Richard and his world

What were the Wars of the Roses really about?

The Wars of the Roses is a name used by modern historians to describe a variety of conflicts during the second half of the fifteenth century. Rather than one prolonged period of conflict, there were four separate ‘miniature wars’. All were essentially rebellions against the ruling monarch in which local politics often played as much of a role as national politics. As such, they were far more complex than a simple rivalry between the houses of York and Lancaster. Fifteenth century propaganda generally portrayed the origin of all conflict as Henry IV’s usurpation of Richard II’s throne in 1399, but historians usually argue that the conflict that broke out in 1455 had much more immediate origins.

The first ‘war’ (1455-1461) saw Richard Duke of York, his sons, and their principal Neville kinsmen opposing the Duke of Somerset and eventually the Crown. It was a reaction to royal favouritism and the calamitous personal rule of Henry VI. An attempted parliamentary settlement awarding the succession to York in 1460 failed to bring peace and York was killed at the Battle of Wakefield in December. His son Edward, Earl of March then claimed the throne as Edward IV. He defeated his Lancastrian opponents and secured the crown at the Battle of Towton in March 1461.

The second war (1469-1471) comprised three rebellions by Edward IV’s kinsman and former supporter, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and the king’s brother George, Duke of Clarence who both desired greater power. Only when their initial rebellions failed did they resort to an alliance with the exiled Lancastrians which briefly reinstated Henry VI. The conflict concluded with the defeat of Warwick and the Lancastrians at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury respectively in the spring of 1471.

The third phase of the wars (1483-1485) was the reaction to Richard III’s accession. It originated with a rebellion in the autumn of 1483. This was swiftly defeated and those who escaped subsequently supported Henry Tudor, a descendant (via an illegitimate line) of the Dukes of Lancaster. The result of Tudor’s ambitions was another invasion enabled by money and loans obtained in France, which culminated in the defeat of Richard III at Bosworth. Tudor married Edward IV’s daughter, Elizabeth, and his use of rose imagery to celebrate his alliance with her family inspired the modern name for the conflict.

The final chapter comprised challenges to Henry VII’s throne by two claimants representing the House of York. Previously dismissed as imposters, evidence indicates that the first was recognised as Edward V by supporters who included Edward IV’s sister Margaret, dowager Duchess of Burgundy, and her step-son-in-law and King of the Romans, Maximilian. Others claimed he was Edward, Earl of Warwick, the Duke of Clarence’s son. Henry VII and later Tudor commentators dismissed him as an imposter. He was crowned in Dublin and supported by Richard’s assumed heir John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, he led an army to eventual defeat at the Battle of Stoke in 1487. The second claimant was accepted at many European courts as Edward V’s younger brother Richard, Duke of York. His campaign for England’s crown began with the landing of a fleet at Deal in 1495, and ended with his capture after landing near Land’s End in September 1497 and failed attempts to capture Exeter and at Taunton. He was executed in November 1499.

What laws did Richard enact?

In his single parliament, Richard extended the system of bail, enabling justices of the peace to grant immediate bail to persons arrested on suspicion of all types of crimes: in the Middle Ages not all cases came to trial so this protected suspects from being imprisoned indefinitely. Richard also made it illegal to seize a man’s property until conviction of the crime of which he stood accused; until that time, the normal practice had been to seize the goods of the accused at the time of arrest.

In an attempt to stamp out bribery and corruption in the jury system, Richard decreed that only men of good character and owners of property could serve on a jury. He also strengthened an earlier act to present the officials in charge of occasional courts, that were held to try offences arising from fairs and markets, from abusing their position in order ‘to trouble those to whom they bear ill will’.

Richard took steps towards regulating the increasingly complicated system of land tenure, legislating to prevent the concealment of rival titles to the land in order to protect purchasers against subsequent claims from third parties. He also abolished the Crown’s absolute right to seize the lands and bodies of child heirs because it was to the ‘great hurt and thraldom (enslavement) of his subjects’.

Another lucrative practice of Edward IV’s that Richard outlawed for the benefit of his subjects was that of raising revenue for the Crown by means of ‘benevolences’ or forced gifts.

Why did Richard lose Bosworth?

This is not a particularly well documented battle and it is difficult to know anything for certain. It appears that Richard had superior forces but he lost control of the battle in its early stage due to the good generalship of the Earl of Oxford. This setback probably helped Thomas and William Stanley, both notorious trimmers finally to make their decision as to which side to support. Richard’s charge towards Henry Tudor afforded the latter the opportunity to cut down King Richard and his entourage.

