Subscribe now and receive weekly newsletters with educational materials, new courses, interesting posts, popular books, and much more!
Articles
English-Speaking Peoples (3): The Wars of the Roses
History of the English-Speaking Peoples, Vol. 1, Book 3
For 12 successive Fridays starting September 30th, Hillsdale College President Larry Arnn and radio host Hugh Hewitt are discussing Churchill’s History of the English-Speaking Peoples in the Hillsdale Dialogues segment of the Hugh Hewitt Show.
Following each discussion, the Churchill Project will offer companion pieces highlighting important episodes and themes in the book covered. Readers will note that our writers often focus on aspects of the books which the discussants may not. Such is the depth of Churchill’s History. Every reader may take what they prize most from this vast mine of political wisdom and understanding.
Page references (parentheses) are to Winston S. Churchill, A History of the English-Speaking Peoples, vol. 1, The Birth of Britain (New York: Rosetta Books, 2013).
The blood feuds of the Wars of the Roses
In the spring of 1455, England’s nobility fractured into two factions in a civil war for control of the throne. This conflict was called The Wars of the Roses. In his History of the English Speaking Peoples, Churchill observed the brutal nature of “the most ferocious and implacable quarrel.” It led to the collapse of a noble class that had ruled for three centuries (442).
The Wars of the Roses ushered in three decades of violence across the British Isles. English noble families betrayed one another in a vain attempt to expand their political influence. Churchill describes a “conflict in which personal hatreds reached their maximum, and from which mass effects were happily excluded” (293). Ultimately, the conflict laid the groundwork for the rise of the Tudor dynasty and the Reformation.
Before the Wars, medieval England reached the pinnacle of its strength during the reign of Henry V. The country had expanded its territorial control in France. Henry’s premature death, however, saw nine-month-old King Henry VI elevated to the throne and, with him, a host of incompetent nobles. Churchill described Henry VI’s early reign bleakly:
These were evil days for England. The Crown was beggarly, the nobles rich. The people were unhappy and unrestful rather than unprosperous. The religious issue of an earlier century were now dominated by more practical politics. The empire so swiftly gained upon the Continent was being cast away by an incompetent self-enriching oligarchy, and the revenues which might have sent irresistible armies to beat the French were engrossed by the Church. (282)
York and Lancaster
Churchill cites Henry VI’s weak leadership as one of the critical causes of the Wars of the Roses. After several military losses in France, the Lancastrian nobles, who had controlled the English throne since the usurpation of Henry of Bolingbroke (Henry IV) in 1399, fought with each other rather than provide a functional government.
As the Lancastrians squabbled among themselves, a rival faction rose in the English court led by Richard of York. An influential noble with a claim to the throne, York enjoyed vast support in the south and west of England. York and his followers argued that the military disasters in France and the loss of order and justice at home were a result of the incompetency of the Lancastrian faction, specifically John Beaufort Duke of Somerset.
Churchill praised the Duke of York as “a virtuous, law-respecting, slow-moving, and highly competent prince” (287). Richard, he continued, “stands before history as a patriot ready to risk his life to protect good government, but unwilling to raise his hand against the State in any personal interest” (291).
When King Henry VI suffered a mental breakdown in 1453, York was appointed Lord Protector, giving him full control of the country. York reformed the English government, making it more stable. He also arrested the Duke of Somerset for his military failures.
By December 1454, York’s fortune would turn for the worst. The King recovered from his madness, and his consort, Margaret of Anjou, produced an heir to the throne, denying York his claim. Conflict was now inevitable. The Lancastrians feared the competency of the Yorkists, and in turn, the Yorkists believed the Lancastrians illegitimately claimed the throne.
Somerset’s demise
After the King’s recovery, the King stripped York from his position as Protector and restored the Duke of Somerset as Commander of the English Army in France. Dismayed by the turn of events, in 1455, York led his faction into battle on the vast open fields of St. Albans against the Duke of Somerset, the influential Lord Clifford, and the Lancastrians. Within hours, the Yorkists had killed Somerset and Clifford, and had won a decisive victory.
St. Albans was the first bloodshed in a bloody 30-year civil war. Yet as Churchill observed, no one wanted to admit “the peril to themselves or their order” (293). Instead, the Yorkists and Lancastrians attempted “intense efforts at reconciliation” by parading together, exchanging pledges of amity, and taking the sacrament.
“All sought peace where there was no peace,” Churchill wrote (294).
York sought to use the King as a puppet, ruling in his name while forcing Henry VI to disinherit his son Edward, Prince of Wales. Behind closed doors, hatred boiled over. By 1459, fighting broke out across the North of England as Queen Margaret marshaled forces to assert her son’s birthright.
Death of the Duke of York
By 1460, the Queen’s armies wreaked havoc across Northern England and Wales. Foolishly, York sought to suppress the rebellion without gathering his whole strength. During the Battle of Wakefield, the Lancastrians ambushed and slaughtered the advancing Yorkist forces, including the Duke of York and his son, the Earl of Rutland.
While slaughtering the Earl of Rutland, the new Lord of Clifford, whose father died at St. Albans, exclaimed: “By God’s blood, thy father slew mine; and so will I do thee, and all thy kin” (294). This phrase, Churchill observes, became the rule of the Wars of the Roses. After the massacre, Margaret ordered the heads of the three Yorkist nobles to hang over the walls of York.
