![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Pardon me, I temporarily removed this apparent non sequitur: "Forge ahead York! Forge ahead Lancaster!" Please correct my correction if I am missing something. Caltrop
How are you supposed to see names printed in white on a white background? Marnanel
-- Nicapicella 24 Apr 2005
So althought for most of the period the English longbow and archers, who were not feudal retainers because they were paid directly by the King, were decimating forign armies (eg at the Battle of Agincourt), at home it was "fought largely by armies of mounted knights". I think that this needs a review. Does any one know enough to do it. Philip Baird Shearer 19:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So made a few changes, everyone will probably freak out about them, but who knows, feel free to add some knowledge or put them back, you know whatever.....dom 20:50 2 october 2006
I was just wondering how come some of the more important females weren't listed. In every book I've read about The War of the Roses, there seem to be many key females, yet here it only lists males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.9.167 ( talk • contribs)
I would have put the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) as the decisive battle of the first phase of the wars of the Roses, which started Henry IV/Bolingbroke overthrew his cousin, the reigning king Richard II in 1399. Why is the period here defined to be after 1455? Could it be that the Tudors did not want to be reminded that Henry IV was an usurper?
Either which way I think that this article would be imporved if there was more on his reign and the civil war battles which took plave including a link to the Battle of Shrewsbury. Philip Baird Shearer 19:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article could use an information box showing combatants, victor, and other things, like what we see in other war articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Jackson ( talk • contribs)
While I think the quote is definitely apropos, it's very placement bothers me a bit. I feel it gives the article a "term paper" edge as opposed to an actual encyclopedia article. Anyone else agree? If not, I'll desist. -- Cyrenaic
Nothing wrong with the quote, but I don't think an encyclopedia article should start like that. It should start for example like "The Wars of the Roses (1455–1485) is the name generally given to the intermittent civil war fought over the throne of England between adherents of the House of Lancaster and the House of York." It just seems more encyclopedic, and all other articles do it like that. There's a guideline here although it doesn't say anything about quotes. I think the quote should go into one of the subsections. And btw, please sign your comments :-) Piet 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
HO KAY, then we're in agreement, we should move the quote rather than just remove it, but until we can figure out a good place for it are we ok with keeping it where it is?, after all it seems a little pointless to put it somewhere by itself: Dom
I've moved the quote to a stub section towards the bottom, currently called "In fiction" for lack of a better idea. (Tsk tsk, all that talk and no one did it before me?) Melchoir 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh sod it, maybe we should get rid of the thing all together, after all the 'in fiction' section would be a couple of shakespeare plays anyway, we should just try and stick to the facts: Dom 31 may 2006
The presence of a one-line "See also" section just means that this article is missing information. From Percy-Neville feud:
Sounds like material for a Background section to me. Melchoir 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
really not quite sure why this is in the introduction "the later Tudor and Stuart eras, Richmondshire was a centre for such Recusants as George Calvert and Cambridgeshire a centre for such Puritans as Oliver Cromwell. It should be noted that these remnant Plantagenet factions were disabused of their independent positions in post-Henrician times, as monarchs continually played them off against each other",
I know its in brackets and its really interesting but my journalistic sense is tingalling, is this really relevant and it does clutter the intro up a bit... would anyone discuss - dom 11:21 6 June 2006
Yeah I agree completly, i really think this article could do with a section detailing the aftermath of the war, and its effects on medieval life, England and europe, as well as a way drawing some conclusions - dom 15:30 7 june 2006
It might be bleedin' obvious to history buffs, but to me it isn't. 80N 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely Bosworth was a Tudor victory, not a Lancastrian one. Tudor could not be said to have been a legitimate leader of the Lancastrians. He had no claim (other than the successful use of force) to the throne. Avalon 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There were not many living Beauforts, but there were a bunch of descendants. Next after Henry and his mother were the children of the late 2nd Duke of Buckingham, whose mother was the eldest daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Then came the various descendants of Edmund Beaufort's other daughters, who were fairly numerous. Then comes the Scottish connection, with descendants of the marriages of Joan Beaufort, sister of John and Edmund Beaufort, Dukes of Somerset, to James I of Scotland and to Sir James Stewart. Then the descendants of Margaret Beaufort, sister of said Queen Joan of Scotland, who married Thomas Courtenay, 5th Earl of Devon. Finally, the descendants of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford's only daughter, Joan, who married first Robert Ferrers, and later Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of Westmorland. Among descendants of the latter were, er, Richard III, Queen Anne, Richard III's sisters, Edward IV's daughters, Warwick and Margaret of Clarence. So, pretty much everybody with any claim on the throne was a descendant of John of Gaunt. john k 14:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Although the struggles are, of course, called the Wars of the Roses is it not true that those symbols were retrospectively given to each side much later. That in fact the participants would not have said they were fighting in the wars of the roses? From memory, Edward IV's symbol was a "sun in splendour" (see the British Columbia arms for a demi-sun in splendour), Richard III's symbol was a white boar and neither did the Lancastrians use a red rose. I don't recollect what it was at the moment though. Avalon 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the Lancastrians used a greyhound. IP Address 15:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't back this with evidence right now, but I'm fairly sure that it was Henry Tudor who introduced the red rose to the Lancastrians, near the end of the war. If someone with more knowledge could look into when and where the red rose came from, it might alleviate some confusion about whether the roses were of significence at the time, or just to later historians.
I've split off a section for Edward IV, as it seemed appropriate he should have a section to himself, like the other kings mentioned. Moonraker12 12:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, he suffered from episodes of mental illness that he may have inherited from his grandfather Charles VI of France. By the 1450s, many considered Henry incapable of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of a king.
Reading this, the reader is led to believe that he's already suffering from the mental illness episodes during the next paragraph, while actually his first episode occurs later, when his first episode is discussed. I think it would be better to move this part and integrate it with the part that discusses his first episode, in such a way that the chronology is correct and no false impressions are given. Shinobu ( talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add Stevenson's "Black Arrow" to the booklist cause its mainly based on this war.
Also, the first series of Black Adder involved Richard III and Henry Tudor. I think it would fit.
68.234.12.90 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please start adding references? -- Briaboru ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wars_of_the_Roses&diff=46137837&oldid=45607700
The previous edit before mine, had a misinformed idea. It said Lancastrians were south and west, while Yorkists were north and east. That's obviously anachronistic, because it makes it look like an Anglo-Saxon/Danish conflict. Factions pretty much wholly preceded those whom collided over constitutional issues during the English Civil War; the same issues and parties all over again! IP Address 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
When has Northwestern England ever been parliamentarian? When has Southeastern England ever been royalist? Similar sources of mediaevalism and reform, erupted in almost the exact same places...from Plantagenets to Tudors to Stuarts. I'm waiting for an author to make that book! IP Address 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The Lancastrians were clearly the northern party, and the Yorkists the southern. Note that, in addition to his own lands in Lancashire, Henry VI was supported by the Percies of Northumberland and the Cliffords of Cumberland (only the Nevills of Westmorland supported York of the great northern magnates, and the Earl of Westmorland seems to have himself been neutral in the earlier phases. It was his brother Salisbury and nephew Warwick, both of whom were mostly based further to the south, who were the Nevills most active in the Yorkist cause). On the other hand, York was supported by the City of London. I'm not sure where Anglo-Saxon/Danish or English Civil War issues come into it at all. john k 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The prior version made it seem like a carry-over from the Dark Age conflicts, so the error was corrected to approximate just what you said. You mistakenly reverted, without stated reason either. IP Address 09:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I mistaken in the idea that York was supported by the West Riding, if in any part of Yorkshire? It is such a large shire, but the outside perception is that they are country-honkies without internal diversity. I was latterly, stating the parallels between the Yorkist and Parliamentary parties. This is more or less accurate, yes? IP Address 09:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that revert was a mistake, my apologies. I'm not sure about York's support in Yorkshire. You'd imagine that he'd have to have had some lands there, given his title (back then titles were more closely connected to shires than they later became), but I don't really know. I'm not really sure about connections between the Yorkists and Parliamentary parties. Both had support from the southern urban population, but the issues involved are so different that it's hard to make comparisons. There were no real constitutional issues at stake in the Wars of the Roses. john k 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, allegiance changed amongst the northern nobility, aprticularly during Edward IV's two, reasonably stable, reigs. In particular, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had a very strong Yorkist hold over the north (which he used when he took power as Richard III).
