The Lancasters and Yorks

by Alison Weir

Lancaster and York. For much of the fifteenth century, these two families were locked in battle for control of the English throne. Kings were murdered and deposed. Armies marched on London. Old noble names were ruined while rising dynasties seized power and lands. The war between the royal houses of Lancaster and York, the most complex in English history, profoundly altered the course of the monarchy. Alison Weir, one of the foremost authorities on British history, brings brilliantly to life both the war itself and the larger-tha-life figures who fought it on the great stage of England. The Wars of the Roses is history at its very best—swift and compelling, rich in character, pageantry, and drama, and vivid in its re-creation of an astonishing period of history.

Look for special features inside.
Join the Circle for author chats and more.
RandomHouseReadersCircle.com

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Historical, Medieval, Biography, War

Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.

Alison Weir is an English writer of history books for the general public, mostly in the form of biographies about British kings and queens, and of historical fiction. Before becoming an author, Weir worked as a teacher of children with special needs. She received her formal training in history at teacher training college. She currently lives in Surrey, England, with her two children.

Reviews

[Bradley · Rating 4 out of 5]

All right. First of all, no amount of quick re-telling can ever do actual history any justice, but suffice to say, The War of the Roses was a ROYAL MESS.

Literally. You can trace its roots back to Richard II when Henry IV deposed him, setting up the later battles between York and Lancaster, but this is somewhat disingenuous. People loved Hal, later to become King Henry V, and they were all amazed at how much of France he had won for England, capping off a truly heroic entry and the close end of the Hundred Years War.

And then he died. Of the flux. Horribly. Leaving another kid to be the king, just like Richard II. Only this time, Henry VI was set up on his mother's side to madness, a common malady of kings, and that, combined with horribly overbearing uncles and "helpers" to the throne, a power struggle begins, pulling this way and that and nobody really blames the poor king when the conflicts break out. Again, and again, and again. Then somewhere down the line, after Margaret of Anjou, his wife, is pregnant, Henry VI has a mental breakdown and she takes over, impressively, but not flawlessly. Conflicts abound. Edward IV is crowned king with the help of Warwick even though Henry VI is still kicking, and even though it begins well, Warwick and Edward start baring fangs at each other and yet MORE war happens. Which is a shame. I kinda liked both Warwick and Edward. Both were pretty much the heroes that stopped all the previous stupid conflicts that was dragging England through the mud.

And then, after some really great women power between a few queens including Margaret, the impossible eventually happens. Peace.

Well, until Richard III kills all the Heirs and crowns himself king until Henry VII smites him down, but that's all ancient history, right? Right?

Well even though I spelled this out in horribly simplistic terms, do NOT assume that this book is anything simple. Tons of names, battles, and character studies of kings and notables are extant. This is pretty damn exhaustive. And, I might say, exhausting.

I recommend other works if you are new to the 1455-1485 period in England. It's bloody and sad and horrific and sad. But if you are familiar with the broad strokes, then there are much worse reference points for you. I got a lot out of it, but since I'm not an expert in the field, what I do understand is dwarfed by all the little things that passed me by.

One thing I can say is that my knowledge has increased quite a bit, and isn't that what we really look for in a good History? It's not extremely focused, but it gives us some background before Henry VI loses France and sparks the real beginning of the War. The rest is pretty comprehensive to my layman's eye, though, and I'm satisfied even if even I found it a bit dry.

And now, I'm set to run through all the Shakespearian Histories for this time! :) Yay! (Well, for a second time, anyway. :) There's nothing like a bit of deep immersion to bring out the inner geek. :)

Who knows, I think I'll run through the rest of the Histories, too, for good measure and variety. :) lol

[Madeline · Rating 3 out of 5]

"This story begins in 1400 with the murder of one king, and ends in 1471 with the murder of another. One murder could be said to have been a direct result of the other. The story of what happened between 1400 and 1471, which is the story told in this book, answers the question: how?"

Having now finished the book, I can provide the condensed version of the answer to Weir's question: because illegitimate kids throw one hell of a wrench into people's succession plans.

Well, obviously it's more complicated than that - in fact, the Wars of the Roses is kind of a clusterfuck of a situation, helped in absolutely no way by the fact that all the men were named George, Edward, Richard, or Henry. (seriously, that's the thing about Tudor history that drives me absolutely batshit) It's for this reason that I don't usually gravitate towards this period of history, being a much bigger fan of the sexy sexy Tudors and their various sexy sexy scandals. But I love Alison Weir, and when I saw this in a bookstore a few months ago I decided to try it and see if I could get a better idea of how in the hell Henry Tudor (that's Henry VII, btw - see what I mean about the names?) managed to get his hands on the throne of England - and keep it - despite having almost zero right to it.

After reading the book, I sort of get it. I'm still a little fuzzy on the details, and who was on whose side at which point in time, and sadly Henry Tudor doesn't do much here because he's like fourteen when most of the action happens, but it was still an engrossing and informative read. There are lots of good battles that Weir describes in great detail (the battles, I'd say, are probably the best part) and she does her best at making this horribly complicated situation make a bit of sense. Since this book was published in 1994, she hasn't quite developed that dry, humorous tone that's the trademark of her later works, but you can still see hints of it cropping up here and there.

