Yorkist or Lancastrian? And does your biased in Asoiaf have anything to do with it?

[RedShirt47]

Hmm interesting question, York or Lancaster?

York Kings:
Richard II:
Deposed by a Lancastrian so I put him here although he wasn't technically a York. A very young bratty king, a pretty shitty one. Started the Wars of the Roses by his arrogant actions. Put down the Peasants revolt brutally.
ASOIF parallel: Joffrey.

Edward IV:
A young warrior who grew old and fat. Womanising and greedy. Took the throne by force from a weak mentally challenged King.
ASOIF parallel: Robert.

Edward V:
A boy who was on the throne a few months.
ASOIF parallel: Tommen (kind of).

Richard III
Took his nephews throne. likely had them killed.
ASOIF parallel: Stannis.

Lancastrian Kings:
Henry IV:
A steady king after Richard II. Didn't do too much.
ASOIF parallel: Viserys I maybe.

Henry V:
A great warrior. Won the Battle of Agincourt. Was offered the Crown of France. One of England's most glorified monachs.
ASOIF parallel: Aegon I.

Henry VI
A weak and mentally challenged king.
ASOIF parallel: Aerys II The Mad.

I never noticed before that all the Lancastrian Kings were Targaryens and the Yorkists were Baratheons. From this list I think the Best king was Lancastrian and worst was Yorkist. Although I agree with GRRM that the Yorkists are the more interesting.

ASOIAF hasn't really impacted by judgement on the real versions but then I never really had a side in that fight.

[Lion of the West]

Lannister all the way an thus Lancaster! But beyond my pro-Lannister stance I don't really care all that much.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Gee, you don't say? And I was just thinking that they left documents, letters and diaries about it, still kept in a museum: "Dear diary, my secret plot against Richard Duke of Gloucester has been progressing well.." Probably in the same museum where they are keeping Richard's diary: "Dear diary, my scheme to take over my nephew's throne, which I have been planning since I heard of my brother's death, has been going well..." ;) But since none of those people left any such documents about their alleged secret schemes, obviously nobody was plotting against Richard and he absolutely had to know they were not plotting against him; but, by the same logic, Richard couldn't have been planning to take the crown and not only that, but the queen and her family had to know he definitely was not planning something like that at the time... As evidenced by the lack of documented evidence about their nefarious schemes either side left! One wonders how things got to where they did... ;)

Actually, there was already sentiment that Richard was attempting to usurp the throne when he pushed Edward's coronation back.

Edward IV had named Richard Lord Protector. There was nothing to "lobby" for. It's not like they were going to take a vote on it in court.

Actually, Edward IV's council voted on the matter and instead of naming Richard Protector, they voted on making Edward V rule as an adult king with Richard a part of the council.

Where are you getting that from? Anthony Rivers had been Governor of prince Edward's household in Ludlow since 1473, but obviously Edward was not going to stay in Ludlow since he was going to be king, nor was Anthony leaving him in Ludlow. Where does it say that Edward IV in his will, which did not survive, made Anthony Rivers responsible for Edward V? First time I've heard that. Please name your source.

From Dan Jones' The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors:

Edward IV’s will is now lost, but on his deathbed it seems that he tried to establish a series of

compromises by which kingship could have been operated during his son’s early reign. He had made

a concerted personal attempt to reconcile those around him who were engaged in long-standing

quarrels, bringing Lord Hastings to his bedside and commanding him to make peace with Thomas

Grey, marquess of Dorset, the queen’s eldest son. Although Dorset was married to Hastings’s

stepdaughter, the two “maintained a deadly feud”: they were territorial rivals in the Midlands and

according to the writer Mancini, rivals for the embraces of “mistresses whom they had abducted or

attempted to entice from one another.”18 Next, to balance the fact that his son would remain

comfortably in the care of Rivers and the Woodvilles, the dying king seems to have nominated his

faithful brother Richard, duke of Gloucester, next in line to the throne after the young duke of York

and therefore naturally the greatest man in the realm, to take command of government, effectively in

the position of Protector.

