How do you define a Lancastrian?
How do you define a Lancastrian?
Lucy Worsley's programme about HT's propaganda has really set me thinking again.
I think we've said on here before that the Wars of the Roses (i.e. when one part of the Royal House was fighting the other for the Crown) ended in the aftermath of Tewkesbury in 1471. Bosworth was a very unfortunate 'accident' when a number of disparate and desperate rebels backed a usurper who, as a result of a slip in the mud ,was able to kill the rightful king and take the throne. He then re-badged these rebels as Lancastrians, pinning his newly invented red rose emblem on them and they were happy to be so badged because it legitimised their having had a hand in killing the true king - no good thing for a conscience in those days. He gave them some good jobs too.
If you look at it that way it makes things, and indeed history itself, so much more understandable. In chasing my 100-odd rebels of 1483 one of the most difficult things has been trying to pin a Lancastrian badge on them. Woodville, yes, MB and Morton, yes but old Lancaster, only the old stalwarts of Hungerford, Courtenay and, in the distance, De Vere. I 'cleared' another three the other day - all with ties to Dr Morton and Reggie - but Lancastrian in the pure sense, who knows? One of them actually came from Staunton Drew where the Cholkes , guardians of Stillington's grandchildren, hung out but does that make him a friend of Stillington? And Stillington's son-in-law, John Hampton was a cousin of Thomas Hampton, whose son-in-law was another rebel and whose father was esquire to Henry VI. Does that make them Lancastrians? Or, as is much more likely, was this the age of self-interest where you followed those who offered you the biggest bone? Don't like the taxes on your business - we'll make it better.
But as I see it, and it is me, this had little to do with Richard; he hadn't had long enough to make policies that got him that many enemies in his own right. There was an interesting discussion in the programme about how the Victorians tried to see history as a series of moral lessons which is no doubt why they loved More and the dreadful story of the princes. We've been fed that ever since. You have to hand it to Tudor PR.
And Stillington himself - well he continues to defeat me. But if it was he who 'spilled the beans' then his motives are very important indeed and I don't think they were altruistic. H
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
The fighting had ended fourteen years before Richard was offered the crown and Edward had kept the realm in peace and reasonable stability. When the supporters of Henry, Earl of Richmond looked to him as an alternative to Richard, he really had little chance of winning. Richard certainly didn't start any new warfare. He inherited a peaceful Kingdom, but a fair number of his so called loyal support, Hastings and Buckingham, Stanley et al were disgruntled for one reason or another. Hastings had the biggest private army in the country, Buckingham had his own ideas of who should run things and was persuaded by Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville to revolt against Richard. Any fighting came from greedy southern rebels and corruption. Had Buckingham been successful he may have plummeted the country back into civil chaos, but he didn't have the support he hoped and was a poor leader. Richard sorted him out and Henry's first attempt to land was thwarted.
Richard was popular and an effective ruler. England was stable and he was building good foreign relationships. He replaced the gentleman in the South who he saw as supporting Buckingham and this caused resentment. A number of families who rebelled and joined Henry abroad came from the areas that their powerbase had been supplanted with loyal northern gentry. A group of moaning malcontents supported Henry, not hard Lancastrians. Yes, some old folllowers did defect but a number of his new followers were servants of the House of York. The Stanleys were at the heart of Yorkist political life. Their powerbase may have been Lancashire but they also had land in Cumberland and Yorkshire. Richard also had a lot of connections and support from the families up in these northern counties as this was his own country. While most Yorkist nobles and gentry supported or remained neutral for Richard at Bosworth, a group of discontented knights changed sides with nobles like Oxford, who had personal reasons to defect to Henry Tudor.