I was pleasantly surprised that the main figure in this story ends up being, not an Edward or a Richard or a whatever, but Margaret of Anjou. She was the wife of the usurped Henry VI, and was by all accounts an absolute fucking badass. When her husband was overthrown, Margaret spend the rest of her life raising armies, negotiating with allies, and generally calling in every favor she had to restore him to the throne. Did I mention she raised and led armies to fight for her husband's throne? Because she did, as evidenced in this passage that describes what has to be my new favorite episode from history:

"From Lincluden, Margaret wrote to Mary of Gueldres, begging for sanctuary and assistance against her enemies. Mary responded sympathetically and soon afterwards arrived at Lincluden...the two queens stayed at the abbey for twelve days, discussing what form that help would take. At length, Mary agreed to provide men and loan money for a campaign against the Yorkists on condition that Margaret surrendered the town of Berwick to the Scots."

Can we just pause and appreciate how amazing it is that this even happened? Two women met, hung out for a few days, and during that time planned a military campaign and traded an entire town, without even once having to ask their respective husbands or any other man for permission to do so. Holy shit! That, by and large, simply does not happen, and the fact that Margaret was able to keep this up for years speaks to how awesome she was.

Seriously though - two queens spending twelve days together planning an invasion? Make this movie immediately, please, and let me give it all my money.

[Chrissie · Rating 1 out of 5]

NO RATING - DNF
This book covers only the first part of the Wars of the Roses (all of which lasted from 1455 to 1487). This book covers only the wars between the Lancasters and the Yorks (1455-1471). The second part of the Wars of the Roses (1483-1487), the fight between the Yorks and the Tudors is presented in the author's book The Princes in the Tower.

After four hours of twenty-two I am calling it quits. This is just a string of names. I really don't care anymore who gets to be king. I have followed King Edward III to King Richard II to King Henry IV to King Henry V and now King Henry VI will be king, but he is only 9 month old.

I am not going to rate this. I have not gone far enough, but neither can I recommend it to others.

Maggie Mash reads the audiobook. Her narration is fine.

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a mess! Seriously! I know quite a lot about history and about armed struggles but the tug-of-war presented here is staggering!
I must admit to never really having been interested (except for a few cornerstones) in this period or English aristocracy but since the Tudor dynasty was quite entertaining, I thought I should know about this too (thanks, St. Mary's).

So what was the Wars of the Roses (WotR) all about?
Well, one was king, the other wanted to be king, a lot of poverty resulting from a 100 year long war with France, misrule, ambitious lords and nobles, ... greed was certainly the dominant factor. That plus sheer stupidity on all parts.
Honestly, you get to root for one side because they appear more noble and then they go ahead and ruin it all by being just as idiotic as the others!
The original House of Plantagenet was the root of the throne. From there we got the House of Lancaster

and the House of York.

Going by blood relations alone, York had the claim to the throne (making the Tudors usurpers). But since everyone is related to everyone else, it's really all the same (I'm not kidding, it's why they usually needed a Papal Declaration that their intended marriages were sanctioned by the Church)!

Alison Weir says in the introduction to this book that finding the cause for the WotR is not a simple task and has been made too simplistic by later Tudor chroniclers so she really went back far to explain how England's treasury was empty thanks to the war with France and how that, amongst other things, started displeasure with the common population. So I'm gonna give you the run down:

King Richard II was a weakling who let himself be led like a puppet on strings, leading (amongst other things) to magnates getting more and more powerful. One day he exiles two (verbally) fighting parties although he had said the matter should be settled in a hand-to-hand fight (by this point the people already had enough of the king changing his mind every 3 seconds). One of the exiled men was Henry Bolingbroke. When his father died shortly later, the king seized his inheritance (money, land, title etc) which caused Henry to come back to England and (after originally "just" wanting back what was rightfully his) usurp the crown, thus becoming King Henry IV. His reign was definitely bumpy and, long story short, he died a few years later without having been a significant king. He is followed by his son, Henry V, who is famous for winning an enormous amount of French territories and winning, against all odds, at Agincourt. The problem is that such a king is hard to follow so when he dies relatively bad and young, his son is but a baby. The factions still exist at court and, once Henry VI comes into power, he marries a French princess without money, Margaret of Anjou. The English didn't like that but honestly, that woman was a force to be reckoned with! If it wasn't for her ... well, she was very young but had a mind of her own, was very intelligent but also temperamentful. Unfortunately, she also made a lot of mistakes (like not paying attention to the animosity between the English and the Scots). After the success of Henry V it is an even greater thorn in England's side to lose ALL the French territories again (except Calais). The king is just too weak, too easily manipulated. At first, one of his magnates, York (yes, a cousin of the king and actually the rightful heir to the throne) simply wants more balance in governement. That changes with every favour his opposition receives so he wants his side to be more influential and after one long-ass struggle with LOTS of back-and-forth, promises being broken, advances made and lost, York finally decides to go after the throne himself. He dies trying but his eldest son, Edward, crowns himself King Edward IV and manages to drive Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou out of England. Many years of struggles and skirmishes follow. Honestly, they were all so stubborn and yet often too quick to start another campaign which is why, again, there is a lot of back-and-forth. At some point, Margaret of Anjou goes to France and stays there for a while with her son, marries him to one of the daughters of Edward's former warlord Warwick (there is no other title for the "kingmaker") and then returns to England. By then, Henry VI had been captured and imprisoned in the Tower of London. At first, Warwick and Margaret of Anjou are successful in raising a lot of people to their cause but in the end, Warwick is killed, one battle after another lost, Prince Edward (Henry VI's son) killed either in battle or shortly after one and it's over. Margaret of Anjou is eventually captured as well and Henry VI dies in prison (killed by a severe blow to the head so no further rebellion can rise in his name).

Still with me so far?
This is VERY simplistic. There's a lot more to everything.