[Annara Snow]

Hmm interesting question, York or Lancaster?

York Kings:

Richard II:

Deposed by a Lancastrian so I put him here although he wasn't technically a York. A very young bratty king, a pretty shitty one. Started the Wars of the Roses by his arrogant actions. Put down the Peasants revolt brutally.

ASOIF parallel: Joffrey.

Most of this seems just to be slander against him after his death to justify Henry IV's deposition of him. Was the Peasants' Revolt really put down "brutally" compared to other rebellions of those times? Can you imagine Joffrey bravely going out to speak to the leaders of the revolt like Richard did? He'd be more likely to either hide behind his bodyguards, or shoot peasants who are asking for bread (and these ones weren't just poor people asking for bread, they were killing lots of people). It's also interesting that you blame 14-year old Richard, but it was John of Gaunt, effectively the head of the government at the time, who had caused the revolt by instating the Poll Tax during the last days of old Edward III, and who was the guy the rebels hated the most and wanted executed - and this same John of Gaunt was the father of Henry IV and the founder of the Lancastrian dynasty.

Edward IV:

A young warrior who grew old and fat. Womanising and greedy. Took the throne by force from a weak mentally challenged King.

ASOIF parallel: Robert.

Executed his own brother. (To be fair, said brother was a douche.) Said weak mentally challenged king died in prison, supposedly of "melancholy", and was then publicly buried; I'll leave you to judge whether it was "likely" that Edward IV had him murdered. Not that I hold that against him, either; seems like the best course of action at the time. And I certainly think he was justified in taking the throne from said weak, mentally challenged king, since not only the Lancastrians had killed his father and one of his brothers (after having captured him!), but he and his whole family were no doubt going to either be killed or in exile unless he won and took the throne.

I'm just saying, if you are going to list things that are not proven against some of these people (like Richard III "likely" having his nephews killed), why don't you do for all those kings? Especially when it's a fact, like Clarence's execution.

Richard III

Took his nephews throne. likely had them killed.

ASOIF parallel: Stannis.

Debatable and still hotly debated. It has never even been proven that they were murdered, let alone when, let alone by whom. (The latter two are unlikely to ever be proven.) Nobody was ever officially accused of their murder; neither Henry VII nor Henry VIII not anyone else officially condemned Richard or anyone else of that crime, not did they officially state that the crime happened. Apart from the theories by historians, historical fiction writers, bloggers and people arguing online, Richard has only been "on trial" in a few mock trials in recent decades, which all ended in the "not guilty" verdict, since it was concluded that it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Richard had them murdered, or that they have even been murdered at all.

Lancastrian Kings:

Henry IV:

A steady king after Richard II. Didn't do too much.

ASOIF parallel: Viserys I maybe

Took his cousin's throne. Said cousin died in prison under unexplained circumstances. (I'll let you decide whether it's "likely" that he had him killed.)

Henry V:

A great warrior. Won the Battle of Agincourt. Was offered the Crown of France. One of England's most glorified monachs.

ASOIF parallel: Aegon I.

Some of the glorious things Henry V did:

Ordered his men to slit the throats of all French prisoners at Agincourt who were not highborn.

During the siege of Rouen, forced the women and children who had been sent out of the town to remain in a ditch where they had been trapped, without food and shelter, during harsh weather.

After taking the town of Caen after a siege, ordered all men and boys over 12 to be killed, about 1800 people, for no other crime than having tried to resist his conquest of their city. When asked why by a Dominican friar, allegedly answered: "I am the scourge of God sent to punish the people of God for their sins".

Did similar things in a number of other French towns he had besieged and taken over.

Henry VI

A weak and mentally challenged king.

ASOIF parallel: Aerys II The Mad.

Aerys was cruel and enjoyed raping his wife and burning people. Henry VI was mostly catatonic and just wanted to be left alone and not have to do any of the kingly stuff.

