The Wars of the Roses

by John Ashdown-Hill

The Wars of the Roses call to mind bloody battles, treachery and deceit, and a cast of characters known to us through fact and fiction: Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville, Richard III, Warwick the Kingmaker, the Princes in the Tower, Henry Tudor. But the whole era also creates a level of bewilderment among even keen readers. John Ashdown-Hill gets right to the heart of a ‘thorny’ subject, dispelling the myths and bringing clarity to a topic often shrouded in confusion.

Between 1455 and 1487, a series of dynastic wars for the throne of England were fought. These have become known as the Wars of the Roses. But there never was a red rose of Lancaster… This book sets the record straight on this and many other points, getting behind the traditional mythology and reaching right back into the origins of the conflict to cut an admirably clear path through the thicket.

Genres: Nonfiction, History, 15th Century, Medieval, Medieval History

336 pages, Hardcover

First published October 7, 2015

About the author

Louis John Frederick Ashdown-Hill MBE FSA (5 April 1949 – 18 May 2018), commonly known as John Ashdown-Hill, was an independent historian and author of books on late medieval English history with a focus on the House of York and Richard III of England. Ashdown-Hill died 18 May 2018 of motor neurone disease.

Reviews

[Kathryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I mostly enjoy the works of the late John Ashdown-Hill (RIP), and all we history lovers have cause to be grateful for his magnificent research regarding the discovery of Richard III's remains. I do wish, though, that he'd been able to rein in his own biases a bit. He decided that Edmund Tudor, father of Henry VII, might in fact have been the son of Edmund Beaufort (d. 1455, earl of Dorset and duke of Somerset), and therefore refers to Edmund Tudor and his dynasty as 'Tudor' in inverted commas every single time he refers to them. It gets really old, really fast. He also decided that Edmund Beaufort might have been the real father of Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou's son Edward of Westminster (1453-71), though he doesn't cite any actual evidence for his claim that Queen Margaret and Beaufort became lovers in late 1452.

Ashdown-Hill suggests that Edward of Westminster was named Edward because Edward III was the most recent king in his family tree, i.e. because he was Beaufort's son, not Henry VI's. He doesn't point out that Edward of Westminster was born on 13 October 1453 and the 13th of October is the feast day of St Edward the Confessor. He treats the alleged secret marriage of Edward IV and Eleanor (Talbot) Butler before Edward married Elizabeth Woodville as though it's a certain historical fact, and rather bizarrely claims that Edward IV and Henry Beaufort, duke of Somerset (1436-64) - who really was the son of Edmund Beaufort, who in Ashdown-Hill's take on things seems to have been the father of just about everyone else in the fifteenth century as well - were lovers because the king invited Beaufort to share his bed on occasion as a sign of his trust in him. An odd interpretation which I don't recall seeing anywhere else.

I also can't help thinking that a book published well into the 21st century should not be using the word 'nymphomania' (with reference to Henry V's mother-in-law Isabeau of Bavaria), and I can't agree with the author that Isabeau's daughter Katherine de Valois had 'over-riding sexual desires'. Her marriage to Henry V was a short one and they didn't have chance to spend that much time together, and she was widowed at the start of her twenties. A few years later, Katherine seems to have had some kind of relationship with Edmund Beaufort that they hoped would result in marriage, but we don't know for sure that it was sexual and it might well not have been. A few years after that, she had a relationship with Owen Tudor that produced her Tudor children. So that's two men we know for sure she slept with, three at most, with a gap of several years between all of them (if Katherine didn't sleep with Beaufort, there was at least seven years between the death of Henry V and the start of her next relationship, with Tudor). To me that's a flimsy basis to be talking about 'over-riding sexual desires', and I doubt that phrase would be used for a *man* who had two or perhaps three sexual partners during his entire adult life.

John Ashd0wn-Hill was a terrific researcher and always wrote most entertainingly about this fascinating period of English history. He had a talent for pointing out connections that no-one else notices. The Wars of the Roses is well worth a read, as all his books are, though I think it would have been even better if he could have taken a rather more neutral stance and had cited evidence in support of his claims.

[Rich Stone · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a difficult book to rate - I could have gone three stars or four.

On the positive side the discussion of the family trees was among the most lucid I've read and the author points out some interesting relationships that most other authors do not emphasize. Furthermore, the narrative through the various battles is crisp and concise.

On the negative side, a large portion of the book is dedicated to events after Bosworth in 1485. It's entirely reasonable to cover the (supposed) re-emergence of Edward and/or Richard (i.e., the two Princes in the tower) but I just found the amount of material dedicated to this more than needed. It should also be noted that while the other portions of the book are stated confidently these sections contain a lot of "maybe" and "could have", etc.

In the middle ground the author is openly pro-Ricardian. This doesn't bother me as I don't claim to have studied the issue closely enough to come down one way or the other. But, if you will be offended by the author assuming Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was definitely illegitimate because he was earlier married or that the two Princes were likely not murdered (and if they were Richard III didn't do it) then this book is probably not your cup of tea.

As a bottom line I found this easy to read quickly and full of enough useful information to recommend it.

[Bia Vernieri · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book just narrowly got 3 stars. If it wasn’t for the fact that Hill does quite a good job of explain the origins of the conflict and clearly outlining the claims that were put forth, I would have given this 2 stars. Why? This bias is SO STRONG. Do not expect to get a neutral, or even a fair account of the people involved in the Wars of the Roses. Hill is incredibly pro Richard III—and I don’t have an issue with books taking a stance on the conflict but he does it in a way that severely impacts how he accounts and interprets events.

The main thing you can get out of this book is that John Ashdown-Hill is ‘not like other historians’ ™. The air of superiority and egoism that this book has is astounding. The best part is that what Hill believes makes him an amazing historian is that he claims accepted facts as myths and uses myths and rumours as his facts. Examples: the case of the ‘Tudor’ family (yes the ‘’ were deliberate). Hill claims that, by some dubious interpretations of rumours, Henry Tudor should actually be Henry Beaufort. For then one, he refers to the Tudors as ‘Tudors’ and let me tell you it gets only REALLY fast.

Another thing you’ll get out of this: the author HATES powerful and/or ambitious women. He especially detested Elizabeth Woodville (who, granted, was not popular in her own time but still stay with me here). He 100% makes the claim that she and her mother actually used magic and witchcraft to ensnare Edward IV....like truly. I’m not lying.

“As we have already seen, witchcraft certainly does seem to have been used at this period—even in the royal court of England. Thus, it is by no means impossible that Jacquette and her daughter, Elizabeth Woodville had resorted to magic in hope of ensnaring Edward IV and of winning—and keeping—a crown for Elizabeth. “ (pp. 139)

Finally, just to wrap up, because the author is so in love with Richard III, he will do anything to establish his legitimacy in usurping the crown. First, really early on the book establishes that usurpation was a) really really common during this period and b) seen as a legitimate form of acquiring the Crown of England. But Hill spends the whole time trying to make you believe that first the York’s didn’t usurp Henry VI crown (they did) and later that Richard was completely in the right to make himself king. But then when Henry VII wins by right of conquest (again a legitimate form of getting the crown) he condemns him so much. Make it make sense please.

[Kieran O'connell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic read

[Mrs. C. · Rating 5 out of 5]

A whole new way of looking at the conflict

[Matthew Gilmore · Rating 2 out of 5]

Weirdly uneven... far too many 'inverted commas' -- 'Tudor'. Credulous in odd places, partisan in others, And quite odd to read an Englishman wishing the Spanish Armada had succeeded.