The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the Constitution in England, c.1437-1509

Cambridge Medieval Textbooks

by Christine Carpenter

The Wars of the Roses was a period of major crisis in English politics and in the lives of the English landowning classes. This book attempts to explain why the Wars occurred, and with what results, by placing them in the context of the ruling classes' expectations of kingship and governance at that time. The book draws on a large amount of detailed work written over the past twenty-five years on local and national politics, to present a coherent synthesis of what can seem a baffling and incoherent period.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Medieval, British Literature

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

Reviews

[Mike Luoma · Rating 4 out of 5]

This ground-breaking re-examination of the constitutional and political causes of the Wars of the Roses should be required reading for anyone seriously studying the period. Carpenter turns her focus to the recently uncovered evidence of the interplay between the gentry and the nobility, and studies the records of various localities to determine how the national government was working - or how it was not. Her ground and up approach reveals a country in crisis.

Carpenter's fresh take shatters for once and for all the Whigs' interpretations of the time and builds off of K.B. McFarlane's work to show that the government of England under a weak king had broken down. These weren't private feuds bubbling up into national battles. The lack of a working constitutional government, for example a strong monarch mediating between nobles, led to arguments turning into turf wars growing into feuds and fighting. Not the other way 'round.

The portrait of Henry VI that emerges is not kind - there is precious little evidence he did anything, and Carpenter's research shows how successive groups and people working as counselors or other courtiers simply did things in his name to keep the country going. When your Constitution is bound up in your monarch - and at this point in late medieval history the two were nearly one - and your monarch is incapable of doing anything, you have a Constitutional Crisis on your hands, and this is the situation as described by Carpenter.

Also refreshing is Carpenter's refusal to take sides and re-fight the war in her book, as too many of her peers writing British history seem to do. Until Richard III and Henry VII, we get measured assessments of the principals involved, especially in the early part of the Wars. We see the reasoning behind Richard, Duke of York, and his rebellion, he seems less rash. Somerset and his ilk come off less greedy and grasping, more "we're actually ruling, here, why not?"

Edward IV comes off very well, as Carpenter's evidence shows he reestablished the Constitutional government of England, which had fallen into a shambles over the last 30 years or so. Much of what a medieval king provided was arbitration - "You're right, you're wrong. You, pay him." From deciding disputes between nobles, to providing a "higher court" to which to appeal for gentry and commoners - or even just as a figurehead with the authority to do so - this was necessary to keep the realm running smoothly. Kings certainly played favorites, too, but overall provided "fairer" governance than a land with no ruler, according to Carpenter.

Carpenter is less fair in her assessments with Margaret of Anjou, downright traditional in her dismissal of Richard III, and oddly harsh with Henry VII as well. As she has less research material for the later years, these evaluations feel more biased and colored by personal feeling and assumptions than the earlier ones. It's a bit disappointing and kept the book from getting five stars from me. On the other hand, her moderating assessments in the earlier part of the book certainly merit the four stars I settled on.

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this was an excellent read on politics of the period and how kingship, the nobility, and the gentry all fitted together. The author has a clear preference for Edward IV, which I won't lie, I find kind of refreshing after reading teardowns of him. She delivers a hilarious takedown of Richard III but I find her opposition against Henry VII a little odd.

My only real complaint about this book is that I find it deeply disappointing that she basically omits women's contributions to politics at basically all levels, and seems to have an odd dislike for both Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth Woodville.

I can see how this is a foundational work for the period.

[Benedict S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great stuff. Thoughtful and analytical. A super contrast to other writers of the period with a modern combination of detail from the regions with high politics. Impressively, it feels as though it really understands the topic and the era, and how the different ministers etc interact.

[Ollie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Yorkists apologist to a tee, but nevertheless informative.