Book Review – Weir, Alison. “The Wars of the Roses” (1995)

Overall Quality 4.5 / 5.0 (highly recommended)
Gay Content 1.0 / 5.0 (a couple of mentions)

Weir understandably points out that the Wars of the Roses, a period of English civil strife between 1455 and 1487, can easily be separated into two phases. Her previous book, “The Princes in the Tower,” details the second phase of the conflict, wherein the House of Tudor struggled against the House of York. This volume serves as a prequel describing the first phase, York versus Lancaster.

The tale comprises scads of players and events, making for an extremely convoluted and complicated story. Weir does a great job, through easily readable prose written for a lay audience. Even so, there are so many names, places, dates, and events that it would require more than one reading for it to really sink in.

“The Wars of the Roses” begins with a section describing medieval England, and then traces the conflict from its origins in the unfortunate reign of Richard II (Edward III’s grandson). She continues through various monarchs: Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, and ultimately culminating with Edward IV’s final defeat of the House of Lancaster. She also offers a brief summary of the phase of the conflict that follows (with the reigns of Richard III and Henry VII).

The condensation of the civil war, even parsed into two phases, becomes a little misleading. For example, the rule of England goes back and forth repeatedly. Henry VI and Edward IV actually trade places a couple of times before Edward finally defeats Henry. Similarly, the power-mongering court factions who took advantage of the weak and easily led Henry VI also change. Even Edward IV, a much stronger personality than Henry, suffers from certain weaknesses unfortunately plied by power-grabbing noble families. In the book, this back-and-forth occurs every few pages. But for the people living through this time, it would have be months or even years (although sometimes just weeks) between changes.

Politics in England during this period was truly a zero-sum game, where one family gained power only at another’s expense. Hence rivalries developed (such as between the Nevilles and the Percies, two powerful families) and factions took root at court. Henry VI’s weakness of character opened the door for power struggles, but fundamentally the conflict began with a class of magnates (landed, high-ranking nobles) who craved power for power’s sake with complete disdain for each other and the common people. Henry VI’s marriage to the unscrupulous and scheming Margaret of Anjou simply exacerbated the problem because Margaret simply chose a faction and favored it.

I actually would have enjoyed just a bit more analysis about the political and social dynamics going on. For example, in the absence of a zero-sum game, factions have a harder time taking root, and often tend to take the form of providing different perspectives rather than seizing power. What is it about the conditions of life in England, and the circumstances of the English monarchy and nobility at that time, that contributed to the zero-sum game being not only existent but embraced by the various players? Are the political and popular dynamics of Lancastrian, Yorkist, and Tudor England categorically different from modern England or, by extension, the United States? Or maybe not…? I can see arguments both ways. Alas, such an analysis really exceeds the scope of Weir’s history, which is largely a dramatic retelling of the Wars of the Roses based on extensive primary and secondary sources.

I was intrigued to learn how much the magnates apparently considered popular opinion. It makes sense, in a way: they were constantly trying to raise armies, and of course it’s the common folk who make up the bulk of cannon fodder. The supposed “rich and powerful” were also constantly borrowing money to finance their campaigns. At the same time, it’s painfully obvious that the magnates regarded commoners with sheer disdain. Heck, they regarded EACH OTHER with contempt!

But then, it’s sometimes shocking how much medieval English culture diverges from our own. Consider the parentage of Henry VII: at the time of their marriage, his father Richard was 25 years old. His mother Margaret was only 12. She gave birth to Henry at age 13. I’ll leave the math to you. I won’t even mention the excessive interpersonal, interfamilial, and international violence of the age.

Hm. Maybe it’s not that dissimilar, after all.

The appendix provides several much needed genealogical tables. Unfortunately, the font is so small and unusual (it looks hand-written) that it borders on useless. Nevertheless, I found myself referring back to the genealogies multiple times throughout the reading to remember who was who.

I also would have appreciated some kind of glossary, index, or table matching names with titles. Many magnates could be referred to by first name, family name, title, and in some cases nickname. For the most part Weir did a good job of picking one name and sticking to it. For example, we have Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, also called the Kingmaker. For the most part, Weir refers to him consistently as Warwick. Other times she would vary, and it could be very difficult to follow, especially considering how many Edwards, Richards, and Henrys show up.

On the whole, if you are a fan of English history, I readily recommend this highly readable and engaging retelling of the Wars of the Roses. Far from a dry history textbook, it succeeds in its aim to bring these characters and events to life.

Note, I did include a score for Gay Content thanks to a couple of mentions in the book. For instance, Weir mentions that Richard II had a couple of male “favorites,” who may well have been lovers. I debated whether to score the book for its Gay Positivity, considering how little content there is, but I can still comment on the nature of those comments. Weir herself is non-judgmental in her mentions, but the (possibly) gay figures involved are not exactly role models, and things never worked out well for them. So I would score the Gay Positivity fairly low. In other words, if a reader were looking for a gay role model or hero out of history, they wouldn’t find it here.