Lancaster Against York: The Wars of the Roses and the Foundation of Modern Britain

The history is about the ruling class, largely written by the ruling class or its in house scribes and captive prelates. Ordinary folk in those days did not know how to read and write, and in many case were prescribed against doing so. We know a great deal about the petty insults and pettier affronts, perceived and inflicted on and by the ruling class, that spilled over reining destruction on those ordinary folk, both French as well as English, who paid for it all. Ultimately, a respect for law and an appreciation of common sense arose out of this age of nation state adolescence, when everyone, from King down to commoner, saw the justice, as well as the advantages, in systemizing things in an open and transparent way, or as open and as transparent as it could be in those days. Only then could England enter the `modern' era, providing a basis and model for the rest of the world, including what became the United States. The book's 22 chapters is an easy read, augmented by a very good bibliography.

Lancaster Against York is a thorough and exciting read about an important period in English history. The author tells the story well and the style of the story telling and the subject are entertaining.

One should ask what this work brings to the reader that other books on the Wars of the Roses haven't, and the answer is "clarity." In spite of poor editing and some very awkward sentence structures (he then ill was), the thread of the narrative through very complex times is clear and comprehensive to the average reader. There are only a few times when the author jumps backwards or forwards in the chronology, and his Appendix of names and titles was very helpful in maintaining an idea concerning who was who. In the author's treatment of Henry Bolingbroke who became Henry IV, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later Richard III), however, I found his aversion to using first names (except for kings) misleading. There are other problems with certain facts and assertions, but none are so egregious that they detract from the book, at least for the casual reader. Serious historians will find this account somewhat glossy -- passing over very complex issues and situations with a few dismissive sentences either expressing the author's opinion or showing how the actions led to outcomes the author already knows. The participants, of course, were not clairvoyant and took actions based on the information available to them and in what they thought was their best interest. Serious historians delve into those actions and the reasons for them in much greater detail. The author begins his narrative with the reign of Richard II to put the eventual conflict between York and Lancaster into perspective. This is a valuable approach as it puts the genealogy into perspective. Richard was the only surviving son of Edward of Woodstock (The Black Prince), oldest son of Edward III. The Lancaster claimants came down from John of Gault, Duke of Lancaster and the fourth son of Edward III, and York came from Edmund of Langley, fifth son of Edward III. The line of succession went off track when Richard II was deposed in 1377 by Henry Bolingbroke, the 4th son of John of Gault (eldest surviving son to adulthood). This was an usurpation that put the game afoot. Two other Lancastrian Kings followed, Henry V and Henry VI, but then York asserted itself with Edward IV, Edward V and the usurpation of Edward's throne by the younger brother of Edward IV, Richard III. By that time the Lancaster line was essentially played out with only Henry Tudor, the grandson of Henry V's wife, Catherine of Valois and a commoner, Owen Tudor. To say that Henry Tudor possessed a strong claim would be to wildly overstate his case, but he eventually became Henry VII and established the Tudor line in 1485 which led to Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth. If the reader is interested in the genealogy in detail during this period, I recommend "Blood Royal" by T. Anna Leese, particularly the chapter on John of Gault and his marriages. The author treats the succession of kings and their adherents fairly without becoming bogged down by criticizing the cruelties and savagery o

Royle's history covers more than the Wars of the Roses proper; he starts with the reign of Richard II and includes all the kings up to Henry VII. Henry VII's reign is not analyzed in full; Royle is concerned chiefly with the last efforts of surviving Yorkists to unseat him, and with Henry and the other Tudors as transitioning to the Renaissance and modernity. Royle's tries to be evenhanded and fair to all of the monarchs, listing their faults and virtues, successes and failures as he sees them. I am somewhat skeptical of the extent to which he relies on Sir/Saint Thomas More as a source. More's text has some serious problems, none of which are noted by Royle. At one point, he quotes More's description of Edward IV (p.197) and says that More knew him. While it is not outside of the possible that Edward once patted little Tommy More on the head, More was only five when Edward died. More knew people who probably knew Edward IV, but that's a bit sloppy. I am also disappointed that there are no notes, although there is an extensive bibliography' of course, some readers may consider that to be a plus. I also occasionally found Royle's language a little convoluted: I had to reread sentences to untangle double negatives and antecedents for pronouns. To give an example (p.60), "According to Walsingham, Orleans ... had committed adultery with the wife of a knight, who had killed him and who was then supported by Burgundy in getting his revenge." If 'who' refers to the cuckolded knight, and 'him' to Orleans, as I originally supposed, who is it that had the support of Burgundy? If it is the knight, what is the meaning of the word 'then?' The knight would already appear to have gotten his revenge, so how did Burgundy later support him? If Royle means that Burgundy protected the knight from Orleans' avenging followers, that's a somewhat indirect way to say it. The quote also points up a flaw in the index: I couldn't find a reference to Orleans either under Louis or under Orleans. There is a list in the appendix of characters listed and cross-referenced by title or surname which is extremely helpful. I'd like to see more authors adopt the convention. In all, an informative book, and the bibliography will help readers who want to study further.

Trevor Royle is, in my opinion, a gifted historian, responsible for several first-rate books on key moments in the story of the British people. He is touted as a military historian, but I think this label diminishes his achievement. As the author of Civil War: The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, for instance, Royle also shows a grasp of Stuart era politics and cultural ethos, which adds much to the narrative. In Lancaster Against York, Royle brings these same qualities to an exceptional account of the Wars of the Roses. This is no mean feat, as for numerous readers the broad outlines of what Royle calls "the long collapse in Plantagenet power" are familiar because of Shakespeare's Histories (it is, of course, testimony to Shakespeare's eloquence that this is the case, even for those who have never read or seen a performance of, say, the Two Parts of Henry IV or Richard III). However, while Shakespeare emphasizes less the facts than the tragic truths, Royle zeros in on the available evidence from medieval chronicles and later-age research and interpretation. In so doing, he exercises care in his treatment of the subject matter. This is important, as I believe it has been tempting for some authors to simply repeat past assumptions about the Wars, or to speculate unduly where source material is lacking. Perhaps the latter tendency is encouraged by the sensational nature of the era, its non-stop blood and thunder, and the seeming glamour of its many princely characters. Royle's dispassion does not obstruct his giving us a truly compelling Wars, told from the ascendence of the boy-king Richard II to Bosworth Field and the arrival of the House of Tudor. I have read a few books surveying this period, but none written with comparable intelligence. Royle deftly manages the sweep of events, as well as the dizzying number of titled personalities, settings, and turns of fate. Consequently, he gives the detailed narration a welcome transparency. As suggested in the book's title, Royle also places the Wars in a broader context. Henry Tudor is not merely the last claimant left standing, but the founder of the imperial Tudors, the Renaissance- and Reformation-inspired reigns of which internalized the lessons of the Wars, and turned British history to a new direction. Other analysts have said much the same, but Royle's account gives these conclusions a fresh power and clarity. I recommend this book, on its own merits as a highly readable non-fiction rendering of the Wars, which might well be the best of its kind, and as an excellent companion to the Shakespeare plays.