http://prof-methos.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
prof-methos.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2006-04-11 09:42 pm
prof-methos.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2006-04-11 09:42 pm
Entry tags:
History of Medieval England - Tuesday 6th Period: Lecture 12: The War of the Roses (Part 2)
Right. So, when we last left England, baby Henry VI was on the throne.
One of his uncles was regent for him, and another one was in charge of the war in France. Which steadily got worse without Henry V to lead the battle charges, and got even more worse when a French girl named Jeanne d'Arc (for the record, calling her a "peasant girl" is misleading; her family was either upwardly mobile tenant farmers or downwardly mobile gentry) inspired the French to overthrow the English overrunning their shores. Jeanne was burned at the stake, but the tide had turned, and all of Henry V's grand victories in France were ephemeral.
Back in England, little Henry VI was growing up a studious, pious sort. Not, you know, the warrior king his father had been. He married but didn't produce an heir for several years. However, by the time his son was born, Henry VI had succumbed to a gentle sort of madness, and his distant cousin Richard, Duke of York.
I refer your attention again to the family tree of the descendants of Edward III. Richard, Duke of York was twice-over descended from Edward III, once through a daughter of a son older than the ancestor of the current ruling line (for convenience, I'll finally point out that Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI were known to history as the Lancastrian line), and once through the son of a son younger.
Henry VI's wife, Margaret d'Anjou, hated Richard, Duke of York with a fiery passion, and in every way she could pushed him out of the government and put her own sympathizers in positions of power. When Henry VI regained a certain amount of sanity, she could advance her position by dominating him. When he retreated into shadows, Richard, Duke of York was ascendant.
Eventually, Richard, Duke of York claimed the throne. However, he was killed the following year (1460, for anyone keeping tabs) and his son took up the fight and became Edward IV in 1461. Edward IV was tailor-made to be a king. He was tall, handsome, lusty, a brilliant battle commander and loaded with personal magnetism. He also had a bad habit of carelessly pissing off supporters. By 1470, he'd managed to annoy his greatest supporter enough that the supporter ran off and joined forces with Margaret d'Anjou.
Edward IV and his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went into exile in Burgundy. The following spring, they returned to England with an army and defeated the Lancastrians soundly. The Lancastrian heir died at the site of the battle, although whether he died before, after or during the fighting and who killed him is a question. Two days later, Henry VI died "of grief for the loss of his son". Trust me, the guy probably didn't remember most days he had a son. It was political assassination, pure and simple.
But there was no one left to protest. All descendants of Henry IV who could make a serious claim for the throne were dead.
Edward IV ruled until 1483, until his free-living lifestyle caught up with him. He died leaving a twelve-year-old boy, who became Edward V, as heir. Problem was, Edward IV's wife's family was a politically powerful machine, and were not willing to share power with Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom Edward IV had named as Regent during his son's childhood.
Long story short, Richard, Duke of Gloucester conveniently heard that there was good proof that his older brother's marriage was invalid, declared that in that case the children of that marriage were illegitimate and ineligible for the throne, and claimed it himself as Richard III. The two sons of his older brothers were housed in the Tower of London to prevent anyone from kidnapping them and using them as figureheads for a rebellion. Sometime within a few months of Richard III taking the throne, they disappeared from public view and history does not know their fate.
Richard III only reigned two years. A Welsh adventurer named Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, came calling. Henry Tudor had the slimmest possible claim to the throne; one of his ancestors through his mother was a son of John of Gaunt (father of Henry IV if you are keeping a scorecard) who was born illegitimate and later legitimized when John of Gaunt married his mistress. The children were legitimized by act of Parliament, but specifically barred from the throne.
Henry Tudor was closely tied to the Lancastrian cause. His father had been the son of Henry VI's mother and a Welsh courtier. Henry VI had adored his little half brother and gifted him with a wife who had the aforementioned slender connection to royalty.
So Henry Tudor managed to gather an army and invade England (through Wales, which was delighted at the thought of a king with Welsh blood on the English throne) and met with Richard III at what became the Battle of Bosworth field. Richard III was killed in battle, and Henry Tudor claimed the throne by right of conquest as Henry VII.
Now, here is where I draw the line between Medieval England and early Modern England. Henry VII was not a medieval king. Aside from this one battle, he was not a military leader. He was a shrewd politician and bureaucrat, and went for alliances rather than attacks. His solution to the problem of the majority of the nobility that had fought for Richard III was bloodlessly pragmatic; he dated his reign from the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field, and thus claimed that anyone who fought against him was committing treason by fighting against their rightful king, and thus deserved to have all their lands and wealth stripped from them and their heads chopped off.
The tidal shift in thought and culture from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance had been forming ever since the Black Death and the concomitant rise of the middle class. But it is fitting to bring this class to a close in 1485, with the end of the Plantagenet line that had ruled since 1154.
This is our last lecture. Thank you for being here. Your test is coming up.
[[OCD threads up. Go ahead.]]
One of his uncles was regent for him, and another one was in charge of the war in France. Which steadily got worse without Henry V to lead the battle charges, and got even more worse when a French girl named Jeanne d'Arc (for the record, calling her a "peasant girl" is misleading; her family was either upwardly mobile tenant farmers or downwardly mobile gentry) inspired the French to overthrow the English overrunning their shores. Jeanne was burned at the stake, but the tide had turned, and all of Henry V's grand victories in France were ephemeral.
