully so) that their side's claim to the throne was just as good as those of the Lancastrians-if not better. The Lancastrian symbol was that of a red rose, the Yorkist symbol was that of a white one. When we get into the real in-fighting this explains why it is called The Wars of the Roses.

even though there were still rumblings from the Yorkist side we managed to keep on going with the Lancastrian line- after Henry IV we get-

Henry V (Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead) and then his son after him-

Henry VI- first of all, history has not been kind to Henry. He ascended when he was something like 9 months old. His advisers were basically assholes and set him up so that when he did come of ae his kingdom was rife with discord and general unhappiness. He also suffered from bouts of sever mental illness (and this is primarily where I think that history has treated him unfairly). I think that his mental illness was genetic and the pressures of the throne and internal discord really kicked them into overdrive. Everyone in the kingdom (other than his advisers and other Lancastrians who had tons of power and money by now) said he was a nutter and he should go.

This is where the excitement begins... Henry's cousin, Richard, The Duke of York, descended down upon the king and (at first) just wanted to rid him of all of his awful advisers who were ruining the kingdom. It didn't work out this way. Through a long and drawn out series of battles (and exiles and re-emergences) The Yorkists ended up defeating Henry. Sadly, Richard had died in these battles, so his son became the first Yorkist King of England. so, now we have-

Edward IV- Edward was pretty popular but, needless to say, there were still battles and skirmishes as the Lancastrians tried to gain back the throne. There were some issues in his court (his primary advisor- Warwick- was PISSED when he married someone that hadn't been approved by him- this ended with Warwick imprisoning and trying to depose Edward, but with the aid of Edward's brother Richard it was unsuccessful). In the end, it worked out for the best (for a hot second). When he died his eldest son ascended the throne-

Edward V- he was only 12 when he ascended and he had been brought up under dubious circumstances- ie- by people- the Woodvilles- that the court did not like. Edward's brother Richard had been named the protector of England (which was common when the King is so young). Those who did not like the Woodvilles formed an alliance aiming to get Edward V off of the throne. Some say that Richard, Edward's uncle was one of them. Many historians today believe that this is crap and that he wanted his nephew to be king and wanted to simply remain as protectorate. Now, remember how Edward IV married someone who wasn't liked? Well, she was a Woodville. This is where it gets particularly sticky.

Richard (the uncle) or someone- the debate rages as to whether Richard was the one who went and got them- goes and gets the king (Edward V) and his younger brother from the Woodvilles. They are brought to the Tower of London.

Then a whole mess of nobles (some say Richard was one of them, some say he wasn't) declared that Edward IV's marriage to the Lady Woodville was illegal, therefore making the two boys (one of whom was King Edward V at the time) illegitimate. This meant that Richard would be the natural heir to the throne. And so...

Richard III becomes king. The Princes remain in the Tower, are often seen playing on the grounds...until one day they are not. They are never heard from or seen again. Some say Richard had them killed, most historians today believe that one of Richard's supporters killed them without his knowledge. It is also said that Richard was cruel, a cripple, a hunchback, and hated his nephews.

What IS known is this- before the reign of the Tudor dynasty (who would take over after Richard) there is NOT ONE THING in the historical record that in any way implies that he was a cripple or a hunchback. In fact, it is mentioned that he was a great warrior and in good physical health. There is also record stating that he was a very doting uncle who loved his nephews and was very close to them, as he was very close to his brother. There is record that says that he was a pious man, very charitable and giving, and that he was a beloved son of England. It is only after the NEW dynasty comes to power that suddenly Richard is a monster who killed his nephews...

We all know that the winner writes the history book

and Henry had to make it look like him being the King was the right thing for whatever reason so...

you be the judge on that one.

So, in simple terms-- there's this other guy now. His name is Henry. He has a link to the throne through the Lancastrian line. He's been living in France and his mother really really wants him to be king. He gathers a bunch of Lancastrian supporters (as well as support through his mother from France) and attacks. Henry defeated Richard III, killing him, at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

He then takes the throne to become Henry VII. Thus ends the Plantagenet line, and begins the Tudor dynasty.

Of course, all of this madness (which took place over a century) led to huge repercussions in England. It weakened the people's notion of the power of the monarchy (which would be strengthened again by the Tudors, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I). It made it abundantly clear that infighting between nobles was severely detrimental to the well-being of the nation. It would then be up to the Tudors to regain control of the monarchy, its standing, its position of respect, and of the people of England.

The whole mess does make for a good story, though and we got some really good Shakespeare out of it. Whatever you do DO NOT watch that crappy Al Pacino Richard III movie. Ugh, so historically inaccurate and why on God's green Earth would you cast Winnona Ryder to play Queen Anne (Richard III's wife). She was probably high the whole time (which, you know, wouldn't you have to be to spend that much time with Pacino- HooHaa!!!)