Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Wars of the Roses
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010
I favour the Lancastrians over the Yorkists because the House of Tudor was part of the house of Lancaster.
Had the Lancastrians not triumphed at Bosworth Field, then one of the strongest and most prosperous royal houses would not have existed.
Sixpence for your thoughts? -
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010
Well, the Lancastrians were descended from the third son, John of Gaunt, while the Yorkists were descended from the second son (was it Lionel?). So, I tended to favour the Yorkists, because their claim to the throne was better....
Were the Tudors really all that? Henry VII was unpopular, but built up a wealthy treasury by being mean, and taxing his subjects a lot. He brought stability to England by disposing of rival claimants. However, Henry VIII wasted all that accumulated wealth, despite setting up the Church of England and breaking the backs of the Catholic Church. Edward VI died young, and Bloody Mary's reigned is remembered for its Catholic terror. Then, it took Elizabeth to bring something for England to be proud of....
No, I don't the Tudor house was that great. It had its good moments and its bad moments, just like any house....
If Richard III had won, he may have remarried, and had more children. It's hard to say what would've happened. -
Message 3
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010
"No, I don't the Tudor house was that great. It had its good moments and its bad moments, just like any house....
If Richard III had won, he may have remarried, and had more children. It's hard to say what would've happened."
I tend with Shiv on this. The Tudors were a very mixed lot - I, for one, am not taken in by the "bluff king hal" propaganda - Henry VIII was rather a monster. Mary I is underrated, particularly in terms of finance - the prosperity of the early-mid Elizabethan period (ie: before the wars bankrupted the treasury) was largely founded on the reforms of Paulet in Mary's reign. Also, by the standards of the day (thinking particularly of Spain), the "Catholic Terror" was fairly low-level - one has to remember that the populace still predominently indentified with catholicism at this time. The martyrs have chiefly entered folklore because many of them were of note (Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer) and because they were immortalized by Foxe in the "Book of Martyrs".
If one accepts that one of the central duties of royalty is to procreate, then even Elizabeth I, surely the most intelligent of the Tudors, was a failure, particularly as this failure to marry and provide an heir led to the accession of a much worse dynasty - the Stuarts. -
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Thursday, 30th September 2010
I dislike the Tudors, especially Henry VIII, who inherited a rich nation, broke with Rome, executed friends galore and left the torn nation bankrupt almost.
Not that the Yorkists were angels (more demonised relentlessly by their successors) but I favour that dynasty. -
Message 5
Posted by Tudor Rose (U14629618) on Friday, 1st October 2010
I totally agree with you Man Upstairs re Henry VIII - not good! Its definitely not a case of like father like son.
Henry VII was a completely different character all together. -
Message 6
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Friday, 1st October 2010
Yes, I fear that Henry VII, having carefully amassed a fortune, would have despaired at his oldest surviving son's wreckless spending and behaviour?
-
Message 7
Posted by Sixtus Beckmesser (U9635927) on Friday, 1st October 2010
"his oldest surviving son's wreckless spending and behaviour?"
Not wholly "wreckless"......think of the Mary Rose!
-
Message 8
Posted by Tudor Rose (U14629618) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Indeed he would have Arthur would have made a much better king.
-
Message 9
Posted by mismatched (U14242423) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Tudor Rose, your punctuation does not make things clear. Do you think that Arthur would have made a better king? If so, why?
Please do not involve Richard III, there is an interminable thread about him on the History Hub -
Message 10
Posted by Tudor Rose (U14629618) on Wednesday, 6th October 2010
Sorry for any confustion Mismatched. Its this keyboard I am using, sometimes the full stop fails to work.
Well, Arthur was born to be king and therefore bought up as such. Henry VIII was merely the second son and just expected to join the church and therefore not much attention was paid to him (well, not by the men of the court, the women spoilt him rotten). Even after Arthur's death his father showed little interest in preparing his younger son for the duities required of a king so not only did Henry VIII remained mainly unprepared for his role as king, but was continously over indulged by his mother and never given no for an answer. Not good grounding for a man who was to have the wealth and well being of an entire nation in his hands.
oh, I wouldn't involve Richard III don't worry there.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.