When Henry landed he could not depend on promises of loyalty. He had to work on the landowners in Wales, using old connections to gain Welsh support. He relied on foreign sell swords, but he needed Stanley. Even on the night before Bosworth he didn't know if either Sir William or Lord Thomas Stanley would support him. Richard had reason to doubt Northumberland, who in the end, did nothing. Had Richard not gone for glory, who knows maybe Stanley may have remained neutral too. Henry Tudor was outnumbered. The balance of Support was with Richard. It was unfortunate that Norfolk was killed. Richard came very close to taking out Henry. With, as you say a slip in the mud it all changed. Stanley saw an opportunity for glory, supported the rival and his men crashing into Richards rear killed his loyal men. The Welsh joined in and Richard was killed, while fighting for his life. Several hundred loyal men died with him, men who had also been at the heart of his government, but remained loyal. It was cowardly treason that defeated Richard, not mass support for Richmond.
Bosworth had been an invasion which interrupted the peace of England. For almost three years Richard had also ruled peacefully and well. How could you end a war that doesn't exist? Both supporters of York and Lancaster made their peace with Henry. They had no choice. Their lawful King was dead and Henry had won the right to rule in battle. He married a lady who should have been their queen (had she not been of questionable legitimacy) Elizabeth of York and claimed he was the real King through her and his mother. But, in any event, Bosworth was not the end. Henry had to fight off Yorkist claim after claim, centered around either Warwick or a missing Prince. Some who had initially accepted Henry rebelled against him at Stoke Field in 1487. Others later supported Warbeck, including Sir William Stanley, who said if he was really Richard of York, then he could no longer guarantee his support of Henry. Henry had him beheaded. Henry appears to have had a mostly Yorkist court with numerous old families flourishing quite happily under the new Tudor regime. The Poles and Courtneys, Nevilles, all made their peace. For several decades they served both Henry Vii and Viii. It was only after the latter broke from Rome and went potty after a brain injury that he turned on these families and destroyed their leading members. It is hard to define a Lancastrian as the lines between York and Lancaster were blurred. Richard had support from both sides, as his brother had during his second reign. Henry had support from both, he also had trouble from both wanting him out of the way. Richard was planning to marry a Princess who was a descendant of Lancaster and unite the two sides. Like Henry he wanted to ensure the peace and reconciliation of all his people. Richard cared about all his people. His laws benefited all his people. Henry Tudor did not end the so called wars of the roses; the fighting ended sixteen years before he poked his nose in. Richard would have made a wonderful King, continued a long and great dynasty and died beloved, not maligned.
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
BTW I bumped into an earlier Sir John Stanley the other day. He was a favourite of Richard II who heaped offices on him, particularly in Ireland. But when Bolingbroke appeared to be getting the upper hand guess what? It was obviously something in the Stanley genes. H
From: poohlandeva <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2017, 1:30
Subject: Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
I can't agree more. I am fed up with so called historians claiming that Henry Tudor ended the Wars of the Roses. No, Henry Tudor stuck his nose in and restarted the Wars of the Roses, as the conflicts were later incorrectly called.
The fighting had ended fourteen years before Richard was offered the crown and Edward had kept the realm in peace and reasonable stability. When the supporters of Henry, Earl of Richmond looked to him as an alternative to Richard, he really had little chance of winning. Richard certainly didn't start any new warfare. He inherited a peaceful Kingdom, but a fair number of his so called loyal support, Hastings and Buckingham, Stanley et al were disgruntled for one reason or another. Hastings had the biggest private army in the country, Buckingham had his own ideas of who should run things and was persuaded by Margaret Beaufort and Elizabeth Woodville to revolt against Richard. Any fighting came from greedy southern rebels and corruption. Had Buckingham been successful he may have plummeted the country back into civil chaos, but he didn't have the support he hoped and was a poor leader. Richard sorted him out and Henry's first attempt to land was thwarted.