"This event, or the later defeat of Richard III, later inspired the mnemonic "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for the seven colours of the rainbow."
is this relevant to the article? seems more like trivia than anything else, plus the fact that it's attribution is divided between richard plantagenet and richard III makes me think that it's simply erroneous.
i'll let a clearer head decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollanoah ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This article desperately needs a better intro paragraph - maybe something along the lines of the 'simple english' version of this article. Something that gives you a framework to understand the rest of this article in a couple of sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.241.5 ( talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"Fighting resumed more violently in 1459. York was forced to flee the country, but one of his most prominent supporters, the Earl of Warwick, invaded England from Calais and captured Henry at the Battle of Northampton."
How can a native of England, temporarily stationed in another part of England (Calais) "invade"?
for discussion .. no changes made. ( Numbat01 ( talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
Hey, could everybody stop dumping information into the introduction it's startoing to look awfully cluttered... it's a broad article and theres plenty of room to embelish things or add historical details... after all the introduction should just introduce the article and get people yo read the rest of it... cheers - Dom 12:52, 2 January 2006 (GMT)
"most of the participants wore badges associated with their immediate want of having sex with the women in the towns so they fucked and they fucked till they fucked themselfs out feudal lords or protectors" I guess there is something wrong with this, right? Sorry I didn't fix it, I'm in a hurry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.158.110.53 ( talk) 10:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Might be nice to say more clearly who won the war in the Intro. It's my understanding that Henry Tudor was for the Lancastrians when he came out on top, so should the Intro not say the Lancastrians won? Even if I am mistaken, I think the issue should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.69.37 ( talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone with me that we should stop putting references to The Civil war or war of the three kingdoms in this article as this happened 200 years or so after the events described in this article:Dom
I think it's okay, at least until some place is made for discussing wars generally and their similarities
and connections. There is some concern about wars that last thirty years, just the orbital period of Saturn.
The War of the Roses lasted that long, and was followed (just about one Neptunian orbit later) by a
Thirty Years War in Europe which is said to be "a period of vague religious wars." Then another Neptunian
orbit later, approximately, the period from 1776 to 1812 was the war of Independence by the United States
against Britain. And finally, still another Neptunian period after that, the First and Second World Wars
lasted from 1912 to 1945 -- one long period of war. Of course Neptune might have nothing to do with it but
Britain uses that old Roman god as its Lord of the Sea, and would rather keep wars under Saturn under its control.
And so forth. -- SyntheticET
Why does it say throne of Algeria in the Intro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.122.1 ( talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The family tree is making the page too wide, on Firefox anyway. I'd fix it but I don't know how! -- Jack• ?! 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand the origin of certain statements, some of which I have summarily removed. The article has had a verification tag as its header for two years now and rightly so. A complete revision is needed and, given the need for a book that adequately and scholarly describes the entire period AND identifies with the lay reader, I endorse Alison Weir's excellent Lancaster and York which is ideal for the purpose of this site. Providing, of course, that it is exactly cited. Having used Weir's book to provide a baseline, one would then suggest an expansion of the detail by reference to other sources. At present, the article overall is in a poor state. It lacks direction because there is no clear understanding of the necessary scope and structure. It had been rated C-class but that is ridiculous: it is a struggling start-class only. -- Jim Hardie ( talk) 21:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
After reading through the article, as it seems to be disputed (see previous post) whether it should be C- or Start-class, I have updated the B-class parameters.
The article seems to cover all the salient points in a reasonable structure (as per the MilHist article guide), indeed the only thing I see it lacking from the B params are inline refs.
While I can see that User:Jim Hardie has doubts about the article's assessment, as there are no specific points raised (other than a desire to follow one source in particular), it seems more appropriate that a peer review, or MilHist review, should be undertaken to find where the article may be in need of corrections and restructuring.
I have raised the matter at the MilHist project for further comment ( Here). Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Monstrelet ( talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am finding this article and most other articles related to the Roses very, very difficult to follow due to the inconsistent naming of the major participants. In particular, the Edwards, Richards and Henrys. It would seem that Edward, Duke of this-or-that is also Prince Edward of something-or-other, but there was also another Prince Edward of somewhere else who was an entirely different person who later grew up to become... oh, you get the idea. It's not like the Wars of the Roses aren't already confusing enough with people swapping sides half a dozen times a lifetime.
I propose that Wikipedia historical editors agree a consensus naming convention for the major participants in the Wars of the Roses, and that this naming convention be (slowly but surely) retroactively applied to all primary related articles. The naming conventions will need to have one and only one consensus short name plus zero or more long names for each actor, and a convention for noting the short name even if that short name would be anachronistic or disputed in a specific context. For example, someone who started out as a Duke and later became a King might be written as "Bob, Duke of Ambridge (later King Bob IV)".
I'll kick off the proposal with:
I believe that there should be a section on this page (like many others) that talks about the references to the wars of the roses in modern culture. I know of two for example. The heir trilogy by Cinda Williams Chima and the game entitled war of the roses coming out on october 2nd of this year. I am sure there would be quite a few other references to it that would be beneficial to be listed in a category in the article. Thoughts? 67.183.239.35 ( talk) 08:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Since Alison Weir is not a historian and therefore is not a reliable source, I will be replacing and in some cases simply removing references citing her work. Please bear with me while I do this and I will be more than happy to discuss sources with anyone. -- Defensor Ursa 04:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I will leave this paragraph, "England in the fifteenth century was ruled by kings who claimed divine right and were believed by the people to be the "Lord's anointed", directed and guided by the hand of God.[5] The king's chief functions were to protect his people by defending them against their enemies, to govern justly and to preserve and enforce the law of the land.[5] The character of the sovereign, in such a society, was all-important because on it depended the security and well-being of his subjects.[6] Although the king wielded vast power by ruling as well as reigning, the complexity of government in a nation of some 3 million people had led to increasing delegation of power through a growing number of state departments.", but I do not understand the relevance....? -- Defensor Ursa 04:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 04:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has raised copyright issues on the talk page that appear to me to have merit. Checking a Weir citation at random, I see these sentences: "The retainer became a member of the lord's affinity, would wear his lord's livery--a uniform and a badge--and accompany him on military campaigns. In return, the magnate would assure the retainer of 'good lordship', which meant protection from his enemies and payment of an income known as a pension. The retainer could also expect rewards for services rendered, and these were often substantial, such as land or lucrative offices." The language in the article is more similar than necessary: "The retainer who became a member of an affinity wore the nobleman's "livery" (a uniform and badge) and accompany him on military campaigns; in return, the nobleman would pay him a pension, provide protection and grant rewards such as land or a lucrative office." This becomes particularly problematic given how much Weir is relied on the first half of the article. (Unfortunately, Rowse, who's also relied on heavily, is not available online to be checked.)
So I'm not listing this for Good Article status for now, but I don't want the editors involved to be too discouraged. As mentioned on the talk page, this is a problem that needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible-- WP:PARAPHRASE has good suggestions on how to identify this issue and work to correct it. Once this is done, though, I hope you'll consider renominating. This is an important topic, and all the work on it is certainly appreciated. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have full access to Alison Weir's book, but a quick spot check of what I can see on the Google version shows a high degree of close paraphrasing. For example, we have:
It probably needs someone with a copy of the original to go through and do a bit of a clean-up. Weir probably isn't the best source, though, and if I can I'll fish out some of the more recent texts on this instead. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that:
As the editor who added most, if not all, the Rowse cites, I would defend my edits against any accusation of close paraphrasing.
I found this paragraph more than a little confusing. E.g. when it says "Bolingbroke's son Henry V maintained the family's hold on the crown, but when Henry V died, his heir was the infant Henry VI." The "...but when Henry V died, his heir was the infant Henry VI." made me expect that the next sentence would explain why Henry VI being an infant would be a problem. Instead it sort of jumps back in time and starts talking about the origin of the Lancastrian claim. Then the last sentence of the paragraph mentions Henry VI's queen. Huh? I thought he was an infant. Now he has a wife? I had to reference several other wiki articles to get it straight. Wondering if something like the following might be clearer:
"The Lancastrian claim to the throne descended from John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the third surviving son of Edward III. His son, Henry of Bolingbroke established the House of Lancaster on the throne in 1399 when he deposed his cousin Richard II and was crowned as Henry IV. Bolingbroke's son Henry V maintained the family's hold on the crown, but when Henry V died, his heir was the infant Henry VI whose inherent benevolence and intermittent insanity eventually contributed to his own downfall. Henry VI's right to the crown was eventually challenged by Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (aka Richard of York), who could claim descent from Edward III's second and fourth surviving sons, Lionel of Antwerp and Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. Richard of York, who had held several important offices of state, including Lord Protector during Henry VI's madness, quarreled with prominent Lancastrians at court and with Henry VI's queen, Margaret of Anjou."
