User Guide

the great nobles of the land. For
those who lived in Shakespeare’s
day-a century after these events
unfolded-the wars were viewed as
a time of
violence, devastation and
anarchy in their beloved England.
Only when Henry Tudor killed
Richard III at Bosworth did these
evil times come to an end.
The victorious Tudors-whose
faithful propagandist Shakespeare
certainly was-had a vested inter-’
est in portraying the Wars of the
Roses in this way. His popular plays
reminded anyone considering rebel-
lion that loyalty to the crown might
be the lesser of possible evils. Henry
Tudor had taken the crown from
Richard III’s head and his new
dynasty was precariously seated
upon the throne of England. This
new king, Henry VII, faced open
revolts in the field and his reign
was troubled by a succession of con-
spiracies; Henry VIII felt the grum-
blings of rebellion; even “Good
Queen Bess”, known to history as
Elizabeth I, faced the opposition of
some powerful northern lords.
To promote their right to rule, the
royal Tudors claimed they were the
legitimate heirs of the Planta-
genets. Henry Tudor was indeed
related to Henry VI (see the lineage
shown on the chart of family trees
found in the “Historical Manual”).
Certainly, they were the last cham-
pions of the Lancastrian cause, all
others having fallen. Too, in fulfill-
ment of pledges: to his Yorkist sup-
porters, Henry married Elizabeth of
York, symbolically uniting the war-
ring factions. In this way, the culmi-
nation of the wars could be por-
trayed as the legitimate victory of
Lancaster over Yorkist usurpers,
along with a reconciliation with the
defeated through an act of dynastic
union. The Red and White roses,
and hence all England, were as one
at last.
One of the great cas-
tles of the Northern
Marches and a seat of
the Percy family, the
fortress featured promi-
nently in the northern
campaigns of 1461.64.
5