Richard was popular and an effective ruler. England was stable and he was building good foreign relationships. He replaced the gentleman in the South who he saw as supporting Buckingham and this caused resentment. A number of families who rebelled and joined Henry abroad came from the areas that their powerbase had been supplanted with loyal northern gentry. A group of moaning malcontents supported Henry, not hard Lancastrians. Yes, some old folllowers did defect but a number of his new followers were servants of the House of York. The Stanleys were at the heart of Yorkist political life. Their powerbase may have been Lancashire but they also had land in Cumberland and Yorkshire. Richard also had a lot of connections and support from the families up in these northern counties as this was his own country. While most Yorkist nobles and gentry supported or remained neutral for Richard at Bosworth, a group of discontented knights changed sides with nobles like Oxford, who had personal reasons to defect to Henry Tudor.
When Henry landed he could not depend on promises of loyalty. He had to work on the landowners in Wales, using old connections to gain Welsh support. He relied on foreign sell swords, but he needed Stanley. Even on the night before Bosworth he didn't know if either Sir William or Lord Thomas Stanley would support him. Richard had reason to doubt Northumberland, who in the end, did nothing. Had Richard not gone for glory, who knows maybe Stanley may have remained neutral too. Henry Tudor was outnumbered. The balance of Support was with Richard. It was unfortunate that Norfolk was killed. Richard came very close to taking out Henry. With, as you say a slip in the mud it all changed. Stanley saw an opportunity for glory, supported the rival and his men crashing into Richards rear killed his loyal men. The Welsh joined in and Richard was killed, while fighting for his life. Several hundred loyal men died with him, men who had also been at the heart of his government, but remained loyal. It was cowardly treason that defeated Richard, not mass support for Richmond.
Bosworth had been an invasion which interrupted the peace of England. For almost three years Richard had also ruled peacefully and well. How could you end a war that doesn't exist? Both supporters of York and Lancaster made their peace with Henry. They had no choice. Their lawful King was dead and Henry had won the right to rule in battle. He married a lady who should have been their queen (had she not been of questionable legitimacy) Elizabeth of York and claimed he was the real King through her and his mother. But, in any event, Bosworth was not the end. Henry had to fight off Yorkist claim after claim, centered around either Warwick or a missing Prince. Some who had initially accepted Henry rebelled against him at Stoke Field in 1487. Others later supported Warbeck, including Sir William Stanley, who said if he was really Richard of York, then he could no longer guarantee his support of Henry. Henry had him beheaded. Henry appears to have had a mostly Yorkist court with numerous old families flourishing quite happily under the new Tudor regime. The Poles and Courtneys, Nevilles, all made their peace. For several decades they served both Henry Vii and Viii. It was only after the latter broke from Rome and went potty after a brain injury that he turned on these families and destroyed their leading members. It is hard to define a Lancastrian as the lines between York and Lancaster were blurred. Richard had support from both sides, as his brother had during his second reign. Henry had support from both, he also had trouble from both wanting him out of the way. Richard was planning to marry a Princess who was a descendant of Lancaster and unite the two sides. Like Henry he wanted to ensure the peace and reconciliation of all his people. Richard cared about all his people. His laws benefited all his people. Henry Tudor did not end the so called wars of the roses; the fighting ended sixteen years before he poked his nose in. Richard would have made a wonderful King, continued a long and great dynasty and died beloved, not maligned.
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
No, she was content being Queen of Castile. However, Catalina de Aragon and thus Mary I were descended from her.
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 03 February 2017 15:01
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
"Richard was planning to marry a Princess who was a descendant of Lancaster ". Yes, a real descendant of Lancaster unlike Tudor who was not descended from the House of Lancaster because only children of John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster were entitled to call themselves Lancaster. That is why J of G named his family by Kathryn Swynford Beaufort, after the place in France where they were born. I believe that he also had a daughter by Constance of Castile, did she ever lay claim to the English Throne?
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
Mary,
Regarding Henry Tudor and his Lancastrian descent, your message coincided with my being at a presentation by the Duchy about their plans for the future of the castle now it is no longer a prison.
Henry was separately descended from Blanche's aunt and hence the Earls of Lancaster.
Additionally, John of Gaunt was a second creation of the Dukedom, so although he acquired Lancastrian lands from his marriage, the title Duke of Lancaster was his by his own right and so Lancastrian blood could be claimed by all his offspring.