A lot of the above facts and almost-facts could also be cherry picked some other way. One could also list some arguably more important things, things that affected the kingdom and the common men, like the laws those kings passed, the institutions they founded, which would have given a very different picture, but nobody seems to care about that compared to who was deposing who, who was or wasn't killing their relatives, who drank and whored, and who conquered France only for England to lose it during the reign of his heir.

[Annara Snow]

Actually, there was already sentiment that Richard was attempting to usurp the throne when he pushed Edward's coronation back.

:

There was "sentiment"? Well, it certainly looks like there was also "sentiment" that the Woodvilles were plotting against Richard! So?

Funny how you want documents to prove some plots, no less, and then claim there was "sentiment" (whatever that means) as proof of some other plots...

Actually, Edward IV's council voted on the matter and instead of naming Richard Protector, they voted on making Edward V rule as an adult king with Richard a part of the council.

Source, please.

From Dan Jones' The Wars of the Roses: The Fall of the Plantagenets and the Rise of the Tudors:

Edward IV’s will is now lost, but on his deathbed it seems that he tried to establish a series of

compromises by which kingship could have been operated during his son’s early reign. He had made

a concerted personal attempt to reconcile those around him who were engaged in long-standing

quarrels, bringing Lord Hastings to his bedside and commanding him to make peace with Thomas

Grey, marquess of Dorset, the queen’s eldest son. Although Dorset was married to Hastings’s

stepdaughter, the two “maintained a deadly feud”: they were territorial rivals in the Midlands and

according to the writer Mancini, rivals for the embraces of “mistresses whom they had abducted or

attempted to entice from one another.”18 Next, to balance the fact that his son would remain

comfortably in the care of Rivers and the Woodvilles, the dying king seems to have nominated his

faithful brother Richard, duke of Gloucester, next in line to the throne after the young duke of York

and therefore naturally the greatest man in the realm, to take command of government, effectively in

the position of Protector.

Where does that say that Edward IV made Rivers responsible for Edward V's person in his will?

That's a pretty big jump to conclusion to make from the way one historian worded a sentence, and you are the first person I've seen jump to that conclusion.

And even if that one historian actually meant to say what you think he said, which is not at all clear from that paragraph, what is the source and reference?

Your interpretation of a sentence from a book by a modern historian hardly constitutes evidence.

[In A Coat of Gold]

There was "sentiment"? Well, it certainly looks like there was also "sentiment" that the Woodvilles were plotting against Richard! So?

Funny how you want documents to prove some plots, no less, and then claim there was "sentiment" (whatever that means) as proof of some other plots...

There was no sentiment at court, by anyone that anyone was threatening Richard's life. None. No one says anything of the sort. Not one person, but Richard himself.

Source, please.

Just one paragraph lower in the same book

As soon as Edward’s death was known, those of his councilors who were in London gathered to

debate the best form for the new government to take. Two solutions were suggested. The first was the

establishment of a Protectorate, which, according to Mancini, was what the old king had directed in

his will. The only plausible candidate for the role of Protector was Richard, duke of Gloucester, the

most senior adult nobleman of the royal blood. Gloucester was away in the north of England,

overseeing military efforts against the Scots. As soon as he had heard of Edward’s death he had come

to York for a funeral ceremony at which he wept for the loss of his brother. But grief did not distract

him from politics: Gloucester found time during his mourning to write to the council, stating his claim

to be Protector, for which Lord Hastings lobbied hard on his behalf in London. Hastings was

motivated by two very obvious factors. He was naturally wary of Thomas Grey, marquess of Dorset,

and the Woodvilles, who bore him “extreme ill-will” and with whom he was so uneasily

reconciled.19 Hastings had lost his post as chamberlain of the royal household on Edward’s death; he

may well have feared that under a Woodville-led government he would also be deprived of his

captaincy of Calais. But more than this, Hastings was motivated by loyalty. No man, save perhaps

Gloucester, had been closer or more faithful to Edward IV, and it was therefore a matter of honor that

Hastings should defend his late master’s wishes.