Anyway, this was the FIRST War of the Roses (notice that the title is Wars of the Roses?). The other is not dealt with in this book but in the next and recounts what happens when, after 12 years of peaceful and relatively prosperous reign, Edward IV dies suddenly, leaving his 12-year-old son king - who is promptly deposed by his uncle, put in the Tower and then probably killed there along with his younger brother (supposedly by their uncle Richard III, who crowns himself king). There is another uprising, instigated by Jasper Tudor and others, who are still loyal to the Lancaster cause (aided by a lot of people who simply don't like Richard III and what he apparently did to the two boys) and suddenly, a young Beaufort/Tudor boy is the next male heir to the throne, becoming King Henry VII after the victory at Bosworth. He marries the oldest daughter of Edward IV, thus uniting the houses Lancaster and York and founding the Tudor dynasty - the famous Queen Elizabeth I is his granddaughter.


Now, apart from giving you an overview of the events, I also want to point out a few remarkable (and often infuriating) things about this period:

The overall Wars of the Roses lasted for approximately 32 years. However, there were only a total of about 13 weeks of fighting within these 32 years!
The time of campaigning (raising men to arms etc) totals approximately 1 year (with individual campaigns only lasting days or weeks due to the trouble of feeding the men at arms) and no battle lasted longer than 24 hours.
Surprisingly, the conflicts had very little effect on the population (unless a battle meant a great loss of lives amongst the common soldiers which was rare since they were most often spared due to the fact that they only followed orders and did not start a rebellion - Towton in 1461 being the big exception proving the rule).
The fighting was usually not done in towns but in open fields so no towns were destroyed either. Only three towns suffered sieges, which is what caused such outrage when Margaret of Anjou brought the Scots over the border to win her back her kingdom since the Scots got permission to loot and sack every city they came upon (she didn't have money to pay them) which was regarded as savagery.
However, all sides, without exception, often had soldiers looting and sometimes even raping through certain areas so they shouldn't be pointing fingers at the Scots.
There was one Englishman (Tiptoe or something like that) who was known for his cruelty and despised for it as well. At one point he beheaded traitors in the name of the king (regarded as OK) but then hung their corpses by their feet from a town wall (not OK). However, the "official" and "respected" methods of killing traitors was hanging, drawing and quartering or beheading or (in some cases) disemboweling, cutting off limbs and then burning (all while said traitor was still alive)! Yeah, so much more noble!
Even the architecture, recorded visits of foreign traders and dignitaries (numbers and frequency) as well as literature of the time would suggest a period of prosperity and not civil war. The WotR were regarded not as a civil war back then but as a dispute between noble factions.
On one hand people rarely saw a fault in government with whatever king sat the throne (he was anointed, it was a religious thing), but with the advisers surrounding the king. The problem is that a weak king such as Henry VI allowed others to rule through him, thus causing injustice and poverty and misrule.
The population didn't much care who wore the crown so long as they had a good enough life (food on the table, a good justicial system); self-interest was paramount through all layers of society, and opinions could change minute by minute. When Edward IV claimed the crown people hated Henry VI or at least his parliament for misruling but after Henry VI's death there were even pilgrimages to his tomb and his piety was revered (it was even tried to have him canonized). His great deeds like founding Eton College and King's College at Cambridge were remembered instead of the loss of all the French territories that had sparked so much outrage and hate when he was deposed. To this day, the governorns of Eton College still lay a sheaf of lillies and red roses on the traditional site of Henry VI's murder on every 21 May!

After needing some time to get into this since the author is VERY thorough, I must admit to loving the fact that we get presented with all factors leading to this great struggle so as to better understand why and how it happened and see the probable motivation for those chiefly involved. I will definitely read the author's other book about the princes in the Tower and Richard III. And really, it's not Alison Weir's fault that these people were so greedy and stupid and changed their loyalty all the time (which was really getting on my nerves).

England hath long been mad and scarred herself,
The brother blindly shed the brother's blood,
The father rashly slaughtered his own son,
The son, compelled, been butcher to the sire:
All this divided York and Lancaster.

So yes, this is a comprehensive work that I can recommend to anyone wanting a thorough overview.

[Amy Bruno · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I was given the choice of writing a novel on a certain historic event, you can bet the event at the bottom of my list would be The War of the Roses. I don't think I could deal with such a convoluted, tangled story, with an ungodly amount of characters to keep track of...it would likely drive me mad. But, thankfully Alison Weir was of a different mindset and took the monster head on. And what a supurb job she did! Weir merged enjoyment and learning expertly and I can see how it would take a lot of work to not have it read as a text book. It was by no means a fast read, as it's all fact and no dialogue, but boring it was not. Nor was it one of those books that feels like a chore to read.

Weir starts the novel with the early origins of events that would eventually lead to the thirty-year battle for the throne of England, which dates back to King Edward III. The War of the Roses ends after the Battle of Tewkesbury. The Battle of Tewkesbury, fought on what is now known as Bloody Meadow would be the last meeting between York and Lancaster. The future of Lancaster, Prince Edward, was slain, his father King Henry VI had long been in prison (and shortly after this battle, the grave) and Queen Margaret was in hiding, then imprisoned in the Tower of London and finally ransomed by the King of France. For a woman that spent her a majority of her life surrounded by court and it's many minion and was quite comfortable in the role as a ruler, she lived her last days dependent on the meager funds she received from the King of France and died alone.. TWOTR is a sad note in England's history; sons fought fathers, brothers fought brothers, there was rampant betrayal and lies, lawlessness and violence ruled and havoc was wreaked upon towns, such as Towton.

