As I probably have shown many times on this forum, I'm a french and very proud of the history of my country, more specially the Napoleonic Wars.
However, I recently discovered myself an interests in the rivalry that opposed (and probably still oppose) France and England/Britain. This has pushed me to dive more and more in the history of both countries and I'm currently studying the story of the two main families who caused the rivalry : the French Capetians on one side and the English Plantagenêt on the other.
I have a little trouble on getting the whole picture of the war of the Roses... I get the main points (succession rivalry between the Lancastrians and the Yorkists) but not some lesser elements such as how the two rival houses were representend in the royal family and a little trouble in understanding the rise of Henry Tudor as heir of the Lancastrians.
So here are a few questions I have on the English civil war :
1°) Could someone give or indicate me a complete family tree of the descendants of Edward III so that I can have a better view on the succession war and the different (and possible) claimants? I hope I'm not asking too much with this one...
2°) Did the Roses War implied foreign powers? I heard Louis XI of France watched the conflict with interests at one point.
3°) Can someone tell me more about Henry Tudor's lignage and his rise as the main Lancastrian leader/heir?
4°) Were there any major contestant to Henry Tudor besides Richard III?
5°) What would be the consequences of Richard III winning the battle of Bosworth Field?
6°) Could there have been an earlier end to the Roses War?
1 - This is the hardest bit to understand really. It's sufficient in most contexts to remember that the names Lancastrian and Yorkist came from the Dukes of Lancaster and York, who were respectively the 3rd and 4th sons of Edward III. The fact that the succession was being fought out by the 3rd and 4th branches of the family indicates why both sides felt able to challenge the others' supremacy based on the fact that both sides were far enough from being "first in line" in a perfect world that they felt the other was no better than them: particularly the Yorkists, who were nominally the cadet (junior) of the two. The thing was that this period in England had a nasty tendency for entire branches of the family tree to become extinct - in fact, of all the names on that family tree linked above,
none managed to produce heirs who would live to see the year 1500 (many would die in the Wars of the Roses). In fact, the very fact that 100 years after Edward III's death, people were still talking about the succession in terms of Edward III shows how fragile the family tree was then. That family tree shows best the list of claimants, but the way they kept dying made things more and more difficult for both factions throughout the war: the Lancastrians were basically stuck with Henry VI and his (short-lived) son as their main hope as all of Henry V's brothers died without issue, and the faction could after that only draw potential heirs from the
third marriage of John of Gaunt - hardly a strong claim, which further strengthened the Yorkists, who also had a claim through that line anyway. Those surviving from that third marriage, and the next generation, barely lived through the first 10 years of the Wars of the Roses. The Yorkists were always strongest in faction heirs, but suffered the problem of not being the legitimate claimants as of the start of the war - thus, they were the "rebels" to any neutral party.
2 - The thing about Civil Wars - especially English ones - is that foreign countries rarely dared to enter officially. The French and Burgundians both sponsored factions - I believe the Yorkists stayed with the Kings of France when they were driven out of England while the Lancastrians tended to go to Burgundy. The two foreign countries took them in to gain influence and credit in a later English administration but neither deined to enter the war technically. Both committed troops but only as mercenaries hired by the English claimants. When they sent armies, it was of handfuls of men. Bosworth Field had, IIRC, 2,000 Burgundian mercenaries under Henry Tudor, plus what English he could raise (including the Lords Stanley who defected from Richard III's army when they saw the chance to single-handedly win the day, i.e. as a popularity stunt). If any country had openly declared war I believe it would be highly frowned upon by the rest of Europe, but showing this level of support to a candidate was common fair.
3 - Henry Tudor had a very weak claim to the throne - which is why the Tudor dynasty was often criticised as Welsh upstarts in times of unpopularity, and why his rise to glory was so unexpected and poorly supported. His main claim to the throne came from the way that his grandfather, Edmund Tudor (IIRC) had married Henry V's widow, Catherine de Valois, after Henry V's death - by all accounts the marriage was done in secret and was highly scandalous at the time. His father family had no claim to the throne by the male line, they were just minor Welsh lordlings. Technically inheriting the succession through a King's wife is not a legal claim, but the Lancastrian faction had no legitimate heirs when he arose and claimed leadership of the faction, so essentially he won support from those willing to still fight based on total lack of opposition for the role of faction leader. This is also why he married Elizabeth of York (Richard's sister I think) upon taking the throne - this instantly gave him the Yorkists' legitimacy, and meant that all of his children
would have a legal claim. The problem for the Yorkists was that only three years earlier, Richard III had seized the throne from his nephew, the legitimate King Edward V, and had locked him and his brother up (they were 10 and 8) and had them killed. Thus he was very unpopular, and with no children, his death spelled the end of the Yorkist faction too. So when Richard was captured at Bosworth Field, it left the Yorkists in the same position the Lancastrians had been in - they had no-one left to advocate, and Henry VII truly became the best candidate for the throne.
4 - Not by the time Henry Tudor made a name for himself. However, earlier in the wars, yes there were. In fact it was the existence of these better claimants which forced Henry Tudor to wait so long to bother putting his name forward. Any of the other candidates would have laughed Henry back to Wales because of his terrible claim to the throne.
5 - Henry VII would likely have been captured after the battle trying to flee the country, his supporters would have been outed and scattered and the Lancastrians decisively broken as a faction. Richard would be unopposed for the throne, even if he may be unpopular. However, his killing of Edward V was done in secret. For years there were rumours that Edward was still alive - just as there were rumours that Richard III was still alive when Henry had Richard killed. Richard would have had to occasionally deal with a fake Edward claiming to be the real thing. Look up Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnel as examples of what I mean.
6 - Yes, it would just require a more decisive end to the war. There was a several-year-long period at the start of the war where the Yorkists didn't even want to be Kings, they just wanted to control Henry VI. Different outcomes could lead them to stay loyal. Different deaths could radically change the war, as the lack of faction heirs made a real impact late on and took the drive out of the battles. Also, had the Lancastrians defeated Edward IV earlier on and decisively routed his forces, they would likely have ended the war there and then, as the Yorkists would have to reassess whether, only a couple of years after turning traitor, they really wanted to keep going with a new Yorkist pretender if Edward IV was dead - it was the continuing survival of Edward IV for 10 years after he took the throne the first time that provided them long enough to commit fully. Less time with Edward would likely make them question whether they wanted to stay in revolt, and could see major Yorkists flee to Henry VI and seek forgiveness. A major Yorkist defection could turn the war. Also, the death or failure of the "Kingmaker" the Earl of Warwick could really change things up and probably cut the wars short.