Also, why is "Richard, Duke of York" referred to by this title everywhere EXCEPT in the family tree where he is referred to as Richard Plantangenet. This was very confusing. There are so many Richards, Edwards and Henrys, I had a heck of a time figuring out who was who in the family tree. Seems like at the very least the article should be internally consistent in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.68.67 ( talk) 03:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article states that the origin of the Lancastrian claim is by descent from Edward III via John of Gaunt. However, I was just watching the British documentary series "Monarchy" on Netflix and it claims something completely different. According to it, the descent from Edward III does not even come into play. Instead, it claims the Lancastrian claim to the throne rested on a bit of Lancastrian family lore going back to the reign of Henry III. Here is what narrator David Starkey claims in regards to Henry Bolingbroke's rationale for deposing Richard II (transcribed verbatim from Season I: Episode 6 - Death of a Dynasty):
"But how to justify dethroning Richard and replacing him with Henry? The neatest solution would be to show that Richard had never been true king by hereditary right anyway, but that Henry was. Conveniently a story to this effect was an article of faith in the house of Lancaster. Henry and Richard were both descended from King Henry III. Richard, from the eldest son, Edward, who'd succeeded as King Edward I, and Henry from the second son, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, surnamed Crouchback. According to the story, however, Crouchback was really the eldest son, but he'd been shunted aside in favor of Edward on account of his supposed deformity."
The documentary goes on to say that historians of the time rejected the argument and confirmed that Edward was the true first son of Henry III. However, it also goes on to say that later when Richard II was forced to abdicate and was deposed by parliament, Henry Bolingbroke went before parliament and basically made the same argument again. I.e. that he was the true king via descent from Henry III and that this was the basis upon which he was made king, not that he was next in line after Richard II via descent from Edward III.
This surprised me because I had just been reading this article and it doesn't say anything about that. In fact, I looked thru a few wiki articles and couldn't find anything about this. E.g. the article on Henry III doesn't have anything about any doubts about the order of birth of his children. Nor does the article on Edmund Crouchback. It also doesn't say anything about any physical deformity he had.
If there is anything to this version of events, perhaps it should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.68.67 ( talk) 03:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The current lead is not really a lead, it's quite a long chronological summary of events. A detailed summary may be useful but I don't think it should be part of the lead section. The first paragraph is fine, but then we jump back to 1399 and proceed forward rather slowly. Does anybody mind if I move the following paragraphs to a section after the lead called something like "Summary of Events"?
This may be a cosmetic change but I think it's significant; it would mean (for example) the lead could be expanded to talk briefly about some of the themes discussed later in the article, rather than giving a blow by blow chronology. Also, when navigating an article I generally read the lead in full and then may jump around in the article or follow links to other articles. If the "Summary" is a different section then I can choose to read it in full (if I want a summary) or skip to the more detailed sections if I wish. --
Merlinme (
talk) 13:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "This was a period when kings of England claimed divine right and were believed by their people to be the "Lord's anointed", directed and guided by the hand of God.[5] The source for this sentence is Alison Weir, a novelist and (non-academic) popular historian. It is commonly known that the issue in England over the "divine right of kings" emerged during the reign of James I, punctuated by a famous confrontation in which Sir Edward Coke, at risk of his life, rebutted the king to his face by quoting the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton (whose view had been the norm in England for centuries) that the king was UNDER the law. King James, an immigrant from Scotland, put forth the novel proposition that the king was ABOVE the law. This standard scholarly view is summarized in the Wikipedia article on the Divine right of kings: "The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England (1603–1625, also known as James VI of Scotland 1567–1625)." That is to say, the "divine right of kings" was neither generally asserted by monarchs nor commonly accepted belief in England during the period of the Wars of the Roses, so the sentence in question should be deleted unless somebody can demonstrate scholarly backing for it.-- Other Choices ( talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because the law makes the king... for there is no rex where will rules rather than lex. Since he is the vicar of Jesus Christ, whose vicegerent on earth he is.
The article currently states:
During the Hundred Years' War against France, a captured noble would be able to ransom himself for a large sum, but in the Wars of the Roses, a noble who belonged to a defeated faction would be declared attainted, and therefore possessing no property, and of no value to his captor.[15]
I've no doubt that as a civil war the Wars of the Roses were particularly bloody, but the implication that nobles were never captured in the war is wrong. It's fairly easy to find examples of nobles who were captured, even if only because they were then later executed! The implication that anyone who fought on the wrong side was attainted is also too strong. Attainting was fairly rare, and even when issued, pardons were frequently given. See e.g.
[1] (pp. 66-68 of Edward IV by Charles Ross); even prominent Lancastrians who fought at Towton were not necessarily attainted. Of those who were attainted, a large number were eventually pardoned (the
Attainder article says the majority were pardoned).
Is there a way this section can be better phrased? --
Merlinme (
talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence, "From the beginning of Henry VI's reign in 1422, complaints about corruption, public disorder, riots and the maladministration of justice, became widespread." -- Weir, The Wars of the Roses, page 11.
Has been copied from this sentence, "From the beginning of Henry VI's reign complaints about corruption, public disorder, riots and the maladministration of justice grew ever more vociferous."
As is this sentence, "Most criminals appear to have got away with their crimes.", also copied from Weir's book.
This sentence, "The lower classes, heavily influenced by the teachings of the Lollards and increasingly prepared to question the established order, began to show a lessening of respect for authority and the law, which contributed to the general atmosphere of unrest." is also plagiarized from Weir's book.
"The lower classes, fuelled by the teachings of the Lollards, were increasingly questioning the established order.", page 11.
Also, the preceding paragraph has little to do with the Wars of the Roses and attempts to follow a paragraph from Weir's book.
"At the same time, the middle class was growing more prosperous and influential through its mercantile interests. The slow decline of the wool trade after 1450 was offset by increased demand from abroad, not only for woollen cloth, but for tin, lead, leather and other products. Calais, which remained in English hands after the rest of England's French territories were lost in 1453, was the chief wool market, attracting merchants from all over Europe. The importance of retaining Calais was therefore crucial for the nation's continued prosperity. During the Wars of the Roses, however, Calais also came to be seen as a potential place of refuge for those who had fallen from power, and even as a springboard for the potential invasion of England."
The highlighted portion is not supported by Weir, she makes no mention of a "middle class", the underlined sections are also plagiarized from her book.
This plagiarism needs to be removed. The paragraph above needs to be removed as well. --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
After some web research the most revealing evidence I could find was this: [3] If you scroll down to the comments you will find that someone logged on as Alison Weir says: "Has anyone actually read my book Lancaster and York (1994), on the origins of the term ‘the Wars of the Roses’? ...In the latter decades of the 20th century several academic historians followed S.B. Chrimes in asserting that the name ‘the Wars of the Roses’ was anachronistic, and some asserted that ‘Cousins’ Wars’ was the correct contemporary term, but I too can find no source cited, although I don’t have the full range of works to hand." So in other words the origin of the term in modern usage seems to be the historical novels of Phillipa Gregory, who wanted an evocative name for her series and appears to have taken inspiration from Weir's books. Weir herself doesn't give a proper reference; she has later asserted that some unspecified academic historians at the end of the last century championed the use of Cousins' Wars as the contemporary term. (I begin to see why people are uneasy using Weir as a reliable source!) I had never heard the term before a couple of hours ago; I recently finished reading an edition of the Paston Letters and there were zero references to Cousins' War that I remember. They didn't really give a name to the wars or war as a whole at all, that I can remember. If "Cousins' War" is to go back in it needs a proper reference to the original academic historian "cited" by Weir, and ideally a contemporary quote that actually uses the term. I suspect if the term was used it would probably be more from the 16th century, i.e. looking back on the dynastic struggle, but it's impossible to say more at this stage without proper sources. -- Merlinme ( talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Bill the Cat 7: The end date has been changed to 1487. That date seems somewhat arbitrary to me; 1485 is "traditional", and if you think that the "Wars" should include the late rebellions then that presumably goes to 1497. Does anyone have any views on the end date we should use in the article? Does Bill want to provide some justification? -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think 1487 is good- Stoke was as 'big' and as 'significant' as Bosworth, whereas much of what came later was, as Merlinme says, merely rebellion. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
PS: Just to point out that we could be having the same discussion about when they started; as good a date though 1455 is, 1452 or'53, 1415, or 1399 are equal contenders for the title. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This has been languishing as a "very old issue" at WP:CP for over a year, and has been discussed at length above. Moonriddengirl and Kansas Bear have both looked at it recently. I think it can be resolved. There seems to be consensus here (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that there is close paraphrasing of the Weir book, and that that book is in any case not a suitable source for this article. In case there's any doubt about the former point, here's one comparison: Weir, on page 6, has:
A king was not only expected to protect and defend his realm but also had to be seen as a competent warrior. A king who inclined towards peace courted adverse public opinion, for most people placed great value on success in arms and the glorification of the nation’s reputation. English kings of the fifteenth century did not maintain a standing army but relied on their nobility to provide them with troops when necessary. Hence it was important for a monarch to maintain good relations with the aristocracy and gentry, who might, if sufficiently provoked, use the armed strength at their disposal against him. It was also the duty of the sovereign to prevent power struggles between magnates, especially where these affected the stability of the realm.