Hope this helps
Kind regards
David
"Richard was planning to marry a Princess who was a descendant of Lancaster". Yes, a real descendant of Lancaster unlike Tudor who was not descended from the House of Lancaster because only children of John of Gaunt and Blanche of Lancaster were entitled to call themselves Lancaster. That is why J of G named his family by Kathryn Swynford Beaufort, after the place in France where they were born. I believe that he also had a daughter by Constance of Castile, did she ever lay claim to the English Throne?
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
If J of G thought that his children by Kathryn Swynford were of Lancaster why did he name them Beaufort.
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
A very good post.
Murrey and Blue have blogged part of the list of thirty claimants at https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/meet-your-real-lancastrian-claimants/ .
Blanche, Duchess of Lancaster in suo jure, had an elder sister, Maud, who married into the Bavarian royal family although her issue was short-lived, otherwise it would have been the Lancastrian heir, along with its hypothetical descendants.
Their father, Henry of Grosmont, had five sisters, four of whom had children. Mary, the youngest, was Henry VII’s ancestress so his line from Crouchback was junior to the other four.
So, if “Tudor” is to be thought of as a lineal Lancastrian, he is behind hundreds of people in 1485, including Carson ’s thirty:
http://www.genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00005190&tree=LEO&display=block&generations=8
The only real Lancastrian monarchs England ever had were Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and (maternally) Mary I.
QED.
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 06 February 2017 16:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree David. It may well be that Henry Tudor was descended from Blanche's aunt and therefore from the Earl of Lancaster ( I would need to research the genealogy) but a) Blanche was very senior to her aunt and there were at least 30 people with superior Lancaster claims in the Summer of 1485, as listed by Annette Carson and b) John of Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris.
If J of G thought that his children by Kathryn Swynford were of Lancaster why did he name them Beaufort.
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
The post to which I was replying made no mention of seniority - only if Henry was a true Lancastrian at all. It is well known that there were many individuals who had a superior 'claim', if you only have the family tree as your criterion.
In fact, Nathen Amin, who appeared on Lucy Worsley's show, wrote a very comprehensive blog about the houses ahead of Henry in the pecking order.
But your description of the way in which the Dukedom of Lancaster was passed down in the early post is completely wrong.
Blanche could never be Duchess in her own right, because the title was limited to male heirs. In 1462, on the death of her sister the title became extinct.
Later the same year, John of Gaunt was created Duke of Lancaster by his father. At that point, Blanche became Duchess, but as the wife of the Duke.
As evidence, I would point out that both John and his father in law were styled "first Duke". In John's case it was of the second creation.
I suppose that since the Lancastrian line of kings is associated with John's son's usurpation, and that it is this line that is involved in the Wars of the Roses, the line starts with John of Gaunt.
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 at 20:48, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []<> wrote:
A very good post.
Murrey and Blue have blogged part of the list of thirty claimants at https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/meet-your-real-lancastrian-claimants/ .
Blanche, Duchess of Lancaster in suo jure, had an elder sister, Maud, who married into the Bavarian royal family although her issue was short-lived, otherwise it would have been the Lancastrian heir, along with its hypothetical descendants.
Their father, Henry of Grosmont, had five sisters, four of whom had children. Mary, the youngest, was Henry VII's ancestress so his line from Crouchback was junior to the other four.
So, if Tudor is to be thought of as a lineal Lancastrian, he is behind hundreds of people in 1485, including Carson 's thirty:
http://www.genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00005190&tree=LEO&display=block&generations=8
The only real Lancastrian monarchs England ever had were Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and (maternally) Mary I.
QED.
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 06 February 2017 16:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree David. It may well be that Henry Tudor was descended from Blanche's aunt and therefore from the Earl of Lancaster ( I would need to research the genealogy) but a) Blanche was very senior to her aunt and there were at least 30 people with superior Lancaster claims in the Summer of 1485, as listed by Annette Carson and b) John of Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris.
