|
|
Post by adlai52 on Jul 3, 2020 7:53:27 GMT
To some extent the idea of "Yorkist" and "Lancastrian" factions feuding over decades is just wrong - contrary to a lot of popular accounts, there was no dispute between York and Lancaster from 1400 to about 1455 - the then Duke of York died at Agincourt as literally Henry V's right hand man and Richard of York was a loyal and effective servant of Henry VI up to the 1450s when he finally got pissed off by the latter's incompetence. Wasn't the "red vs white" thing a bit of ahistorical rewriting by Henry VII to give a simply-digested narrative that legitimised his supremacy? At the back of my mind is that it wasn't even called the War of the Roses until Victorian times in their version of Ladybird Book of Kings and Queens. Not sure, but the 'white roses' vs 'red roses' split is described in Shakespeare's Henry VI, so it was probably already established as part of the official Tudor narrative during the 16thC. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on Jul 3, 2020 12:33:33 GMT
The term "Wars of the Roses" was a 19th century invention. Walter Scott popularised the phrase, if not actually invent it, but it does have roots in Shakespeare as suggested above. However, there were lots of badges. Edward's was actually a streaming sun (hence the opening lines of Richard III), Richard's a white boar, so there was no universal "red rsoe/white rose" division
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 3, 2020 14:03:29 GMT
The term "Wars of the Roses" was a 19th century invention. Walter Scott popularised the phrase, if not actually invent it, but it does have roots in Shakespeare as suggested above. However, there were lots of badges. Edward's was actually a streaming sun (hence the opening lines of Richard III), Richard's a white boar, so there was no universal "red rsoe/white rose" division was there a different name, or were they seen as a series of unrelated wars? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 3, 2020 14:07:39 GMT
We would need a different mnemonic than "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for remembering the colours of the rainbow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Jul 3, 2020 15:56:41 GMT
The term "Wars of the Roses" was a 19th century invention. Walter Scott popularised the phrase, if not actually invent it, but it does have roots in Shakespeare as suggested above. However, there were lots of badges. Edward's was actually a streaming sun (hence the opening lines of Richard III), Richard's a white boar, so there was no universal "red rsoe/white rose" division was there a different name, or were they seen as a series of unrelated wars? Well, Shakespeare's Henry VI plays seem to have been commonly referred to in his lifetime as soemthing like "the contention between Lancaster and York" (more often, apparently, something slightly more florid like "the contention between the two noble houses, Lancaster and York"). The term "Wars of the Roses" actually seems to have been primarily the fault not of Scott but of the 18th-century philosopher David Hume, whose most popular work in his lifetime was a now largely forgotten "History of England" in which he called them the "Wars of the Two Roses". And even Hume was apparently picking up on informal references to the conflict as being between "the two roses", some going back into Tudor times. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 3, 2020 16:02:05 GMT
We would need a different mnemonic than "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for remembering the colours of the rainbow. The ascendancy of Roy Gets Buggered in Velvet? |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 3, 2020 16:59:20 GMT
We would need a different mnemonic than "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for remembering the colours of the rainbow. The ascendancy of Roy Gets Buggered in Velvet? I don't think that would make the primary school curriculum. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 3, 2020 17:00:00 GMT
We would need a different mnemonic than "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for remembering the colours of the rainbow. The ascendancy of Roy Gets Buggered in Velvet? We discussed this mnemoic on the Forum only very recently.  |
|
DrW
Conservative
Posts: 578
|
Post by DrW on Jul 3, 2020 17:08:20 GMT
was there a different name, or were they seen as a series of unrelated wars? Well, Shakespeare's Henry VI plays seem to have been commonly referred to in his lifetime as soemthing like "the contention between Lancaster and York" (more often, apparently, something slightly more florid like "the contention between the two noble houses, Lancaster and York"). The term "Wars of the Roses" actually seems to have been primarily the fault not of Scott but of the 18th-century philosopher David Hume, whose most popular work in his lifetime was a now largely forgotten "History of England" in which he called them the "Wars of the Two Roses". And even Hume was apparently picking up on informal references to the conflict as being between "the two roses", some going back into Tudor times. Henry VII seems to have created the Tudor rose (the white rose inside the red rose) and Henry VIII, embodying of course both claims, seems to have used it most extensively, so the idea of two roses for Lancaster and York seems to have come to prominence within living memory of the Wars of the Roses. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on Jul 3, 2020 18:30:28 GMT
The term "Wars of the Roses" was a 19th century invention. Walter Scott popularised the phrase, if not actually invent it, but it does have roots in Shakespeare as suggested above. However, there were lots of badges. Edward's was actually a streaming sun (hence the opening lines of Richard III), Richard's a white boar, so there was no universal "red rsoe/white rose" division was there a different name, or were they seen as a series of unrelated wars? Something in between I think. They clearly aren't unrelated, but equally as someone said upthread they weren't continuous and did much less damage overall than the Civil Wars of the 17th century (and again as someone has pointed out, Stoke in 1487 is a better final battle than Bosworth). You might have seen them as a bit like the early 20th century Balkan Wars - separate but obviously related (round one, round two etc). And as commented, whilst Shakespeare is far from being a historian, the "roses" scene must be based on a general impression of "Wars of the Roses", otherwise it wouldn't make any dramatic sense. Not sure if they were ever called anything else - specifically, not that I am aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Jul 3, 2020 18:31:09 GMT
We would need a different mnemonic than "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for remembering the colours of the rainbow. The ascendancy of Roy Gets Buggered in Velvet? Very Indifferent Batting Gains You One Run was something I learnt at school. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,815
|
Post by iang on Jul 3, 2020 20:36:06 GMT
I do recall going to one of my girls' primary school assemblies when they were little when her class had been doing the Tudors, and the "Richard of York gave battle in vain" was trotted out in the context of Bosworth and it took every inch of my self control not to stand up and point out that that at that point he had been dead for 25 years, Richard of York having been killed at Wakefield in 1460, and were they perchance getting him confused with his son Richard of Gloucester? Doubt if that would have gone down well with Rachel's class teacher
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jul 3, 2020 20:44:35 GMT
I do recall going to one of my girls' primary school assemblies when they were little when her class had been doing the Tudors, and the "Richard of York gave battle in vain" was trotted out in the context of Bosworth and it took every inch of my self control not to stand up and point out that that at that point he had been dead for 25 years, Richard of York having been killed at Wakefield in 1460, and were they perchance getting him confused with his son Richard of Gloucester? Doubt if that would have gone down well with Rachel's class teacher Would have gone down even less well if you'd offered the alternative mnemonic. |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318 
|
Post by markf on Jul 7, 2020 17:20:55 GMT
What if Richard III had won the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 and not Henry VII? Could the House of York have ultimately won the Wars of the Roses instead of the House of Lancaster? It could have happened, given that within the Wars of the Roses, the House of York won more battles against the House of Lancaster than it lost. . Hooray ,sorry its the Yorkie in me |
|