Yet the will of a dead king and the protests of his friends counted for nothing. Hastings was voted

down by those councilors “who favoured the queen’s family,” and it was decided instead that there

would be no Protectorate: Edward V would begin his reign immediately. He would be crowned on

May 4, and would rule as an adult king, with a council convened to advise and assist him. Gloucester

would have a seat on this council, but he would not have preeminence.

Where does that say that Edward IV made Rivers responsible for Edward V's person in his will?

That's a pretty big jump to conclusion to make from the way one historian worded a sentence, and you are the first person I've seen jump to that conclusion.

And even if that one historian actually meant to say what you think he said, which is not at all clear from that paragraph, what is the source and reference?

Your interpretation of a sentence from a book by a modern historian hardly constitutes evidence.

There is no conclusion. It is directly implied that is what the will said, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. When you say source, what you really mean is "Make me believe it". It is quite logical that Edward wouldn't give his brother control of the government and the king.

[Annara Snow]

There was no sentiment at court, by anyone that anyone was threatening Richard's life. None. No one says anything of the sort. Not one person, but Richard himself.

Oh, you know that? I assume you employed a time machine and went there? Or you have a direct telepathic link to the people from 15th century?

Just one paragraph lower in the same book

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "source". I don't mean "this and this modern historian wrote that in his/hers book". I mean "this is the contemporary source/evidence that this and this happened". So, you should be looking up and giving me Dan Jones' references and quoting the evidence/contemporary sources (by order of reliability - official, documents; contemporary accounts, near contemporary accounts) he used, not telling me what he says in his book.

If you're going by "a historian wrote that in his/hers book", well, if we are to believe Alison Weir, who also claims to be a historian and sells her books well, Richard III was bad in bed, because he had scoliosis and people with scoliosis are no doubt bad in bed. :rofl: I must only conclude that she went back in time to set the record straight on that important issue... :p

There is no conclusion. It is directly implied that is what the will said, and there is zero evidence to the contrary. When you say source, what you really mean is "Make me believe it". It is quite logical that Edward wouldn't give his brother control of the government and the king.

LOL No, it isn't implied, and even if it were, this writer implying it would mean zero, especially if he can't even say it outright, much less prove it by reference to any evidence. In fact, what the writer seems to be doing in that paragraph is speculating on Edward's motives, since I'm pretty sure Edward didn't tell him that himself.

No, I'm not saying "Make me believe it", I'm saying "Give me at least one piece of evidence" or "Show that you didn't just make that up".

It's "logical"? That's your evidence?!

[In A Coat of Gold]

Yeah, this is pointless. You will whittle down any discussion to semantics. Have a nice life, ma'am.

[Yr Gloff]

The Tudors amended many documents when they came to power... one document claims that on the death of Edward IV Henry Tudor became King and not Richard III. History being written by the victors often means notable documents of the time are unreliable. There's a great deal more access to wide ranging information in this day and age though. Dan Jones... his sources... all could be and probably are unreliable in their own ways.

There's no real point in trying to decipher the complicated relationship of those three brothers. Richard logically would have been made regent for Edward V... as a member of the Royal Household and a proven soldier he had a great deal more influence, power and authority than Baron Rivers who... like (because of?) his daughter was not so popular. That would be the evidence to the contrary. Rivers would have needed Richard's support... which pretty much negates any point in him being named rather than the ever loyal brother. Richard was THE most powerful man in England - and trusted by Edward.

The major plot against Edward V from Richard was largely illegitimacy... make of that what you wish but Edward IV was probably a bastard and Richard's supporters were all too happy to repeat Warwick and George Plantagenet's claims. Richard's claim was that the wedding between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville was not kosher due to previous arrangements... which seems like a polite and public way of saying the same thing... There was something about Cecily here - not sure what but whatever Edward was (and for the fact his children) Richard obviously still regarded them family otherwise he'd not have supported Edward IV like he had.

