Think kings and queens, think Wars of the Roses. Different branches of a bloodthirsty family vying for control of England, all pretty nasty with it. Shakespeare says Richard III excelled all others in nastiness and the wars ended only with his defeat by a benevolent Henry VII – Elizabeth I was on the throne when he was writing and it would have done the Bard no favours to call her grandfather the greatest usurper of the lot.
Wait, though, there is more. Michael Hicks puts them in an economic context, a time of trade slumps, limited access to credit, costly foreign wars, rising unemployment and a treasury with coffers bare. Taxes needed to be raised but the English were unwilling or unable to pay them, preferring cuts in spending. This at a time when a new middle-rung section of society – tradesmen, traders – felt entitled to be heard.
Government mismanagement was the main grievance, with greedy councillors perceived to be lining their pockets; a similarity, Hicks suggests, with our current furore over MPs’ expenses. Other parallels the author – who is Professor of Medieval History at the University of Winchester – draws include violent disorder (knife crime) and suspicion of immigrants.
Hicks is best in his assessment of Henry VI. Far from being an ineffectual ruler, he was burdened by the legacy of his father, whose victory at Agincourt established an area of France important – it was a national humiliation when it fell – but cripplingly expensive to defend. At the start of an international economic downturn, he founded Eton College and King’s College, Cambridge. Accused of cronyism, especially after defeat in France, he saw it as loyalty to friends. He was a conciliator in a time when bully boy magnates had no interest in conciliation, and Henry’s fault seems to be his issue and subsequent retraction of fines to those magnates hell bent on undermining his authority.Chief among those bully boys was Richard of York, who delighted in being critical yet did no better during two stints as Lord Protector. He started the bloodshed at the first Battle of Stoke, Henry’s timid response being a “loveday” – a gathering at St Paul’s where outstanding grievances would be settled and all parties would no longer resort to violence. The outcome was Richard questioned the hereditary right of the Lancastrians to rule and instead – surprise, surprise – reasoned it should be his own family.
Alliances formed and parted. Allies became enemies, enemies became allies. And once the first king was toppled, there was a precedent for doing so again.
Richard may have been killed before becoming king, but two of his sons, Edward IV and Richard III, succeeded. Richard III has in recent years received a lot of attention – principally from those who believe he has been unfairly vilified. There is even a society formed to exonerate him. Now I have time for those who wish to exonerate say, James Hanratty, but a king dead for over 500 years?
History as a “hurray Henry” jape except, given their antipathy towards Henry VII, “hurray Henry” is the last thing they would say. Thankfully, Hicks presents Richard as he was – an opportunist who broke his oath to protect the child king Edward V, and instead stuck Edward and his brother in the Tower – and was certainly prime suspect in their murders.
There is one big surprise. You read about Richard of York and his latest strategy and suddenly he is dead. Not just York but almost all the others. Henry VII succeeded partly because he was one of very few left. The Yorkists, in reply, had to send in pretenders like Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.
This is a comprehensive account of the period, logically laid out, explaining why the Wars of the Roses were fought and why they ceased. Plenty also from that era which echoes our own. One painless solution Henry VI conceived to reduce the budget deficit was to transmute base metals into gold. Now there’s an idea.