I would recommend this to any history nut! Weir has a great writing style and it was very readable non-fiction. I admit I don't really care for her fiction novels; I thought Innocent Traitor was so-so and I couldn't finish The Lady Elizabeth, but now that I've read this one I'm excited to read the rest of her collection!

What I found most interesting (just shows it was more scheming and waiting to see what the other side will do next than actual fighting):

"There were, at most, thirteen weeks of fighting in the thirty-two years covered by both of the War of the Roses, while the total time spent campaigning amounted to approximately one year. Some of the battles were short, and non lasted longer than a day."

[John Mccullough · Rating 5 out of 5]

Alison Weir has become the unofficial popular author of that stretch of English history beginning with the last Plantagenets through the last Tudors, a little over 200 eventful years. Most of the works deal with specific individuals as biographies, or scandals, such as the Boys in the Tower. In this summary volume Weir deals with that series of occasional battles for the throne beginning in earnest with the death of the odious and arrogant Richard II and ending with the death of the last controversial Plantagenet, Richard III.

As always, her writing is eminently readable, and the book comes complete with genealogical tables, a bibliography divided by primary and secondary sources, and a very useable index. If you have become interested in this fascinating but bloody period of English history, there are few better places to begin your research.

[Jamie Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very nicely written overview of the Wars of the Roses. It's not for beginners to English history; I was reasonably familiar with all the players and still had trouble keeping track of everyone. There are lots of Richards, Edwards and Henrys, and multiple people are referred to as "York" or "Somerset" as titles pass between generations. The genealogical charts are not as helpful as they should be: they're cramped and printed in tiny, handwritten scrip, and the generations are not clearly lined up.

There are only two very general maps provided. I would have liked more detailed maps showing where the various sieges and battles took place.

[Carolina Casas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very detailed giving background to the origins of the conflict that have become known as wars of the roses and more recently "cousins wars" going back to Edward III and his five sons and what they and their descendants meant to the succession. Of course Edward III's grandson (son by his firstborn) inherited the throne but when he was deposed by Henry IV "Henry Bolingbroke" this changed everything. Henry IV altered the succession many times giving precedence over himself an his heirs since they were descended from John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster by his first wife (Blanche from where he obtained his duchy), the third son of Edward III. However the second son of Edward II had surviving issues -the only difference was that such surviving issue was female and she married into the Mortimers which were prominent in the Welsh Marches and from whence the Yorks inherited their "superior" claim once Richard Duke of York decided to make a bid for the throne when he saw the means and opportunity in Henry VI's reign. Henry VI, an avid scholar had the makings of a great king but was an ineffectual people pleaser who was wrecked by his two uncles (Cardinal Beaufort and his Protector Duke of Glouchester, Humphrey). The uncle that was more interested in him John Duke of Bedford died too early and without issue and Humphrey while allied with York, never managed to gain much ground after Henry VI got tired of him and he died in obscurity after his wife's apprehension and accusations of witchcraft.
Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI's Queen was left to take the reins of government but she alienated many by the simple fact of being a woman and defying gender standards of her day and of course being foreign. She made many mistakes but in a government where her husband was desperate to pleased instead of to act as he should have, she took it upon herself to raise support. This served more to help Richard Duke of York and when he began to use the name Plantagenet to assert his claim, thus began the bitter conflict between cousins. It is very rich and beautifully written, however my nitpicks are that in spite of this the portrayals of the Woodvilles are less than favorable as she constantly mentions how ambitious and ruthless they were and while they were ambitious, Elizabeth Woodville was by no means more ruthless than others of the periods and the Woodvilles were not as powerhungry bent on revenge as she mentions here (giving one example of the famous tapestry Thomas Cook refused to sell to Jacquetta which the author asserts that Jacquetta never forgave and she and her family managed to do trump up charges as well as unto others, doing as they pleased). This image plays into the pop culture and is not very factual.
What is factual though is much of the chronology and the background of the main players, and dispelling myths regarding the much maligned "Kingmaker". He was ambitious and known to change his coat when it suited him but by no means he was innately cruel. Alison Weir points out how he enjoyed a lot of popularity with his tenants and some of the commons and he and Henry VI even showed mercy to Elizabeth Woodville when she took her children to Westminster Abbey (after the "Readeption of 1470-1471) by sending her a doctor and midwives. Other acts that Warwick did that dispels the myths surrounding him are mentioned which I found very pleasant. Another nitpick is she spends a lot of time excusing Richard Duke of York saying he probably didn't want the throne but then he might have and things were not in his control and he might not have been the main architect behind much of the propaganda against the Queen which I find hard to believe.
My last nitpick is that it ends in 1471 after the "Readeption" is terminated, when every immediate Lancastrian is dead and only Margaret of Anjou survives as a disgraced former Queen. I would have loved if she continued the book until the end of this bitter conflict into 1485 but I can understand why she might have chosen this date as some consider the end of the Royal Lancastrian line as the end of the wars of the roses and Henry Tudor as a distant (not really) Lancastrian relation. I disagree with this but I see the reasons behind it.
Any history buff will enjoy this book.
As the book says mentioning a passage from a seventeenth century chronicler "finis rerum" a time, place and period and an end for everything. Both Houses had their periods of glory and disgrace and soon after the House of York collapsed the Plantagenet era became an eclipse, another footnote in history, yet recently there has been more attention to this dynasty and this conflict which Weir makes a point that it was not as catastrophic as the succeeding dynasty -the Tudors made it out to be, but nonetheless it did change many things whether you view it as catastrophic or not.

[Kurt Reichenbaugh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Halfway through. I'll just say that if you were around in England back in the 1400s, you would want Margaret of Anjou to like you. However, that doesn't mean you'll make it through this thing.