Text added here on 14 January 2012 read:
Defence of the realm was especially important and most English people are believed to have placed great value on success in arms: hence, the king had to be seen as a competent warrior. A crucial point about the series of conflicts that came to be known as The Wars of the Roses was that the king did not maintain a standing army. Rather, he relied upon his nobility to furnish him with troops when necessary and so it was vital that he maintained good relations with aristocracy and gentry who, if provoked, might use their armed strength against him. It follows that the king was duty bound to prevent power struggles between the magnates, especially if these could impact the stability of the realm.
I've bolded some phrases that are directly copied, and most of the rest is too close for comfort; there's no question that this is unacceptable. I see two ways of sorting this out: either revert to this revision from 8 January 2012, which would be the simplest way of dealing with it but might make it necessary to redo a good deal of subsequent work; or remove all content added by that particular editor. The edits appear to be:
so this would not be an impossible task. Does anyone have any preference? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Upon arriving at mobile page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Roses I did not get a redirect. Since the Article name there is "Wars of the Roses" (plural), the blank page is confusing. This is way out of my pay grade - can someone just leave a note if it works fine for them in mobile, or if the situation is corrected? Thanks and please excuse me if in error. Ukrpickaxe ( talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a couple of issues with the family tree, but I do not have the slightest experience with the chart template and the manuals are not helping either, so, could anboudy with sufficient technical knowledge make the following changes?
Thank you! -- The Theosophist ( talk) 13:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I stopped dead at this sentence at the end of the introduction:
In an era leading to what is sometimes referred to as the "Golden Age" of Elizabeth,[1] the House of Tudor ruled England and Wales until 1603. First, why is Elizabeth singled out here? If we're going to mention any other Tudors, why just her? Second, what relevance does this have to the Wars of the Roses? Why not just say The House of Tudor ruled England and Wales until 1603.? And third, following the reference to http://www.journeytohistory.com/history101/Golden_Age_Of_Elizabeth.html results in a broken link, and journeytohistory.com itself does not seem to exist any more. Does anyone call it a "golden age" these days? Sounds like an old-fashioned school textbook.
If nobody objects, I will change this to just read The House of Tudor ruled England and Wales until 1603. Herbgold ( talk) 11:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Herbgold ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an oxymoron. Either it is a war between two branches of a dynasty, which makes it a war of succession, or it is a war where at least one side is "civil", i.e. represents the general populace rather than a dynasty. If the idea is that this conflict was dynastic as well as civil, some explanation would be helpful. Or at least "dynastic and civil war" to show that "dynastic" and "civil" equally modify "war". -- dab (𒁳) 11:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In this edit: [4] an IP essentially asserted that "War of the Roses" (singular) was a commonly used alternate name for the Wars (plural) of the roses. I've never heard it called War of the Roses. Is this genuinely an alternate name? A quick Google search turned up very little except some computer games and the Michael Douglas film. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In the chronology it states that John of Gaunt is the 4th son of Edward III and Phillipa, in other references he is listed as the 3rd son. It would make more sense that he is third son, so his son Henry of Bolingbroke would be considered before Edmunds son.I don't know enough to edit. could someone check this out. Kelly Chacony ( talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is 1487 being placed as the year the Wars of the Roses ended? It ended in 1485. I know some like to think that it ended in 86 when Henry VII got married and others at 87 because of the failed coup/rebellion but historical consensus (that means everybody else) states it ended in 85. Is Wikipedia going to try and change a consensus that's been around 500+ years? Solri89 ( talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Good enough for me since so many sources list different dates. But I strongly believe that Wikipedia should try to stay with main line consensus (other major encyclopedia's) when it comes to dates to avoid confusion. This way some poor kid doesn't give the "wrong" answer on his history test. Solri89 ( talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Just an idea, I've postponed the G13 for now. Quicklink: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social History of the Wars of the Roses. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the chart under "2 Summary of events" may have been taken from a copyrighted source. I couldn't find a citation for it. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is confusing as it states that the "The House of Tudor ruled the Kingdom of England until 1603, with the death of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York's granddaughter, Elizabeth I."
Henry VII died in 1509 (April 21) and his reign was the start of the Tudor dynasty. Elizabeth I was the one who died March 24, 1603. This sentence needs clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.1.39 ( talk) 01:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no listing of the battles of the War(s) of the Roses, although there is the map. I note also that Richard II's nominated heir Edmund Mortimer does not appear on the chart (his father was Roger Mortimer who is on the chart). Beowulf ( talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to combining these sections into one Historical Background section? I found it confusing the way it is now - it would benefit from refimprove and some rewriting for run-on sentences and the like as well. Seraphimsystem ( talk) 11:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
When using inline citations please remember to add the full citation template to the Bibliography. For (Weir, 1995) I will have to go through my copies of Weir to figure out which book its from, as there are at least 3 possibilities. I also added full citations for at least two other sources. Seraphim System ( talk) 23:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Reference 51 is a short reference to Wise & Embleton, should this go the ∀∀∀∀∀∀∀last entry in the Bibliography section or to that used in reference 53? it could be that reference 53 is really the same as the entry in the Bibliography section as looks similar. Keith D ( talk) 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The name “Wars of the Roses” is very colourful. I’d like to see a paragraph that says what it was called prior to becoming “WotR” (in c1830). And why it was superseded.
The archives (#39) talks about “Cousins’ War”: and this appears on history.com.
Ref [7] says During Shakespeare's time people used the term Civil Wars: cf. e.g., the title of Samuel Daniel's work, the First Four Books.
In particular, what were the Wars called in c1465 (while happening), c1500 (as history), c1650 (after the “2nd” civil war).
And maybe a sentence on whether the name change was due to Walter Scott (or not). MBG02 ( talk) 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
for some reason the family tree of the war of the roses is not displaying correctly. This is what is displayed instead: Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:C280:1D85:49B:5C8B:60A9:24DA ( talk) 20:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This is such an important historical article that I feel there needs to be a concerted push to get it to featured article status. However, I'm not sure what all the processes involved with that are, so I thought I would post here to see if anyone has any ideas on how to proceed. In real life, I'm a fairly talented writer, so I'm more than willing to do my part in helping get it there, if someone will step up to get the actual PROCESS started. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) ( My talkpage) 14:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states that the result of the War of the Roses was "Total Yorkist Victory". This seems incorrect or misleading given that the last significant battle of the war (Bosworth Field) and the last battle of the war (Stoke Field) were both won by the Lancastrians/Tudors against York. I'm no expert on this topic though, perhaps someone more knowledgeable could comment and amend if necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.53.49 ( talk) 23:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? Similar articles, that is to say articles on other wars, do not generally have a section like this, particularly those which have good or featured article status. It doesn't really add anything and it clutters the article as a whole. It could be removed and the article as a whole wouldn't lose anything. ( 88.108.251.15 ( talk) 01:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC))
User:GoldRingChip The former version of the family tree looked better. The present version looks messy and hard to follow. -- Daduxing ( talk) 07:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
There used to be a chronological list of battles at the end of this article. Very useful and seemingly innocuous, now gone. I'm wondering if anyone can say why it was removed or if it can be re-instated.
Oxford University website reference still lists 1485 as the end date to the Wars of the Roses. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The article still doesn’t say what this war (these battles) were called just prior to being called The Wars of the Roses.
Were they still called The Civil War, until the "Great Rebellion" became The Civil War?
In 1814 (Walter Scott)?
After 1911? English Civil War#Terminology
Any validity for "Cousin's War"?