Following Wakefield, the struggle between mature statesmen ended. Instead, as Churchill observed, a new generation holding deep personal hatred toward their enemies took power and sought vengeance. During the battle of Mortimer’s Cross, closely following Wakefield, the new Duke of York ordered his men to show no mercy to captured Lancastrian nobles, many of whom faced execution.
Irreconcilable differences
The Wars of the Roses continued. Both sides purged entire families to satiate the need for vengeance. The Yorkist cause burned with fury for the injustices of Wakefield, leading to a bloody victory at Towton in 1461. After the battle, the Yorkists executed all captives.
Three months later, Edward, Duke of York, crowned himself King of England and confiscated properties owned by more than 130 Lancastrian nobles. Yet the red rose of the Lancastrian cause would not wither. Queen Margaret was able repeatedly to resupply her fortresses in the North, and to raise their banners once more.
The pardoned Lancastrian nobles met Edward’s mercy with repeated betrayal. He pardoned the new Duke of Somerset and gave him a high command in the royal army. Yet by 1463, the Duke of Somerset deserted the King, rejoined the Lancastrian cause, and led troops until his execution. Following these betrayals, it was common policy in Yorkist camps to execute captured Lancastrian nobles and knights.
Warwick’s betrayal
The greatest betrayal of the Wars of the Roses was by the Duke of Warwick, a brilliant Yorkist leader. His commanding presence was influential in the victory of St. Albans and the sieges of Bamburgh, Alnwick, and Dunstanburgh. Following the success at Alnwick, Warwick commanded Edward IV’s government.
As Edward’s reign progressed, Warwick and his party increasingly found themselves slighted by the king’s carefree attitude to the duties of the State. While many modern historians believe Warwick’s grievances with the King were petty, Churchill argues that they were genuine, given the danger of a possible French alliance with the Lancastrians.
Warwick took action into his own hands and sought to control the King like a puppet. In conspiracy with the King’s brother Clarence, Warwick incited a rebellion in the North of England to draw Edward out of London and into a trap. After capturing the king at the battle of Olney, Warwick ruled in his name.
Warwick’s domination did not last for long. By 1470, the King, under the pretense of suppressing a rebellion in Lincolnshire, marched against his usurpers. The shocking turn of events left Warwick and Clarence “astounded that their own methods should be retorted upon themselves,” according to Churchill (308). The two fugitives fled to the French court to beg for asylum and here they found an unlikely ally.
“A river of blood…”
King Louis XI (“Louis the Prudent”) proposed Warwick and Clarence join forces with his daughter Queen Margaret to overthrow Edward. Both sides found this idea appalling, since “a river of blood flowed between them” (309). Yet Churchill notes their mutual hatred of Edward and desire to rule England was enough to stomach the unsavory alliance.
After exchanging oaths at Angers, Warwick and his Lancastrian benefactors began their treacherous assault. Once again, Warwick incited a revolt in the North, and while the King was distracted, he overran the South and captured London. After securing the city, he paraded King Henry VI of Lancaster out of the Tower of London as England’s “new” king.
“While these violent transformations were comprehensible to the actors, and the drama proceeded with apparent success,” Churchill observes, “the solid bulk of England on both sides was incapable of following such too-quick movements and reconciliations. Almost the whole population stood wherever it had stood before” (311).
Warwick’s betrayal put a final end to the old nobility and normalized a type of opportunistic usurpation irrespective of allegiance. Betrayal became common practice in the House of York following the Wars of the Roses. King Richard III, for example, used the church to annul Edward IV’s marriage so he could claim the throne. His defeat at Bosworth Field in 1485 marked the end of England’s Middle Ages.
The usurpation and revival of the Lancastrians did not, however, not last long. Edward IV would return to England with an army provided by the Duke of Burgundy and defeat Warwick at the Battle of Barnet in 1471. One month later, he would finish off the remaining Lancastrians at the Battle of Tewkesbury, killing Henry VI’s son and effectively ending the Lancastrian claim to the throne.
The rise of the Tudors
The Wars of the Roses took a deep toll. By the end of the conflict in 1485, the Houses of Lancaster and York had run out of legitimate heirs. The cycle of violence encapsulated by the wars destroyed the many great noble houses that once dominated English society. As Churchill concludes:
The heads of most of the noble houses had been cut off, and their branches extirpated to the second and third generation. An oligarchy whose passions loyalties and crimes had for long written English history was subdued (311).
Churchill tells us that the death at Bosworth of Richard III, Edward IV’s brother, closed a long chapter in English history. Last of the Yorkists and Plantagenets, Richard died with no heir, ending 300 years of English history. Thus his death left the crown to Henry Tudor, forefather of the great Tudor dynasty.
“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand” (Mark 3:25). Given renewed fame by Lincoln, the verse applies as well to the Wars of the Roses. Their vicious course saw the old order passing to something entirely new. The tragic events of the Wars are a reminder from Churchill to “study history.” The familiarity of his words is uncanny given the rampant social, political, and ideological divisions in Western countries. Churchill calls us to learn from the tragedies of the past to avoid experiencing a similar upheaval.
The author
Mr. Hypes is a Winston Churchill Fellow and a member of the Class of 2024, studying Politics and Journalism. He serves as a Political Correspondent for the Hillsdale Collegian and as Vice-President of Hillsdale College’s Alexander Hamilton Society.