Now two-thirds of the way through and the author tells me that this is where things are going to get bloody!

English historian Edward Hall wrote, "What misery, what murder, and what execrable plagues this famous region hath suffered by the division and dissension of the renowned Houses of Lancaster and York, my wit cannot comprehend nor my tongue declare. For what noble man, what gentleman of any ancient stock by progeny, whose lineage hath not been infected and plagued by this unnatural division?"

This is an excellent book about the Wars of the Roses, something I basically knew nothing about before having read it. I've read a few of Alison Weir's books before, but they were focused on the life and reign of Henry VIII, with vague references to the monarchies in the centuries before his time. The Wars of the Roses is a complicated history and Weir has done a remarkable job of keeping all the characters, a vast number of characters and alliances, together throughout the book. That said, I don't think I can recommend this book to anyone unless they have a fairly good exposure to the history of the Plantagenets and their reign that lead up to the 1400s and corruption and failure that was King Henry VI. Here, I would suggest reading Dan Jones's THE PLANTAGENETS for a good background. In Weir's book you'll read how successful monarchs begat disastrous monarchs, ultimately leading to the murder of kings and usurping the throne. Magnates and dynasties chose sides that offered them the best advantage and often betrayed their loyalties if it meant saving their own skin and their wealth. The opening chapters present a bewildering number of characters and lineages that may put the casual reader off. There are genealogy tables in the back of the book that help somewhat, but it's still a lot to keep track of. If you stick with it, the history becomes an absorbing read, leading eventually to more familiar stories of Richard III and Henry VIII.

And finally, I'll just say that Margaret of Anjou was a bad ass that you did not want to eff with!

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a thorough narrative history of the Wars of the Roses. Weir delved into the battles and personalities without making it difficult to follow. She gives fair treatment to both sides, unlike a certain historian who glosses over the details and oversimplifies it all. Although the bloodshed and destruction was tremendous, the author makes it clear that the conflicts weren't as all-engulfing as it might seem. In fact, she makes it clear that much of the country was unaffected by the fighting and remained relatively prosperous. Moreover, many of the nobles stayed out of it altogether. That said, it had a major impact on the history of the monarchy. Although the Plantagenets were left intact, it was not long before they would be finished off- first by Richard III and then finally by the Tudors. It weakened the monarchy and sent feudalism to its grave.

The research is deep and Weir is able to bring the events to life making it accessible to professional historians as well as laymen.

[Rindis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Wars of the Roses is the second book by Alison Weir I've read, and it definitely tells me there's no need to stop here. The writing is good, and gives a great overview of what is a legendarily confusing period of English history. This actually a successor/prequel book to her early book, The Princes in the Tower, which is about the final act of the Wars of the Roses; the contest between Richard III and Henry VII (née Tudor), and the fate of the children of Edward IV.

Therefore, this book is actually about the rest. Starting with the deposition of Richard II, Weir spends quite some time of the shaky political footing of the Lancastrian Henry IV, and the successful Henry V, before moving on to the reign of Henry VI, and the large number of political problems that led to the Lancastrian-Yorkish struggle that forms the bulk of the Wars of the Roses, and ends with Tewksbury and the death Henry VI. The book is about evenly split by length between the lead up, and then the multiple armed crises.

There are a lot of names that fly by, and several people change names (titles) during the course of events, and despite efforts, Weir does not entirely clear up the confusion that results. I think this is a subject that really needs a dramatis personae to refer to. Geneological charts are provided, but were stuck in the very back of the Kindle edition I read, with a link to a web page with a larger reproduction, so I didn't know of it until I was finished.

Another problem is that while she establishes the state of 15th-century England well at the beginning, and talks about how little disruption of life actually resulted from the wars at the end, this isn't really mentioned during the bulk of the book, forcing one to perhaps have to correct some opinions after the fact.

Still, in all I did enjoy it and found it informative and recommend it. The main niggling worry I have is that since The Princes in the Tower was her first book, it may not be as good a companion to this as might be wished.

[Tony Riches · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are three main problems for any historian trying to tell the story of the Wars of the Roses. Firstly, where to start in the complex set of social and political circumstances that led to the conflict. Secondly, how to separate the web of myths, half-truths and legends from the historical facts and thirdly there are the significantly differing historical accounts to be reconciled. Alison Weir has produced a very readable narrative that deals comfortably with all these problems. I can’t remember the last time I read a book then immediately started all over again at page one, this time more slowly, just in case I’d missed something. As well as covering the whole story from the roots of the families of Lancaster and York (with two hundred pages of background and ‘scene setting’ there are plenty of fascinating footnotes to history. Somehow it had escaped my notice that Henry V’s effigy in Westminster Abbey had its silver head stolen in the time of Henry VIII – and it was only replaced in 1971! Another thing I missed was that Richard of York was the first and only one of the Plantagenets to actually use the name. Even for non-historians, this book is a real page turner that proves that, of course, truth really is stranger than fiction.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

From the first time I heard about War of the Roses 🥀 I have been obsessed with this fascinating and deadly conflict. This is the story that inspired George R.R Martin to write his ASOIAF.

This book is perfect for those who have a sound understanding of the conflict, time period, historical and political context. I wouldn’t recommend this to someone who is new and wants to learn more.