MBG02 ( talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Leadership in the Wars of the Roses exists for a long time. At AfC review it was suggested that before splitting it should be discussed here. Though the main author lost interest in the article (I think so, maybe I'm wrong), the article looks well-sourced. Would be great if somebody would look / accept / comment on it. Artem.G ( talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Pardon me, I temporarily removed this apparent non sequitur: "Forge ahead York! Forge ahead Lancaster!" Please correct my correction if I am missing something. Caltrop
How are you supposed to see names printed in white on a white background? Marnanel
-- Nicapicella 24 Apr 2005
So althought for most of the period the English longbow and archers, who were not feudal retainers because they were paid directly by the King, were decimating forign armies (eg at the Battle of Agincourt), at home it was "fought largely by armies of mounted knights". I think that this needs a review. Does any one know enough to do it. Philip Baird Shearer 19:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So made a few changes, everyone will probably freak out about them, but who knows, feel free to add some knowledge or put them back, you know whatever.....dom 20:50 2 october 2006
I was just wondering how come some of the more important females weren't listed. In every book I've read about The War of the Roses, there seem to be many key females, yet here it only lists males. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.9.167 ( talk • contribs)
I would have put the Battle of Shrewsbury (1403) as the decisive battle of the first phase of the wars of the Roses, which started Henry IV/Bolingbroke overthrew his cousin, the reigning king Richard II in 1399. Why is the period here defined to be after 1455? Could it be that the Tudors did not want to be reminded that Henry IV was an usurper?
Either which way I think that this article would be imporved if there was more on his reign and the civil war battles which took plave including a link to the Battle of Shrewsbury. Philip Baird Shearer 19:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article could use an information box showing combatants, victor, and other things, like what we see in other war articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Jackson ( talk • contribs)
While I think the quote is definitely apropos, it's very placement bothers me a bit. I feel it gives the article a "term paper" edge as opposed to an actual encyclopedia article. Anyone else agree? If not, I'll desist. -- Cyrenaic
Nothing wrong with the quote, but I don't think an encyclopedia article should start like that. It should start for example like "The Wars of the Roses (1455–1485) is the name generally given to the intermittent civil war fought over the throne of England between adherents of the House of Lancaster and the House of York." It just seems more encyclopedic, and all other articles do it like that. There's a guideline here although it doesn't say anything about quotes. I think the quote should go into one of the subsections. And btw, please sign your comments :-) Piet 20:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
HO KAY, then we're in agreement, we should move the quote rather than just remove it, but until we can figure out a good place for it are we ok with keeping it where it is?, after all it seems a little pointless to put it somewhere by itself: Dom
I've moved the quote to a stub section towards the bottom, currently called "In fiction" for lack of a better idea. (Tsk tsk, all that talk and no one did it before me?) Melchoir 14:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh sod it, maybe we should get rid of the thing all together, after all the 'in fiction' section would be a couple of shakespeare plays anyway, we should just try and stick to the facts: Dom 31 may 2006
The presence of a one-line "See also" section just means that this article is missing information. From Percy-Neville feud:
Sounds like material for a Background section to me. Melchoir 16:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
really not quite sure why this is in the introduction "the later Tudor and Stuart eras, Richmondshire was a centre for such Recusants as George Calvert and Cambridgeshire a centre for such Puritans as Oliver Cromwell. It should be noted that these remnant Plantagenet factions were disabused of their independent positions in post-Henrician times, as monarchs continually played them off against each other",
I know its in brackets and its really interesting but my journalistic sense is tingalling, is this really relevant and it does clutter the intro up a bit... would anyone discuss - dom 11:21 6 June 2006
Yeah I agree completly, i really think this article could do with a section detailing the aftermath of the war, and its effects on medieval life, England and europe, as well as a way drawing some conclusions - dom 15:30 7 june 2006
It might be bleedin' obvious to history buffs, but to me it isn't. 80N 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely Bosworth was a Tudor victory, not a Lancastrian one. Tudor could not be said to have been a legitimate leader of the Lancastrians. He had no claim (other than the successful use of force) to the throne. Avalon 23:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There were not many living Beauforts, but there were a bunch of descendants. Next after Henry and his mother were the children of the late 2nd Duke of Buckingham, whose mother was the eldest daughter of Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset. Then came the various descendants of Edmund Beaufort's other daughters, who were fairly numerous. Then comes the Scottish connection, with descendants of the marriages of Joan Beaufort, sister of John and Edmund Beaufort, Dukes of Somerset, to James I of Scotland and to Sir James Stewart. Then the descendants of Margaret Beaufort, sister of said Queen Joan of Scotland, who married Thomas Courtenay, 5th Earl of Devon. Finally, the descendants of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swynford's only daughter, Joan, who married first Robert Ferrers, and later Ralph Nevill, 1st Earl of Westmorland. Among descendants of the latter were, er, Richard III, Queen Anne, Richard III's sisters, Edward IV's daughters, Warwick and Margaret of Clarence. So, pretty much everybody with any claim on the throne was a descendant of John of Gaunt. john k 14:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Although the struggles are, of course, called the Wars of the Roses is it not true that those symbols were retrospectively given to each side much later. That in fact the participants would not have said they were fighting in the wars of the roses? From memory, Edward IV's symbol was a "sun in splendour" (see the British Columbia arms for a demi-sun in splendour), Richard III's symbol was a white boar and neither did the Lancastrians use a red rose. I don't recollect what it was at the moment though. Avalon 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the Lancastrians used a greyhound. IP Address 15:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I can't back this with evidence right now, but I'm fairly sure that it was Henry Tudor who introduced the red rose to the Lancastrians, near the end of the war. If someone with more knowledge could look into when and where the red rose came from, it might alleviate some confusion about whether the roses were of significence at the time, or just to later historians.
I've split off a section for Edward IV, as it seemed appropriate he should have a section to himself, like the other kings mentioned. Moonraker12 12:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, he suffered from episodes of mental illness that he may have inherited from his grandfather Charles VI of France. By the 1450s, many considered Henry incapable of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of a king.
Reading this, the reader is led to believe that he's already suffering from the mental illness episodes during the next paragraph, while actually his first episode occurs later, when his first episode is discussed. I think it would be better to move this part and integrate it with the part that discusses his first episode, in such a way that the chronology is correct and no false impressions are given. Shinobu ( talk) 14:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we should add Stevenson's "Black Arrow" to the booklist cause its mainly based on this war.
Also, the first series of Black Adder involved Richard III and Henry Tudor. I think it would fit.
68.234.12.90 08:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please start adding references? -- Briaboru ( talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wars_of_the_Roses&diff=46137837&oldid=45607700
The previous edit before mine, had a misinformed idea. It said Lancastrians were south and west, while Yorkists were north and east. That's obviously anachronistic, because it makes it look like an Anglo-Saxon/Danish conflict. Factions pretty much wholly preceded those whom collided over constitutional issues during the English Civil War; the same issues and parties all over again! IP Address 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
When has Northwestern England ever been parliamentarian? When has Southeastern England ever been royalist? Similar sources of mediaevalism and reform, erupted in almost the exact same places...from Plantagenets to Tudors to Stuarts. I'm waiting for an author to make that book! IP Address 08:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The Lancastrians were clearly the northern party, and the Yorkists the southern. Note that, in addition to his own lands in Lancashire, Henry VI was supported by the Percies of Northumberland and the Cliffords of Cumberland (only the Nevills of Westmorland supported York of the great northern magnates, and the Earl of Westmorland seems to have himself been neutral in the earlier phases. It was his brother Salisbury and nephew Warwick, both of whom were mostly based further to the south, who were the Nevills most active in the Yorkist cause). On the other hand, York was supported by the City of London. I'm not sure where Anglo-Saxon/Danish or English Civil War issues come into it at all. john k 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The prior version made it seem like a carry-over from the Dark Age conflicts, so the error was corrected to approximate just what you said. You mistakenly reverted, without stated reason either. IP Address 09:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Am I mistaken in the idea that York was supported by the West Riding, if in any part of Yorkshire? It is such a large shire, but the outside perception is that they are country-honkies without internal diversity. I was latterly, stating the parallels between the Yorkist and Parliamentary parties. This is more or less accurate, yes? IP Address 09:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that revert was a mistake, my apologies. I'm not sure about York's support in Yorkshire. You'd imagine that he'd have to have had some lands there, given his title (back then titles were more closely connected to shires than they later became), but I don't really know. I'm not really sure about connections between the Yorkists and Parliamentary parties. Both had support from the southern urban population, but the issues involved are so different that it's hard to make comparisons. There were no real constitutional issues at stake in the Wars of the Roses. john k 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, allegiance changed amongst the northern nobility, aprticularly during Edward IV's two, reasonably stable, reigs. In particular, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had a very strong Yorkist hold over the north (which he used when he took power as Richard III).
"This event, or the later defeat of Richard III, later inspired the mnemonic "Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain" for the seven colours of the rainbow."
is this relevant to the article? seems more like trivia than anything else, plus the fact that it's attribution is divided between richard plantagenet and richard III makes me think that it's simply erroneous.
i'll let a clearer head decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollanoah ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
This article desperately needs a better intro paragraph - maybe something along the lines of the 'simple english' version of this article. Something that gives you a framework to understand the rest of this article in a couple of sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.241.5 ( talk) 20:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"Fighting resumed more violently in 1459. York was forced to flee the country, but one of his most prominent supporters, the Earl of Warwick, invaded England from Calais and captured Henry at the Battle of Northampton."
