war of the roses

[froggo]

what was the war of the roses all about?

[jno]

winning the throne of England. A family quarrel in which two different branches of the royal line - the Lancaster (red) and York (white) ones - adopted different coloured roses as their emblems and went to war between 1455 and 1485. It was finally settled when Henry VII, the first Tudor king, defeated Richard III and married Elizabeth of York. He himself had a Lancastrian mother, but adopted the Tudor rose - red and white - as his emblem.

[froggo]

many thanks that should set a few minds at rest

[SaxyJag]

If I remember my history, it started when the House of Lancaster supposedly befriended the king and then usurped him.

If you can circumnavigate the rhetoric, Shakespeare gives a potted version of events in Henry IV Pt 1.

[Tatty Rollox]

........ and here at http://tinyurl.com/h9xcb is Gypsy Rose Lee ....

[jno]

Gypsy Rose Lee was also involved in family warfare with her sister, the actress June Havoc, but not on the same scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy_Rose_Lee

[Homer55]

The war of the roses was fought in 1994 when Axl Rose decided that he wanted the rights to the name of Guns n Roses, Slash Duff matt and the other members did not like this and then decided it was time to call it a day.

They then formed a new band called Velvet Revolver with Scott Weiland formerly of stone temple pilots.

Axl is now touring with "Guns n Roses" him been the only member of the original band left.

It was a sad war that broke many a heart, mine included.

[JudgeJ]

This is really a topic worthy of a separate question froggo, but while I�ve got your attention, would you mind telling me whether you were taught anything about the Wars of the Roses at school? I�m not having a dig or being critical of you. It�s simply that I have a keen interest in comparing education today with that which I received in the 1950s and 60s. Very often on AB I see what (for me) seem to be very fundamental questions asked on subjects which we were taught, sometimes in depth, at school. This is one of them. It could be, of course, that history was not a subject dear to your heart (as English Literature and Art were not for me). I�m just curious.

[froggo]

thnx but i never had any input of the wars of the rose and the question only arose due to a conversation i had in the pub about the england badge

[froggo]

however old buildings and castles rock!!!!

[jno]

JudgeJ I never studied the wars of the roses in my time at school in the 50s/60s. The history curriculum as I recall had a bit of the Tudors and a good deal about the 18th and 19th centuries - particularly the industrial revolution. (No second world war, that wasn't history yet.)

I think that's right. The wars of the roses were interesting, especially in their use of logos - roses - and in the way they also turn up in study of English literature (Shakespeare) but not very important. A minor dynastic struggle with no great historical subtext, nothing much at stake except which branch of the family would sit on the throne. Although they might count as civil wars, I don't think they divided the nation the way the Stuart civil wars did - no brother against brother, mostly just lords and their retainers and some off-and-on battles.

[maxi29]

I don't think you can call it a "minor "dynastic struggle jno. It was a war that lasted for about 30 years and saw some of the bloodiest battles ever fought on British soil.

In particular, there were more than 20,000 people killed at the battle of Towton - out of the 50,000 (or more?) men who participated in it. As the population of England at the time was only about 5 million, that's at least 2% of the entire male population participating in the battle. There was an interesting documentaryt on TV about this batttle a few years back: amazingly, they're still finding bodies from the battle.

Wikipedia has a good section on the Wars of the Roses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

A few years ago, the RSC did all eight historical plays, one after the other, and it was possible to see how a struggle over the crown has its roots in an event many years earlier. Shakespeare was an arch Tudor propagandist so he's a bit biased against the Yorkists and he also concertinas events together so it looks like things happen just after each other when, in reality, they were several years apart. But it's still fascinating to look at history through his eyes.