I absolutely loved every minute reading this and honestly can’t wait till I can read more about this period. Whether your a Lancaster or Yorkist, these two powerhouses changed the shape of England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Alison Weir’s “The War of the Roses” is a book for someone who already has an interest in the subject matter. The text itself will not create one in you, you must come to it predisposed to lap up the material it contains. And it contains a lot.
The first chapter of the book sets the general historical scene and gives insight into the daily English life and structure of the 1400/1500s. It is a nice way to ease the reader into the immersive world this text contains. “The War of the Roses” is written in a colloquial style and Ms. Weir occasionally intersperses references to current English events or geography. This device is used sparingly enough to not be distracting. The text is also as easy to follow as these difficult and complex aspects of English history can be made to appear.
Some small quibbles with the text include the handwritten copies of the genealogies of families involved. They are poorly conceived and small print, and therefore rarely of any real use to the reader. There are also some maps included in the text, but they are not marked by county, district, etc. This can be confusing to the American reader who has no concept of where Wales is, or what Northumberland might mean. Another issue is Weir’s inconsistent use of names. She will call someone by their family/ birth name, and then on the same page refer to them by their titled name. For instance, “Bob Smith” might also be the “Earl of Whatever”, and she refers to him as both. A consistent usage would have been preferred. As titles were changed capriciously by the King (There were a gazillion Dukes of Somerset, etc.)I would have preferred a consistent use of people’s given Christian names. It would have decreased temporary moments of confusion.
One thing “The War of the Roses” aptly demonstrates is that reality is always more complex and larger than life than fiction. Margaret of Anjou, Henry VI, Edward the IV and others will leap off of the page as easily as characters in a fiction, and that is what ultimately makes this book such an enjoyable experience.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

Such a convoluted story that I'm not sure a "scorecard" would've helped! Much of the content concerns which powers (nobles) were on which side, along with the outcomes of various battles. If, like me, you don't really need all that but would like to know what the term "Wars of the Roses" actually means, here's a basic synopsis...

Henry VI proved a (well meaning) disaster in running the country. So, Edward IV usurped him; H6 was held in the tower. However, his wife Margaret of Anjou was not having it! So, she and their son fled to her native France. There, she got the French government on her side, as well as rallying Englishmen who felt H6 didn't deserve that. So, a tale of allegiances and battles until finally Margaret managed a pyrrhic victory (of a sort) briefly restoring her husband. E4 returns, has H6 knocked off (the son/heir is dead), takes Margaret into custody, until she's later "ransomed" back by the French to live out her life there as an impoverished relation.

Weir notes at the end that most English people did not care at all which guy was king, except for those nobles (with vested interests). At the time it was seen as a squabble rather than a Civil War. I'm fond of the story of Richard III, so was looking for background on that, finding little to connect his story with this one (directly).

Three stars to recognize the research and presentation for what it was, though 2.5 stars in my personal experience. Some folks disliked the narrator's exaggeration of voices when reading quoted material, which I understand. Yet, it was effective in preventing the audiobook from total monotony.

[Xenia0201 · Rating 5 out of 5]

You cannot deny that Weir puts forth a great deal of effort in fully researching the history of and behind the Wars of the Roses. I enjoyed this because not only does she present the facts as they are, she goes back an additional 100 years to give the full background on where the conflict exactly started...with the sons of Edward the III and the weak reign of Richard the II. You can look at several instances that helped fuel the fire between Lancastrians and the Yorkists made in each reign up to the point of the conflict between Richard, Duke of York, and Henry V. Its important to note she wrote this after writing The Princes in the Tower because she felt a complete history was needed to illustrate the full detail of this history. I recommend reading this first so the details explained in The Princes in the Tower are better understood. The illustrated section is excellent as well, offering depictions of the principal figures mentioned.

[Greg Strandberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

I first picked this book up way back in middle school in the mid-90s. I liked the cover, liked the idea of old England.

What was most appealing to my young self were the introductory chapters explaining the world of the 1400s. You get a good look at the battles that pitted the Yorks against the Lancasters, and the two princes that were killed.

Weir goes into the latter much more in her other book. I wish she'd write more on events, but alas, she's basically settled on personages.

Good read on this one!

[Alannah Clarke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't know a lot about the wars of the roses, but I have always wanted to study it, when the opportunity came up for me to do so, the tutor in my university decided to take the year out for research. I have read a bit of fiction concerning the War of the Roses but obviously as someone who studies history knows to take that with a pinch of salt as authors love to manipulate history to fit their storylines. Even though I have a small understanding of the War of the Roses, I could probably tell you the main events from the York side, but I don't know much about the Lancaster side, I do know it was a complete mess. It was not a straightforward battle that ended up with Henry VII on the throne but a series of bloody battles for the crown for roughly thirty-two years.

After listening to this book, I feel like I understand more of this conflict than I did before, with so much information given to me, I glad I got the audiobook as opposed to a chunky paperback. As the type of historian who enjoys not only learning about kings and queens but commoners as well. I liked that Weir had included information about commoners living during the Wars of the Roses as I have only read about the upper class in England during this time.

I'm going back to my historical fiction reading of the conflicts when I first read Philipa Gregory's series; I assumed she had twisted history to make the women come out on top. However, after listening to this audiobook, this thought was changed when Weir focused on Margaret of Anjou, this is a woman I haven't heard a lot about, so I am glad I got to learn a little bit more about her. Before listening to this book, I knew Margaret as the mother of Anne Neville's first husband who died shortly after they were married. After learning about her meeting with Mary of Gueldres, it was clear that Margaret was heavily involved in the military planning on her husband's behalf. This book did leave me with a newfound respect for Margaret of Anjou.

I enjoyed learning about the wars of the roses with this audiobook and once my module has finished, I would love to learn and read more on this subject.

[John Carter McKnight · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong general-audiences history, with a largely fluid and engrossing style. Definitely not a military history, but a straight-up political narrative.