Did Henry Tudor have a good claim to the throne?

No. He was the grandson of an illegitimate son of a younger son of Edward III, and his family had been disbarred from the throne by an Act of Henry IV. However, he prudently took the throne by right of conquest and married Edward IV’s eldest daughter whom many believed now had the greatest right to the throne.

How did Tudor become the heir to the House of Lancaster?

Henry Tudor combined his claim as a descendant of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, with affinity to the late Henry VI (his grandmother was King Henry’s mother). The more legitimate and superior lines from John of Gaunt had married into foreign royalty so were less attractive potential monarchs.

Why is 1485 regarded as a watershed - the end of the Middle Ages?

Across Europe, the end of the fifteenth century is seen as a turning point in history because of the impact of the Renaissance and the Reformation, as well as new political structures and technical advancements (e.g. printing). In practice the shift lasted centuries but, since the Enlightenment, historians have found this a convenient division for study. In England the idea of that turning point has been focussed on 1485 because Henry VII is regarded as the founder of a new dynasty – he was the first king who was not descended from Henry II (d. 1189) in a direct male line.

Was Edward IV illegitimate?

Almost certainly not. Allegations of illegitimacy were routine in medieval political propaganda. The Earl of Warwick seems to have been the originator of this slander in 1469 (and was very probably also the source of the same slander against Edward of Lancaster a decade earlier). It has been argued that Edward’s parents were not together at the time of his conception – Cecily was in Rouen and Richard Duke of York was in Pontoise – but evidence for this has never been clearly published and even if York was based in Pontoise he could have returned briefly to Rouen during the appropriate time, or Edward could have been born two weeks before term. When Edward was only three, Charles VII was seriously considering arranging for Edward to marry one of his own daughters. This would have been inconceivable if there had been any doubts about the child’s legitimacy at that time. Mancini believed that Cecily Duchess of York had herself made the assertion in her anger at the news of Edward IV’s marriage (twenty years before his visit), but none of the many records of responses to the marriage in 1464 make any mention of this. Chapuys’ claim, during Henry VIII’s reign, that Richard III had forced his mother to declare that Edward IV was illegitimate belongs to the same school of anti-Ricardian propaganda as Polydore Vergil’s assertion that Richard claimed the throne by claiming Edward IV was a bastard rather than Edward V. No surviving document originating from Richard himself suggests that Edward IV was illegitimate.

What was rumoured about the sons of Edward IV, the so-called 'Princes in the Tower'?

When Richard III was offered the throne and the Princes set aside, there was opposition by their mother’s Woodville family and supporters. who created unrest aimed at restoring Edward V. The Duke of Brittany harboured members of the Woodville and Tudor families who had fled there, and was enlisted to support their aims. A foreign visitor to London, Domenico Mancini, gave an account of events up to Richard’s coronation (6th July 1483) which he wrote five months later, in December, after returning to France. He gave a description of Edward V which concluded: ‘I have seen several men break out in tears and lamentation when mention was made of him after he was removed from men’s enquiries, because he added ‘Whether, however, he has been taken by death, and by what manner of death, so far I have not at all ascertained.’

Meanwhile unrest in England merely simmered until being rekindled in the autumn, culminating in outright rebellion in October. Around this time there were reports on the Continent mentioning rumours that the Princes had been killed, with Richard or the Duke of Buckingham thought to be responsible. Such rumours prove nothing, and were commonly circulated in similar circumstances (e.g. false rumours that Henry VI’s Queen has been murdered by Edward IV). No native account written during this period has been traced citing such rumours, and the account of Polydore Vergil gives a Tudor gloss that should be treated with extreme caution. It was not until Henry Tudor invaded in 1485 that allegations appeared, evidently brought with him, that Richard had killed the Princes.

Could the late Earl of Loudoun have been the real king of England?

No. Henry Tudor took the throne of England in 1485 through right of conquest and sealed it by marriage to Elizabeth of York. His descendants have been the de facto kings and queens of England ever since. The purported claim of the late earl, through his descent from George, Duke of Clarence is invalid due to the attainder of the Duke. Attainders can be reversed but only by a duly elected parliament called by the Sovereign.

Could I be a descendant of King Richard III?

King Richard left no direct descendants that we know of. However, it is estimated that there are between 1-17 million descendants from Richard’s immediate family alive today.