Back in England, little Henry VI was growing up a studious, pious sort. Not, you know, the warrior king his father had been. He married but didn't produce an heir for several years. However, by the time his son was born, Henry VI had succumbed to a gentle sort of madness, and his distant cousin Richard, Duke of York.
I refer your attention again to the family tree of the descendants of Edward III. Richard, Duke of York was twice-over descended from Edward III, once through a daughter of a son older than the ancestor of the current ruling line (for convenience, I'll finally point out that Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI were known to history as the Lancastrian line), and once through the son of a son younger.
Henry VI's wife, Margaret d'Anjou, hated Richard, Duke of York with a fiery passion, and in every way she could pushed him out of the government and put her own sympathizers in positions of power. When Henry VI regained a certain amount of sanity, she could advance her position by dominating him. When he retreated into shadows, Richard, Duke of York was ascendant.
Eventually, Richard, Duke of York claimed the throne. However, he was killed the following year (1460, for anyone keeping tabs) and his son took up the fight and became Edward IV in 1461. Edward IV was tailor-made to be a king. He was tall, handsome, lusty, a brilliant battle commander and loaded with personal magnetism. He also had a bad habit of carelessly pissing off supporters. By 1470, he'd managed to annoy his greatest supporter enough that the supporter ran off and joined forces with Margaret d'Anjou.
Edward IV and his brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, went into exile in Burgundy. The following spring, they returned to England with an army and defeated the Lancastrians soundly. The Lancastrian heir died at the site of the battle, although whether he died before, after or during the fighting and who killed him is a question. Two days later, Henry VI died "of grief for the loss of his son". Trust me, the guy probably didn't remember most days he had a son. It was political assassination, pure and simple.
But there was no one left to protest. All descendants of Henry IV who could make a serious claim for the throne were dead.
Edward IV ruled until 1483, until his free-living lifestyle caught up with him. He died leaving a twelve-year-old boy, who became Edward V, as heir. Problem was, Edward IV's wife's family was a politically powerful machine, and were not willing to share power with Richard, Duke of Gloucester, whom Edward IV had named as Regent during his son's childhood.
Long story short, Richard, Duke of Gloucester conveniently heard that there was good proof that his older brother's marriage was invalid, declared that in that case the children of that marriage were illegitimate and ineligible for the throne, and claimed it himself as Richard III. The two sons of his older brothers were housed in the Tower of London to prevent anyone from kidnapping them and using them as figureheads for a rebellion. Sometime within a few months of Richard III taking the throne, they disappeared from public view and history does not know their fate.
Richard III only reigned two years. A Welsh adventurer named Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, came calling. Henry Tudor had the slimmest possible claim to the throne; one of his ancestors through his mother was a son of John of Gaunt (father of Henry IV if you are keeping a scorecard) who was born illegitimate and later legitimized when John of Gaunt married his mistress. The children were legitimized by act of Parliament, but specifically barred from the throne.
Henry Tudor was closely tied to the Lancastrian cause. His father had been the son of Henry VI's mother and a Welsh courtier. Henry VI had adored his little half brother and gifted him with a wife who had the aforementioned slender connection to royalty.
So Henry Tudor managed to gather an army and invade England (through Wales, which was delighted at the thought of a king with Welsh blood on the English throne) and met with Richard III at what became the Battle of Bosworth field. Richard III was killed in battle, and Henry Tudor claimed the throne by right of conquest as Henry VII.
Now, here is where I draw the line between Medieval England and early Modern England. Henry VII was not a medieval king. Aside from this one battle, he was not a military leader. He was a shrewd politician and bureaucrat, and went for alliances rather than attacks. His solution to the problem of the majority of the nobility that had fought for Richard III was bloodlessly pragmatic; he dated his reign from the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field, and thus claimed that anyone who fought against him was committing treason by fighting against their rightful king, and thus deserved to have all their lands and wealth stripped from them and their heads chopped off.
The tidal shift in thought and culture from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance had been forming ever since the Black Death and the concomitant rise of the middle class. But it is fitting to bring this class to a close in 1485, with the end of the Plantagenet line that had ruled since 1154.
This is our last lecture. Thank you for being here. Your test is coming up.
[[OCD threads up. Go ahead.]]
ATTENDANCE: Sign In, Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: ATTENDANCE: Sign In, Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: ATTENDANCE: Sign In, Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: ATTENDANCE: Sign In, Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: ATTENDANCE: Sign In, Medieval England Lecture 12
QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Parker's just looking for a reaction, really.
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
"However, all that contemporatry and more modern science has been able to discover is that they are the bones of two children. The younger between 6 and 9, and the elder between 9 and 12. And they pre-date 1674. Other than that, we have no clue who they are. But, you know, it's not like the Tower of London was ever used as a prison or a site of execution, correct? So they must, ipso facto, be the Princes."
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: QUESTIONS: Medieval England Lecture 12
TALKING IN CLASS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: TALKING IN CLASS: Medieval England Lecture 12
AFTER CLASS: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: AFTER CLASS: Medieval England Lecture 12
OOC: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: OOC: Medieval England Lecture 12
Re: OOC: Medieval England Lecture 12