There's an obvious challenge in writing about the period: everybody is named either Richard, Henry or Edward, and a string of people succeed to noble titles, so keeping track of who's who is a challenge. The author's tendency to switch back and forth between proper names and titles does add to the confusion of "is this one person or two? has the duke of wherever switched sides again, or was the the title given to somebody from the other faction in the last chapter?"

The geneology charts at the end of the book are hard to access in e-reader formats: taking running notes would be a big help for those determined to keep track of the players and their teams.

Most of the battles are brief, chaotic affairs, but nonetheless, battlefield maps would have been nice.

Another challenge, certainly not the author's fault, is that *everyone* is despicable: there's not a sympathetic character in the bunch. It's like a sociopath's convention. Which is strangely reassuring: in our time most of the players would have been imprisoned at an early age, and the remainder, while likely to go into investment banking, wouldn't be given access to armies, at least. But it is a chronicle of human folly, vanity, shortsightedness, incompetence, and plain cray-cray, so don't expect anything uplifting here.

Otherwise, this is an entertaining read that covers its subject well.

[Orsolya · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alison Weir is certainly my favorite historical author. In fact, I might as well call her Professior Weir and start paying her she has taught me about 80% of what I know about queens, mistresses, Tudor England, the Wars of the Roses, etc. Long live, Alison Weir!

Sadly, this was one of my least favorites accounts of Weir's. I literally had to skip a couple chapters in the beginning because it felt too dragged. I knew when the juicy parts (in my opinion) began since I have done a large amount of reading previously on the Wars of the Roses so I don't feel I lost much doing the skipping.

On a higher note, as always with Weir, the extensive and vast amount of knowledge you will receive when reading this book is incrediable. Even if you never read another book on the topic again, you will certainly know more than the average person. I always sort of cheered for the House of York (minus Richard III and of course I love Lancastrian Henry VII) but this novel made me sway back and forth. York? Lancaster? York? Lancaster? To me, that demonstrates that Weir gave a terrific, unbiased, and detailed work.

Truly an all emcompassing book with thorough research to back up the material. Thanks Professor Weir!

[Lois · Rating 2 out of 5]

This focuses on the people involved with the Wars of the Roses or the Cousins' Wars.
I prefer that because the battles can get a bit tedious.
Unfortunately this is so incredibly biased and embraces a ton of sexism. I'm continually surprised at the amount of bias regarding women that is rampant in this historians work. I believe it to be a reflection of her age, wealth/status, race and personal conservative political views.
It's grating.
Historians are welcome to share their personal beliefs, in fact I enjoy and prefer historical nonfiction that includes the opinions of the historian.
That said, all facts have to be presented and weighted equally. It feels like this historian has simply adopted the historical bias and ignored how women in powerful positions were viewed and treated.
I find her books easily readable and well researched just biased which always grates on my nerves the more I read.

[Claire · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a decent read, however I found Weir a often rushed to accept the veracity of contemporary sources without fully qualifying their motives or possible agendas. I was most turned off by the line on the last page that stated: "Gloucester emerged the victor from this, imprisoned the boy king, deposed him, and had himself crowned Richard III, all within three months. He then almost certainly arranged for young Edward and his brother to be murdered in the Tower of London". This glib statement has completely convinced me that her other title "The Princes in the Tower" is an utter waste of my time. If you want to read a fascinating book about the princes read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time".

[Kirsten · Rating 4 out of 5]

After watching the STARZ series "The White Queen" based on the books by Philippa Gregory, I decided I wanted to learn more about the Wars of the Roses. I'd read Innocent Traitor by Alison Weir about Lady Jane Grey previously so I checked this book out.

It is an immensely readable history. Unlike Innocent Traitor which is a historical novel, this is a history with dates and sources. Still, it is well written and not dry at all. This period of time was stacked with incredible events and people, not to mention ramifications.

[Reborn · Rating 5 out of 5]

As always, Alison writes nonfiction as though she's writing a great novel. This is a complicated history with a lot of characters, places and events so it was abit difficult to follow at times, but worth the effort.

[Denise · Rating 4 out of 5]

Long (especially given that this book only covers the period up until 1471) and at times a little dry, but on the whole Weir does a good job sorting through the mess that was the Wars of the Roses and laying it out for her readers.

[Arun Divakar · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my rudimentary understanding of the British monarchy, I have always imagined the crown to be an unshakable and fixed image of royalty. That statement I made needs to be clarified a little : what I meant here was that I always assumed that once the crown is fixed on the brow of a man or a woman, it stays so until the end of days arrives for the person. But then I was wrong, there are challengers to every crown and nothing stays the same forever, especially not royal status. Beyond the historical thrills, the Wars of the Roses proved that this guesstimate of mine was absolutely wrong. Considering that each book read and each idea received molds the mind a little differently, this was a welcome change. Alison Weir’s book has the narrative pace of historic fiction but recounts the events of a tumultuous period in British history.

In Weir’s words :

This story begins in 1400 with the murder of one king, and ends in 1471 with the murder of another. One murder could be said to have been a direct result of the other. The story of what happened between 1400 and 1471, which is the story told in this book, answers the question: how?