How can a native of England, temporarily stationed in another part of England (Calais) "invade"?
for discussion .. no changes made. ( Numbat01 ( talk) 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
Hey, could everybody stop dumping information into the introduction it's startoing to look awfully cluttered... it's a broad article and theres plenty of room to embelish things or add historical details... after all the introduction should just introduce the article and get people yo read the rest of it... cheers - Dom 12:52, 2 January 2006 (GMT)
"most of the participants wore badges associated with their immediate want of having sex with the women in the towns so they fucked and they fucked till they fucked themselfs out feudal lords or protectors" I guess there is something wrong with this, right? Sorry I didn't fix it, I'm in a hurry —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.158.110.53 ( talk) 10:59, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
Might be nice to say more clearly who won the war in the Intro. It's my understanding that Henry Tudor was for the Lancastrians when he came out on top, so should the Intro not say the Lancastrians won? Even if I am mistaken, I think the issue should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.69.37 ( talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone with me that we should stop putting references to The Civil war or war of the three kingdoms in this article as this happened 200 years or so after the events described in this article:Dom
I think it's okay, at least until some place is made for discussing wars generally and their similarities
and connections. There is some concern about wars that last thirty years, just the orbital period of Saturn.
The War of the Roses lasted that long, and was followed (just about one Neptunian orbit later) by a
Thirty Years War in Europe which is said to be "a period of vague religious wars." Then another Neptunian
orbit later, approximately, the period from 1776 to 1812 was the war of Independence by the United States
against Britain. And finally, still another Neptunian period after that, the First and Second World Wars
lasted from 1912 to 1945 -- one long period of war. Of course Neptune might have nothing to do with it but
Britain uses that old Roman god as its Lord of the Sea, and would rather keep wars under Saturn under its control.
And so forth. -- SyntheticET
Why does it say throne of Algeria in the Intro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.122.1 ( talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The family tree is making the page too wide, on Firefox anyway. I'd fix it but I don't know how! -- Jack• ?! 08:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I am at a loss to understand the origin of certain statements, some of which I have summarily removed. The article has had a verification tag as its header for two years now and rightly so. A complete revision is needed and, given the need for a book that adequately and scholarly describes the entire period AND identifies with the lay reader, I endorse Alison Weir's excellent Lancaster and York which is ideal for the purpose of this site. Providing, of course, that it is exactly cited. Having used Weir's book to provide a baseline, one would then suggest an expansion of the detail by reference to other sources. At present, the article overall is in a poor state. It lacks direction because there is no clear understanding of the necessary scope and structure. It had been rated C-class but that is ridiculous: it is a struggling start-class only. -- Jim Hardie ( talk) 21:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
After reading through the article, as it seems to be disputed (see previous post) whether it should be C- or Start-class, I have updated the B-class parameters.
The article seems to cover all the salient points in a reasonable structure (as per the MilHist article guide), indeed the only thing I see it lacking from the B params are inline refs.
While I can see that User:Jim Hardie has doubts about the article's assessment, as there are no specific points raised (other than a desire to follow one source in particular), it seems more appropriate that a peer review, or MilHist review, should be undertaken to find where the article may be in need of corrections and restructuring.
I have raised the matter at the MilHist project for further comment ( Here). Chaosdruid ( talk) 16:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Monstrelet ( talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I am finding this article and most other articles related to the Roses very, very difficult to follow due to the inconsistent naming of the major participants. In particular, the Edwards, Richards and Henrys. It would seem that Edward, Duke of this-or-that is also Prince Edward of something-or-other, but there was also another Prince Edward of somewhere else who was an entirely different person who later grew up to become... oh, you get the idea. It's not like the Wars of the Roses aren't already confusing enough with people swapping sides half a dozen times a lifetime.
I propose that Wikipedia historical editors agree a consensus naming convention for the major participants in the Wars of the Roses, and that this naming convention be (slowly but surely) retroactively applied to all primary related articles. The naming conventions will need to have one and only one consensus short name plus zero or more long names for each actor, and a convention for noting the short name even if that short name would be anachronistic or disputed in a specific context. For example, someone who started out as a Duke and later became a King might be written as "Bob, Duke of Ambridge (later King Bob IV)".
I'll kick off the proposal with:
I believe that there should be a section on this page (like many others) that talks about the references to the wars of the roses in modern culture. I know of two for example. The heir trilogy by Cinda Williams Chima and the game entitled war of the roses coming out on october 2nd of this year. I am sure there would be quite a few other references to it that would be beneficial to be listed in a category in the article. Thoughts? 67.183.239.35 ( talk) 08:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Since Alison Weir is not a historian and therefore is not a reliable source, I will be replacing and in some cases simply removing references citing her work. Please bear with me while I do this and I will be more than happy to discuss sources with anyone. -- Defensor Ursa 04:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I will leave this paragraph, "England in the fifteenth century was ruled by kings who claimed divine right and were believed by the people to be the "Lord's anointed", directed and guided by the hand of God.[5] The king's chief functions were to protect his people by defending them against their enemies, to govern justly and to preserve and enforce the law of the land.[5] The character of the sovereign, in such a society, was all-important because on it depended the security and well-being of his subjects.[6] Although the king wielded vast power by ruling as well as reigning, the complexity of government in a nation of some 3 million people had led to increasing delegation of power through a growing number of state departments.", but I do not understand the relevance....? -- Defensor Ursa 04:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 04:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Another editor has raised copyright issues on the talk page that appear to me to have merit. Checking a Weir citation at random, I see these sentences: "The retainer became a member of the lord's affinity, would wear his lord's livery--a uniform and a badge--and accompany him on military campaigns. In return, the magnate would assure the retainer of 'good lordship', which meant protection from his enemies and payment of an income known as a pension. The retainer could also expect rewards for services rendered, and these were often substantial, such as land or lucrative offices." The language in the article is more similar than necessary: "The retainer who became a member of an affinity wore the nobleman's "livery" (a uniform and badge) and accompany him on military campaigns; in return, the nobleman would pay him a pension, provide protection and grant rewards such as land or a lucrative office." This becomes particularly problematic given how much Weir is relied on the first half of the article. (Unfortunately, Rowse, who's also relied on heavily, is not available online to be checked.)
So I'm not listing this for Good Article status for now, but I don't want the editors involved to be too discouraged. As mentioned on the talk page, this is a problem that needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible-- WP:PARAPHRASE has good suggestions on how to identify this issue and work to correct it. Once this is done, though, I hope you'll consider renominating. This is an important topic, and all the work on it is certainly appreciated. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't have full access to Alison Weir's book, but a quick spot check of what I can see on the Google version shows a high degree of close paraphrasing. For example, we have:
It probably needs someone with a copy of the original to go through and do a bit of a clean-up. Weir probably isn't the best source, though, and if I can I'll fish out some of the more recent texts on this instead. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that:
As the editor who added most, if not all, the Rowse cites, I would defend my edits against any accusation of close paraphrasing.
I found this paragraph more than a little confusing. E.g. when it says "Bolingbroke's son Henry V maintained the family's hold on the crown, but when Henry V died, his heir was the infant Henry VI." The "...but when Henry V died, his heir was the infant Henry VI." made me expect that the next sentence would explain why Henry VI being an infant would be a problem. Instead it sort of jumps back in time and starts talking about the origin of the Lancastrian claim. Then the last sentence of the paragraph mentions Henry VI's queen. Huh? I thought he was an infant. Now he has a wife? I had to reference several other wiki articles to get it straight. Wondering if something like the following might be clearer:
"The Lancastrian claim to the throne descended from John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the third surviving son of Edward III. His son, Henry of Bolingbroke established the House of Lancaster on the throne in 1399 when he deposed his cousin Richard II and was crowned as Henry IV. Bolingbroke's son Henry V maintained the family's hold on the crown, but when Henry V died, his heir was the infant Henry VI whose inherent benevolence and intermittent insanity eventually contributed to his own downfall. Henry VI's right to the crown was eventually challenged by Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York (aka Richard of York), who could claim descent from Edward III's second and fourth surviving sons, Lionel of Antwerp and Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. Richard of York, who had held several important offices of state, including Lord Protector during Henry VI's madness, quarreled with prominent Lancastrians at court and with Henry VI's queen, Margaret of Anjou."