The Tudors however have an awful track record of manipulating documents and god knows what. Henry VIII actually redistributed the lands of Dinefwr to his supporters... then eventually beheaded the head of Dinefwr claimed he was in league with Scots and was preparing to proclaim himself Prince of Wales (Which is regarded con-temporarily as being a lie)... interestingly the son of the man who actually killed Richard III. So yeah... its about reading between the lines and you've still got to make a few assumptions as to whats more than likely a fact or not.

[Tyrions_Big_Toe]

I'm from York so solely on that basis I'm a Yorkist. Lancaster is the enemy

[Marcel]

Rhaegar is, in a sense, closer to Richard III. Both were vilified by the victors.

[SFDanny]

Can I choose Tylerist instead? As in Wat Tyler. Closer to my real world politics. Not a fan of watery tarts lobbing bloody scimitars as a basis of government. :cool4:

[Tyrell_like_Squirrel]

Oh YES! So glad to see a thread on this subject!

I'm a Yorkist through and through, gotta love 'em.

There are some comparisons you can make between house Baratheon and the Yorkists. Robert is like a nightmare version of Edward IV, Renly is a smarter George, Duke of Clarence, and Stannis is an unloved Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

I think it's surprising that people do the old "York=Stark." Richard, Duke of York was just an inadequate politician trying to bring some semblance of good government to England. There are a lot of parallels between him and Ned Stark, although I always found William, Lord Hastings to be the better comparison. It's hard to apply direct parallels in ASOIAF. You could make the argument that the Stark family is really similar to house Percy, a beloved northern family who lost almost all of its major members during the wars of the roses.

I'm also a HUGE fan of Richard Nevill, Earl of Warwick. Some people have compared him to Tywin Lannister, but I see him as more of a combination of Renly, Jaime, Littlefinger, and yeah a bit of Tywin. There's really no direct comparison you can use for him at all. His sense of style and badass flamboyance are unmatched!

I do have a soft spot in my heart for the Lancastrians, specifically Jasper Tudor who was just all kinds of awesome.

[kieran wilkie]

Oh YES! So glad to see a thread on this subject!

I'm a Yorkist through and through, gotta love 'em.

There are some comparisons you can make between house Baratheon and the Yorkists. Robert is like a nightmare version of Edward IV, Renly is a smarter George, Duke of Clarence, and Stannis is an unloved Richard, Duke of Gloucester. .1

I think it's surprising that people do the old "York=Stark." Richard, Duke of York was just an inadequate politician trying to bring some semblance of good government to England. There are a lot of parallels between him and Ned Stark, although I always found William, Lord Hastings to be the better comparison. It's hard to apply direct parallels in ASOIAF. You could make the argument that the Stark family is really similar to house Percy, a beloved northern family who lost almost all of its major members during the wars of the roses. .2

I'm also a HUGE fan of Richard Nevill, Earl of Warwick. Some people have compared him to Tywin Lannister, but I see him as more of a combination of Renly, Jaime, Littlefinger, and yeah a bit of Tywin. There's really no direct comparison you can use for him at all. His sense of style and badass flamboyance are unmatched! .3

I do have a soft spot in my heart for the Lancastrians, specifically Jasper Tudor who was just all kinds of awesome. .4

1. I think you're right about the translations between history and the stories characters, they're ambiguous, with multiple connections to multiple different characters, Edward IV has similarities to Robb Stark due to battle success, and also to Robert for being a great fighter.

Richard does resemble Stannis somewhat, both sure of right and wrong and also quite good commanders, also aiding brothers to kings, (Richard was handsomely rewarded for his service to his brother and was on good terms with him.)

You're right about Renly resembling George, but he also in a strange way resembles Edmund, getting stabbed through the heart, or at least his fate does.

2. I get where you're coming from with the Stark- Percy's, but I've always compared them more to the Nevilles myself, not so much in wealth, or codes, but in the fact they are fast land holders in the north like the Nevilles.