If J of G thought that his children by Kathryn Swynford were of Lancaster why did he name them Beaufort.
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
Incorrect.
Blanche is regularly referred to as Duchess of Lancaster in suo jure after her father’s death. Anne Mowbray, similarly, was allowed to become Duchess of Norfolk, against the usual rule.
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 09 February 2017 22:20
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
Stephen
The post to which I was replying made no mention of seniority - only if Henry was a true Lancastrian at all. It is well known that there were many individuals who had a superior 'claim', if you only have the family tree as your criterion.
In fact, Nathen Amin, who appeared on Lucy Worsley's show, wrote a very comprehensive blog about the houses ahead of Henry in the pecking order.
But your description of the way in which the Dukedom of Lancaster was passed down in the early post is completely wrong.
Blanche could never be Duchess in her own right, because the title was limited to male heirs. In 1462, on the death of her sister the title became extinct.
Later the same year, John of Gaunt was created Duke of Lancaster by his father. At that point, Blanche became Duchess, but as the wife of the Duke.
As evidence, I would point out that both John and his father in law were styled "first Duke". In John's case it was of the second creation.
I suppose that since the Lancastrian line of kings is associated with John's son's usurpation, and that it is this line that is involved in the Wars of the Roses, the line starts with John of Gaunt.
Regards
David
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 7 Feb 2017 at 20:48, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []
< > wrote:
A very good post.
Murrey and Blue have blogged part of the list of thirty claimants at https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/meet-your-real-lancastrian-claimants/ .
Blanche, Duchess of Lancaster in suo jure, had an elder sister, Maud, who married into the Bavarian royal family although her issue was short-lived, otherwise it would have been the Lancastrian heir, along with its hypothetical descendants.
Their father, Henry of Grosmont, had five sisters, four of whom had children. Mary, the youngest, was Henry VII’s ancestress so his line from Crouchback was junior to the other four.
So, if “Tudor” is to be thought of as a lineal Lancastrian, he is behind hundreds of people in 1485, including Carson ’s thirty:
http://www.genealogics.org/descendtext.php?personID=I00005190&tree=LEO&display=block&generations=8
The only real Lancastrian monarchs England ever had were Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI and (maternally) Mary I.
QED.
From:
[mailto:
]
Sent: 06 February 2017 16:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree David. It may well be that Henry Tudor was descended from Blanche's aunt and therefore from the Earl of Lancaster ( I would need to research the genealogy) but a) Blanche was very senior to her aunt and there were at least 30 people with superior Lancaster claims in the Summer of 1485, as listed by Annette Carson and b) John of Gaunt was Duke of Lancaster in jure uxoris.
If J of G thought that his children by Kathryn Swynford were of Lancaster why did he name them Beaufort.
Mary
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
There was no bar to a female heir unless that had been made specific in the particular case. Generally applies to grants dating from Edward III's reign on.
Surely the point about the Lancastrian claim as originally made, and never rescinded, by Henry IV, is that it necessitated descent from Edmund Crouchback. Whatever may or may not have been the case about the duchy of Lancaster is irrelevant.
Marie
Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
Blanche was descended from Edmund Crouchback but Gaunt and his later wives were not, of course.
Henry VII comes in at about 250 through Blanche’s aunt and is thus less Lancastrian than Richard.
He is less Welsh in the Royal sense, claiming to be descended from Llewellyn Fawr’s steward, whilst Richard was descended from Llewellyn himself.
He is of junior descent from Edward III, compared to Richard’s unquestioned Clarence-Mortimer line.
0-3. QED.
From:
[mailto: ]
On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: 09 February 2017 22:47
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: How do you define a Lancastrian?
There was no bar to a female heir unless that had been made specific in the particular case. Generally applies to grants dating from Edward III's reign on.
Surely the point about the Lancastrian claim as originally made, and never rescinded, by Henry IV, is that it necessitated descent from Edmund Crouchback. Whatever may or may not have been the case about the duchy of Lancaster is irrelevant.
Marie