There couldn’t have been a more succinct review of this book beyond this. Much intrigue, conspiracy, bloodshed and drudgery occurs between the lifetimes of Richard II and Henry VI. Contrary to what the title led me to believe, the Wars of the Roses involved maybe 19 decisive battles fought on a field. The bloodier battles were fought in the courtrooms, the parliament and the houses of high nobility. Following the highly acclaimed reign of Henry V, his son Henry VI comes to the throne and if historic accounts were to be believed then this was the start of a disastrous reign for the nation. Being a pious gentleman, Henry VI is not able to deliver the goods when it comes to military conquest and a chivalrous public image. Henry also does not hold his court of nobles in check and they run riot through the nation’s coffers. It was thus a time of high dissatisfaction for the populace with no military action, heavy taxes and general lawlessness. Adding insult to injury, Henry marries Margaret of Anjou who was French and thereby a dreaded enemy of the English during the age and era. Rival factions form at court, the citizens go bonkers and the Wars of the Roses erupts between the houses of Lancaster (Henry VI and his supporters) and York (the Duke of York and his supporters). The pendulum swings this way and that all through the seven decades and there are scandalous romances, skirmishes with France, bankrupt Italian merchants, vigilante citizens and a colorful crew of motley characters who populate the narrative with their adventures and exploits.

The heart of the matter is that this civil war was ultimately about power and of who wields the crown and sceptre of England. Things go back and forth between these factions so many times that I could only mentally mutter to Edward IV ’Man, you are the King of England how difficult is it to chase down and capture Margaret and her young son and their lieges?’ Edward however did not answer me and the chase goes on and on and on till it gets tedious and humdrum.

Weir is a great writer, it is certainly an act of talent to take a slightly complicated historical narrative and write a condensed version of a long chain of events. It is also not of much help that almost every one of the gentlemen are named Richard, Henry & Edward. The writing does have its negatives in that some of the characters are just black or white and others are merely inconsequential. Barring Henry VI, Edward IV and Margaret of Anjou and the Dukes of York and Salisbury, the others are not very well sketched. They come and go, barely eliciting any response from the reader.

Personally this was a starting point for me to get into British history. It is a topic that I have wanted to read up on for quite a long period now and I finally took the plunge. Recommended but come armed with a lot of patience.

[Lyn Sweetapple · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible book about the War of the Roses. I have read the Sunne in the Splendour and some other histories about this time, but this one is the most comprehensive and clear history of this time. The family trees are very useful, but I wish they were larger in size or used a typed font rather than one that looked hand written.

[Joelle Colville-Hanson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I will recommend this book because it does offer interesting information focused on people rather than events in the Cousins War.

However she has some clear biases that she presents as fact. When focusing on personalities in history as she does it is difficult not to veer into speculation or rely on the biases of the primary sources. But I expect the historian to approach these sources with some healthy skepticism and awareness of bias.

She paints Margaret Anjou in a mostly negative light. Which is how most contemporary historians portrayed her. Was she unpopular because she was a greedy manipulative power hungry She-Wolf? Or maybe because she was a woman and French?

Richard of York is portrayed as just wanting to reform the corruption in England and Margaret as desperate to hang on to power. Come on. Everyone around the King wants power. Richard had wanted to protect his position just as much as she did. I think a more objective reading would show that Margaret was no better and no worse than other rulers at the time. And corruption no better or worse regardless of who was currently in power at the time.

When she reports a rumor about Richard she says “This was clearly untrue.” With unflattering rumors about Margaret she may note they were untrue but adds “But this just shows how much people were willing to believe this about her”. And no one was willing to believe rumors about Richard?

Then she really lost me when she got to Elizabeth Woodville and described her as “conniving and manipulative”. SAYS WHO? Oh. The aristocracy who didn’t like sharing power with commoners? Was Edward’s marriage to her unwise? Probably. But not because she was conniving and seductive. Because she was a commoner from the Lancastrians and not royalty who could forge a foreign alliance. But they didn’t like Margaret because she was a foreigner. Honestly the court was a cesspool and anybody the king showers favor to was going to be a target.

I do recommend this to be read after reading other books on the Cousins War so as not to be taken in by her biases.

[Robin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I tend to find battles and military history difficult to concentrate on - all I really need to know about a battle is who won, who died, who was injured, who was captured. So you might wonder why I would read a book on the Wars of the Roses. I assumed it would be filled with much more than battle scenes - there would be character assessments and lots of political intrigue too. And I was right, it was incredibly fascinating and I feel I understand this time period and conflict much better.

I still wind up skimming the battle scenes but I never skip over them completely since they usually contain those important details I’d rather the author would just sum up. But surprisingly, there were a few bits and pieces of battle descriptions that actually caught my eye. No one can claim this is too “dry”, no matter how you might feel about military history:

"As their forces broke, the Yorkist cavalrymen raced to the horse park behind their own lines and mounted their steeds to give chase. As they thundered past, the King and Warwick, flushed with victory, yelled, ‘Spare the commons! Kill the lords!’ Their words went unheeded."

For once, I was glad that the author did not just sum up the results of the battle. The scene really came to life from this and I could visualize it clearly. Weir is a skilled writer; scholarly but not dry.

[Bill · Rating 5 out of 5]

A scholarly but eminently readable book about on of the most contentious times in England's history (House of York-white rose v House of Lancaster-red rose). This is a history of knights, captured castles and a time when 19 year old kings fought alongside their men. It was incredibly violent time and there are a lot of beheadings, drawing and quartering of the nobility. The most amazing story is that of Margaret of Anjou the wife of the sometime mad King Henry VI. She was the Terminator of her age and the house of Lancaster. She was relentless in her pursuit of the Yorkists. She is one of the most astounding women in history in my opinion.
My only quibble is not with the book but reading it in the e-format. The names of the English nobility change routinely and the same person is referred to by different names. Their last names might change as they gain titles, for example. Richard Plantagenet is also referred to as the Duke of York or as York ( as is his son, the eventual Edward IV). A historical character reference page and lineage would have been helpful to keep track of the families.