A Thorn In The Rose: A War Of The Roses TL

Ironic that Welles should look to Henry VI to care about Calais, when he spent his entire reign completely destroying the English position in France by supporting his Beaufort relatives over the Plantagenet dukes.
 
I think it depends on who you support. If you're a Lancastrian, then this is York's fault, because he's done nothing to aid Welles. If you're a Yorkist then it's Welles and Henry's fault for not allowing Bourchier in.
Well if Welles is refuting to recognize Richard III, and had NOT asked support to him that mean who the Yorkist would need to conquer Calais from the Lancastrian BEFORE being able to defend it from the French. Calais‘ fall would be fault EXCLUSIVELY of Welles and Henry VI. Richard III can NOT have fault for NOT defending a place who is rebelling/refuting to recognize his authority.
Specially because is likely who, if Bourchier had taken control of Calais and informed Richard III of the situation, this King would have at least tried the hardest for sending reinforcement there
 
Well if Welles is refuting to recognize Richard III, and had NOT asked support to him that mean who the Yorkist would need to conquer Calais from the Lancastrian BEFORE being able to defend it from the French. Calais‘ fall would be fault EXCLUSIVELY of Welles and Henry VI. Richard III can NOT have fault for NOT defending a place who is rebelling/refuting to recognize his authority.
Specially because is likely who, if Bourchier had taken control of Calais and informed Richard III of the situation, this King would have at least tried the hardest for sending reinforcement there

It's likely yes, but surely common sense would dictate that you try and aid Calais anyway, especially given the PR blow that would come if it falls
 
Well, after Bourchier, who was sent to take control of Calais, was imprisoned by Welles and his men sent back was pretty clear who Richard III would need to conquer Calais, before being able to reinforce it.
Sending the men back was a bad move on Welles's part, he should've just hired them to work for him or imprison them as well.
 
Well this is it for Calais, they are split on who to support with the enemies at the gates, shame if someone freed Bourchier causing even more trouble from the inside and making the defense more difficult.

And when Calais fall, you can bet both kings will blame each other, it dosen't matter about objectivity, whoever wins is going to make sure to twist the narrative into their favour, only a matter to see who's the best propaganda master while none are the definitive monarch, a good propagandist might be able to bring more support to his side, support that may be very crucial later on.
 
Well this is it for Calais, they are split on who to support with the enemies at the gates, shame if someone freed Bourchier causing even more trouble from the inside and making the defense more difficult.

And when Calais fall, you can bet both kings will blame each other, it dosen't matter about objectivity, whoever wins is going to make sure to twist the narrative into their favour, only a matter to see who's the best propaganda master while none are the definitive monarch, a good propagandist might be able to bring more support to his side, support that may be very crucial later on.
Again the garrison was in the hands of Lancastrians meaning who Richard III was likely unaware of the danger and surely unable to reinforce that garrison. Lancastrians would find really hard to put the blame for that loss on Richard
 
Last edited:
Again the garrison was in the hands of Lancastrians meaning who Richard III was likely unaware of the danger and surely unable to reinforce that garrison. Lancastrians would find really hard to put the blame for that loss on Richard
Like I said, if you're a skilled propagandist, you can always twist and justify whatever action was taken and saying it's the enemy's fault, Richard might have a easier time yes but that doesn't mean the Lancastrians can't bullshit people about what happened.
 
Last edited:
It is by definition Richards fault.
He has plunged the country into civil war , this has caused the French to take the chance....nothing more, nothing less.....this action of personal greed and grab for power he thinks is his but was not granted him by god has caused this.
He has broken his vow before God and is reaping all he sows.
The kingdom in his hands for a short time and he loses Calais.
Though i wouldn't be surprised if just as the lancastrian gsrrison is about to fall a single Yorkist soldier turns up and manages to save the city from the French and subdue the garrison to the adulation of the residents .
Just way story is going
 
It is by definition Richards fault.
He has plunged the country into civil war , this has caused the French to take the chance....nothing more, nothing less.....this action of personal greed and grab for power he thinks is his but was not granted him by god has caused this.
He has broken his vow before God and is reaping all he sows.
The kingdom in his hands for a short time and he loses Calais.
Though i wouldn't be surprised if just as the lancastrian gsrrison is about to fall a single Yorkist soldier turns up and manages to save the city from the French and subdue the garrison to the adulation of the residents .
Just way story is going
Lol, no it really isn’t the way the story is going
 
Last edited:
It is by definition Richards fault.
He has plunged the country into civil war , this has caused the French to take the chance....nothing more, nothing less.....this action of personal greed and grab for power he thinks is his but was not granted him by god has caused this.
He has broken his vow before God and is reaping all he sows.
The kingdom in his hands for a short time and he loses Calais.
Though i wouldn't be surprised if just as the lancastrian gsrrison is about to fall a single Yorkist soldier turns up and manages to save the city from the French and subdue the garrison to the adulation of the residents .
Just way story is going
Alternatively Henry VI has shown himself forsaken by God allowing England to fall into corruption and it's Richard's duty to redeem his dynasty by installing a more righteous king. The lords of Calais who refuse him have only themselves to blame if misfortune befalls them.
 
Alternatively Henry VI has shown himself forsaken by God allowing England to fall into corruption and it's Richard's duty to redeem his dynasty by installing a more righteous king. The lords of Calais who refuse him have only themselves to blame if misfortune befalls them.
We will only know when the dust is settled and we have a winner. Then he obviously was God's chosen and everything (including a peasant stubbing his toe just outside Birmingham) was the other's fault.
 
Top