Also, why is "Richard, Duke of York" referred to by this title everywhere EXCEPT in the family tree where he is referred to as Richard Plantangenet. This was very confusing. There are so many Richards, Edwards and Henrys, I had a heck of a time figuring out who was who in the family tree. Seems like at the very least the article should be internally consistent in this respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.68.67 ( talk) 03:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
This article states that the origin of the Lancastrian claim is by descent from Edward III via John of Gaunt. However, I was just watching the British documentary series "Monarchy" on Netflix and it claims something completely different. According to it, the descent from Edward III does not even come into play. Instead, it claims the Lancastrian claim to the throne rested on a bit of Lancastrian family lore going back to the reign of Henry III. Here is what narrator David Starkey claims in regards to Henry Bolingbroke's rationale for deposing Richard II (transcribed verbatim from Season I: Episode 6 - Death of a Dynasty):
"But how to justify dethroning Richard and replacing him with Henry? The neatest solution would be to show that Richard had never been true king by hereditary right anyway, but that Henry was. Conveniently a story to this effect was an article of faith in the house of Lancaster. Henry and Richard were both descended from King Henry III. Richard, from the eldest son, Edward, who'd succeeded as King Edward I, and Henry from the second son, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, surnamed Crouchback. According to the story, however, Crouchback was really the eldest son, but he'd been shunted aside in favor of Edward on account of his supposed deformity."
The documentary goes on to say that historians of the time rejected the argument and confirmed that Edward was the true first son of Henry III. However, it also goes on to say that later when Richard II was forced to abdicate and was deposed by parliament, Henry Bolingbroke went before parliament and basically made the same argument again. I.e. that he was the true king via descent from Henry III and that this was the basis upon which he was made king, not that he was next in line after Richard II via descent from Edward III.
This surprised me because I had just been reading this article and it doesn't say anything about that. In fact, I looked thru a few wiki articles and couldn't find anything about this. E.g. the article on Henry III doesn't have anything about any doubts about the order of birth of his children. Nor does the article on Edmund Crouchback. It also doesn't say anything about any physical deformity he had.
If there is anything to this version of events, perhaps it should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.68.67 ( talk) 03:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The current lead is not really a lead, it's quite a long chronological summary of events. A detailed summary may be useful but I don't think it should be part of the lead section. The first paragraph is fine, but then we jump back to 1399 and proceed forward rather slowly. Does anybody mind if I move the following paragraphs to a section after the lead called something like "Summary of Events"?
This may be a cosmetic change but I think it's significant; it would mean (for example) the lead could be expanded to talk briefly about some of the themes discussed later in the article, rather than giving a blow by blow chronology. Also, when navigating an article I generally read the lead in full and then may jump around in the article or follow links to other articles. If the "Summary" is a different section then I can choose to read it in full (if I want a summary) or skip to the more detailed sections if I wish. --
Merlinme (
talk) 13:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The article contains the following sentence: "This was a period when kings of England claimed divine right and were believed by their people to be the "Lord's anointed", directed and guided by the hand of God.[5] The source for this sentence is Alison Weir, a novelist and (non-academic) popular historian. It is commonly known that the issue in England over the "divine right of kings" emerged during the reign of James I, punctuated by a famous confrontation in which Sir Edward Coke, at risk of his life, rebutted the king to his face by quoting the medieval jurist Henry de Bracton (whose view had been the norm in England for centuries) that the king was UNDER the law. King James, an immigrant from Scotland, put forth the novel proposition that the king was ABOVE the law. This standard scholarly view is summarized in the Wikipedia article on the Divine right of kings: "The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of James I of England (1603–1625, also known as James VI of Scotland 1567–1625)." That is to say, the "divine right of kings" was neither generally asserted by monarchs nor commonly accepted belief in England during the period of the Wars of the Roses, so the sentence in question should be deleted unless somebody can demonstrate scholarly backing for it.-- Other Choices ( talk) 12:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The king must not be under man but under God and under the law, because the law makes the king... for there is no rex where will rules rather than lex. Since he is the vicar of Jesus Christ, whose vicegerent on earth he is.
The article currently states:
During the Hundred Years' War against France, a captured noble would be able to ransom himself for a large sum, but in the Wars of the Roses, a noble who belonged to a defeated faction would be declared attainted, and therefore possessing no property, and of no value to his captor.[15]
I've no doubt that as a civil war the Wars of the Roses were particularly bloody, but the implication that nobles were never captured in the war is wrong. It's fairly easy to find examples of nobles who were captured, even if only because they were then later executed! The implication that anyone who fought on the wrong side was attainted is also too strong. Attainting was fairly rare, and even when issued, pardons were frequently given. See e.g.
[1] (pp. 66-68 of Edward IV by Charles Ross); even prominent Lancastrians who fought at Towton were not necessarily attainted. Of those who were attainted, a large number were eventually pardoned (the
Attainder article says the majority were pardoned).
Is there a way this section can be better phrased? --
Merlinme (
talk) 09:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This sentence, "From the beginning of Henry VI's reign in 1422, complaints about corruption, public disorder, riots and the maladministration of justice, became widespread." -- Weir, The Wars of the Roses, page 11.
Has been copied from this sentence, "From the beginning of Henry VI's reign complaints about corruption, public disorder, riots and the maladministration of justice grew ever more vociferous."
As is this sentence, "Most criminals appear to have got away with their crimes.", also copied from Weir's book.
This sentence, "The lower classes, heavily influenced by the teachings of the Lollards and increasingly prepared to question the established order, began to show a lessening of respect for authority and the law, which contributed to the general atmosphere of unrest." is also plagiarized from Weir's book.
"The lower classes, fuelled by the teachings of the Lollards, were increasingly questioning the established order.", page 11.
Also, the preceding paragraph has little to do with the Wars of the Roses and attempts to follow a paragraph from Weir's book.
"At the same time, the middle class was growing more prosperous and influential through its mercantile interests. The slow decline of the wool trade after 1450 was offset by increased demand from abroad, not only for woollen cloth, but for tin, lead, leather and other products. Calais, which remained in English hands after the rest of England's French territories were lost in 1453, was the chief wool market, attracting merchants from all over Europe. The importance of retaining Calais was therefore crucial for the nation's continued prosperity. During the Wars of the Roses, however, Calais also came to be seen as a potential place of refuge for those who had fallen from power, and even as a springboard for the potential invasion of England."
The highlighted portion is not supported by Weir, she makes no mention of a "middle class", the underlined sections are also plagiarized from her book.
This plagiarism needs to be removed. The paragraph above needs to be removed as well. --
Kansas Bear (
talk) 19:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
After some web research the most revealing evidence I could find was this: [3] If you scroll down to the comments you will find that someone logged on as Alison Weir says: "Has anyone actually read my book Lancaster and York (1994), on the origins of the term ‘the Wars of the Roses’? ...In the latter decades of the 20th century several academic historians followed S.B. Chrimes in asserting that the name ‘the Wars of the Roses’ was anachronistic, and some asserted that ‘Cousins’ Wars’ was the correct contemporary term, but I too can find no source cited, although I don’t have the full range of works to hand." So in other words the origin of the term in modern usage seems to be the historical novels of Phillipa Gregory, who wanted an evocative name for her series and appears to have taken inspiration from Weir's books. Weir herself doesn't give a proper reference; she has later asserted that some unspecified academic historians at the end of the last century championed the use of Cousins' Wars as the contemporary term. (I begin to see why people are uneasy using Weir as a reliable source!) I had never heard the term before a couple of hours ago; I recently finished reading an edition of the Paston Letters and there were zero references to Cousins' War that I remember. They didn't really give a name to the wars or war as a whole at all, that I can remember. If "Cousins' War" is to go back in it needs a proper reference to the original academic historian "cited" by Weir, and ideally a contemporary quote that actually uses the term. I suspect if the term was used it would probably be more from the 16th century, i.e. looking back on the dynastic struggle, but it's impossible to say more at this stage without proper sources. -- Merlinme ( talk) 13:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Bill the Cat 7: The end date has been changed to 1487. That date seems somewhat arbitrary to me; 1485 is "traditional", and if you think that the "Wars" should include the late rebellions then that presumably goes to 1497. Does anyone have any views on the end date we should use in the article? Does Bill want to provide some justification? -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I think 1487 is good- Stoke was as 'big' and as 'significant' as Bosworth, whereas much of what came later was, as Merlinme says, merely rebellion. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
PS: Just to point out that we could be having the same discussion about when they started; as good a date though 1455 is, 1452 or'53, 1415, or 1399 are equal contenders for the title. Cheers. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
This has been languishing as a "very old issue" at WP:CP for over a year, and has been discussed at length above. Moonriddengirl and Kansas Bear have both looked at it recently. I think it can be resolved. There seems to be consensus here (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that there is close paraphrasing of the Weir book, and that that book is in any case not a suitable source for this article. In case there's any doubt about the former point, here's one comparison: Weir, on page 6, has:
A king was not only expected to protect and defend his realm but also had to be seen as a competent warrior. A king who inclined towards peace courted adverse public opinion, for most people placed great value on success in arms and the glorification of the nation’s reputation. English kings of the fifteenth century did not maintain a standing army but relied on their nobility to provide them with troops when necessary. Hence it was important for a monarch to maintain good relations with the aristocracy and gentry, who might, if sufficiently provoked, use the armed strength at their disposal against him. It was also the duty of the sovereign to prevent power struggles between magnates, especially where these affected the stability of the realm.