3. Richard, Earl Warwick is a complete don, though I wouldn't compare him to Jaime in that he wasn't a particularly renowned fighter and not the best of commanders (at least in land battles (though I'll certainly give him credit for the success of the First Battle of St Albans. His raiding strategies along the coast and on foreign ships was brilliant. I can definitely see a bit of Renly, Tywin and Little Finger in there, though int he case of the latter two I feel he does his manipulating and power in a far less "despicable" way.

For his sheer awesomeness I've forgiven him for joining the Lancastrians (although their awesome too)

4. I'm a Yorkist, not just because they seem more interesting characters to me, but also because I just prefer their claim, however the Lancastrians were awesome. My favorites are the Dukes of Somerset, the Tudor's were cool (at this point, after they usurped Richard I dislike them, but Jasper was cool).

My favorites are;

Richard III

Richard, Duke of York

Edmund, Earl of Rutland (not so much the character, just the tragic death which added to the defeat of Wakefield)

John Neville, Marquis of Montagu

and Edmund Duke of Somerset

[JonisHenryTudor]

Yorkist.

Actually my unhealthy addiction to the Wars of the Roses accidentally led me to this series....and I immediately fell in love with the Starks.

Although I say Edward IV is Robb, not Robert. Both were undefeated in battle, and both made terrible marriage decisions....one died, the other did not. Well I mean Edward IV is dead now, but not because of a wedding ;).

Richard of York - Ned.

[SeethemFly]

I don't think the "Lancaster" and "York" parallel is as clear cut as some have suggested, and therefore an inherent bias towards the Lancaster's doesn't sway my view either way.

For example, although the "Lannister" and "Stark" names are obviously directly inspired by the Lancasters and the Yorks, lots of characters embody their characteristics in my opinion. So while Bran and Rickon can be seen as a parallel of the Princes in the Tower and Cersei and Joffrey can be seen as Margaret of Anjou and her cruel (and rumoured bastard) son Edward of Lancaster, other characters also have Wars of the Roses influences. The best example of this is the brother's Baratheon who are clearly the Three York Brothers. Even their personalities are similar (Robert = Drinky, playboy, burdened by responsibility, disillusioned = Edward IV, Renly = flighty, proud, preening, usurps his brother's position = George, Duke of Clarence, Stannis = stern, humourless, takes duty very seriously = Richard III).

A very old thread that I started a couple of years ago has more detailed discussions about who resembles which historical characters and events beyond the Wars of the Roses.

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/75702-comparing-historical-eventscharacters-to-the-series/

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

GRRM is a confessed Yorkist... now if he molded the Baratheons or the Starks after them i don´t know, by name it would be the Starks but by characters... the Baratheons for sure, he already said the closest model to Bob was Edward IV

[The Weirwoods Eyes]

As a Yorkshire lass, I am obviously more on the Yorksits side. ;) and yes I am Team Stark.

[In A Coat of Gold]

Lannisters seem to be modeled after the Woodvilles. Richard Woodville(Tywin) was pro-Lancastrian backer til he saw the cause was lost, then switched sides. His daughter,Elizabeth(Cersei) marries the new king Edward IV(Robert). Elizabeth's brother, Anthony Woodville, is a skilled politician(Tyrion), and is reputed to be the finest knight in England(Jaime).

[In A Coat of Gold]

Yorkist.

Actually my unhealthy addiction to the Wars of the Roses accidentally led me to this series....and I immediately fell in love with the Starks.

Although I say Edward IV is Robb, not Robert. Both were undefeated in battle, and both made terrible marriage decisions....one died, the other did not. Well I mean Edward IV is dead now, but not because of a wedding ;).

Richard of York - Ned.

Robb has zero claim to the IT. Robb didn't depose any king. Robb didn't have children. The only comparisons are they are both young and good military leaders. Robert Baratheon fits much better. Through his grandmother, he has an actual claim to the Iron Throne. He deposed Aerys(Henry VI). He has two sons, who are both declared illegitimate, after he dies.