Text added here on 14 January 2012 read:
Defence of the realm was especially important and most English people are believed to have placed great value on success in arms: hence, the king had to be seen as a competent warrior. A crucial point about the series of conflicts that came to be known as The Wars of the Roses was that the king did not maintain a standing army. Rather, he relied upon his nobility to furnish him with troops when necessary and so it was vital that he maintained good relations with aristocracy and gentry who, if provoked, might use their armed strength against him. It follows that the king was duty bound to prevent power struggles between the magnates, especially if these could impact the stability of the realm.
I've bolded some phrases that are directly copied, and most of the rest is too close for comfort; there's no question that this is unacceptable. I see two ways of sorting this out: either revert to this revision from 8 January 2012, which would be the simplest way of dealing with it but might make it necessary to redo a good deal of subsequent work; or remove all content added by that particular editor. The edits appear to be:
so this would not be an impossible task. Does anyone have any preference? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 13:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Upon arriving at mobile page http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Roses I did not get a redirect. Since the Article name there is "Wars of the Roses" (plural), the blank page is confusing. This is way out of my pay grade - can someone just leave a note if it works fine for them in mobile, or if the situation is corrected? Thanks and please excuse me if in error. Ukrpickaxe ( talk) 12:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a couple of issues with the family tree, but I do not have the slightest experience with the chart template and the manuals are not helping either, so, could anboudy with sufficient technical knowledge make the following changes?
Thank you! -- The Theosophist ( talk) 13:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I stopped dead at this sentence at the end of the introduction:
In an era leading to what is sometimes referred to as the "Golden Age" of Elizabeth,[1] the House of Tudor ruled England and Wales until 1603. First, why is Elizabeth singled out here? If we're going to mention any other Tudors, why just her? Second, what relevance does this have to the Wars of the Roses? Why not just say The House of Tudor ruled England and Wales until 1603.? And third, following the reference to http://www.journeytohistory.com/history101/Golden_Age_Of_Elizabeth.html results in a broken link, and journeytohistory.com itself does not seem to exist any more. Does anyone call it a "golden age" these days? Sounds like an old-fashioned school textbook.
If nobody objects, I will change this to just read The House of Tudor ruled England and Wales until 1603. Herbgold ( talk) 11:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Herbgold ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an oxymoron. Either it is a war between two branches of a dynasty, which makes it a war of succession, or it is a war where at least one side is "civil", i.e. represents the general populace rather than a dynasty. If the idea is that this conflict was dynastic as well as civil, some explanation would be helpful. Or at least "dynastic and civil war" to show that "dynastic" and "civil" equally modify "war". -- dab (𒁳) 11:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In this edit: [4] an IP essentially asserted that "War of the Roses" (singular) was a commonly used alternate name for the Wars (plural) of the roses. I've never heard it called War of the Roses. Is this genuinely an alternate name? A quick Google search turned up very little except some computer games and the Michael Douglas film. -- Merlinme ( talk) 09:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
In the chronology it states that John of Gaunt is the 4th son of Edward III and Phillipa, in other references he is listed as the 3rd son. It would make more sense that he is third son, so his son Henry of Bolingbroke would be considered before Edmunds son.I don't know enough to edit. could someone check this out. Kelly Chacony ( talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is 1487 being placed as the year the Wars of the Roses ended? It ended in 1485. I know some like to think that it ended in 86 when Henry VII got married and others at 87 because of the failed coup/rebellion but historical consensus (that means everybody else) states it ended in 85. Is Wikipedia going to try and change a consensus that's been around 500+ years? Solri89 ( talk) 22:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Good enough for me since so many sources list different dates. But I strongly believe that Wikipedia should try to stay with main line consensus (other major encyclopedia's) when it comes to dates to avoid confusion. This way some poor kid doesn't give the "wrong" answer on his history test. Solri89 ( talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Just an idea, I've postponed the G13 for now. Quicklink: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Social History of the Wars of the Roses. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I think the chart under "2 Summary of events" may have been taken from a copyrighted source. I couldn't find a citation for it. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is confusing as it states that the "The House of Tudor ruled the Kingdom of England until 1603, with the death of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York's granddaughter, Elizabeth I."
Henry VII died in 1509 (April 21) and his reign was the start of the Tudor dynasty. Elizabeth I was the one who died March 24, 1603. This sentence needs clarifying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.1.39 ( talk) 01:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no listing of the battles of the War(s) of the Roses, although there is the map. I note also that Richard II's nominated heir Edmund Mortimer does not appear on the chart (his father was Roger Mortimer who is on the chart). Beowulf ( talk) 16:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to combining these sections into one Historical Background section? I found it confusing the way it is now - it would benefit from refimprove and some rewriting for run-on sentences and the like as well. Seraphimsystem ( talk) 11:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
When using inline citations please remember to add the full citation template to the Bibliography. For (Weir, 1995) I will have to go through my copies of Weir to figure out which book its from, as there are at least 3 possibilities. I also added full citations for at least two other sources. Seraphim System ( talk) 23:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Reference 51 is a short reference to Wise & Embleton, should this go the ∀∀∀∀∀∀∀last entry in the Bibliography section or to that used in reference 53? it could be that reference 53 is really the same as the entry in the Bibliography section as looks similar. Keith D ( talk) 22:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The name “Wars of the Roses” is very colourful. I’d like to see a paragraph that says what it was called prior to becoming “WotR” (in c1830). And why it was superseded.
The archives (#39) talks about “Cousins’ War”: and this appears on history.com.
Ref [7] says During Shakespeare's time people used the term Civil Wars: cf. e.g., the title of Samuel Daniel's work, the First Four Books.
In particular, what were the Wars called in c1465 (while happening), c1500 (as history), c1650 (after the “2nd” civil war).
And maybe a sentence on whether the name change was due to Walter Scott (or not). MBG02 ( talk) 02:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
for some reason the family tree of the war of the roses is not displaying correctly. This is what is displayed instead: Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found.Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:TreeChart/data' not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:C280:1D85:49B:5C8B:60A9:24DA ( talk) 20:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
This is such an important historical article that I feel there needs to be a concerted push to get it to featured article status. However, I'm not sure what all the processes involved with that are, so I thought I would post here to see if anyone has any ideas on how to proceed. In real life, I'm a fairly talented writer, so I'm more than willing to do my part in helping get it there, if someone will step up to get the actual PROCESS started. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) ( My talkpage) 14:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states that the result of the War of the Roses was "Total Yorkist Victory". This seems incorrect or misleading given that the last significant battle of the war (Bosworth Field) and the last battle of the war (Stoke Field) were both won by the Lancastrians/Tudors against York. I'm no expert on this topic though, perhaps someone more knowledgeable could comment and amend if necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.53.49 ( talk) 23:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this section really necessary? Similar articles, that is to say articles on other wars, do not generally have a section like this, particularly those which have good or featured article status. It doesn't really add anything and it clutters the article as a whole. It could be removed and the article as a whole wouldn't lose anything. ( 88.108.251.15 ( talk) 01:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC))
User:GoldRingChip The former version of the family tree looked better. The present version looks messy and hard to follow. -- Daduxing ( talk) 07:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
There used to be a chronological list of battles at the end of this article. Very useful and seemingly innocuous, now gone. I'm wondering if anyone can say why it was removed or if it can be re-instated.
Oxford University website reference still lists 1485 as the end date to the Wars of the Roses. Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The article still doesn’t say what this war (these battles) were called just prior to being called The Wars of the Roses.
Were they still called The Civil War, until the "Great Rebellion" became The Civil War?
In 1814 (Walter Scott)?
After 1911? English Civil War#Terminology
Any validity for "Cousin's War"?
MBG02 ( talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Leadership in the Wars of the Roses exists for a long time. At AfC review it was suggested that before splitting it should be discussed here. Though the main author lost interest in the article (I think so, maybe I'm wrong), the article looks well-sourced. Would be great if somebody would look / accept / comment on it. Artem.G ( talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)