Jump to content

War of the Roses


Masha

Recommended Posts

George has been explicit. He, certainly, is drawing from the particular view of Richard that Shakespeare most popularized.

Personally I don't see any connection between Tyrion and either the historical Richard III or the fictional Shakespearian character.

The historical Richard III was more similar to Renly. A skilled, ambitious and politically astute younger brother of royalty.

The Shakespearian character... Sure they are both physically deformed, but the Shakspearian Richard III is cruel, jealous, ambitious and really just villainous all around. I don't see any similarity to Tyrion at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion gets blamed for murdering a prince. Richard gets blamed for murdering the princes in the Tower. Tyrion is accused of plotting and conniving to take power. Richard is accused of conniving and plotting to take power.

GRRM obviously meant these similarities to exist. Note what he says here -- Shakespeare's Richard III is a great character, even if there's not much historicity in it. I think he's showing us how Tyrion -- a person who _isn't_ a kinslayer, who _isn't_ really plotting and conniving -- can be made to look like he's one.

And then, of course, Tyrion starts to become the very thing he isn't, because he has been condemned to it. He kills his father, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ran: Good points. You've convinced me, there are some similarities.

I thought Clarence a better fit for Renly than Richard III.

Nah, Renly played all his cards right. Clarence was an over ambitious idiot. I don't really see any parallels.

If I had to pick a Clarence from asoiaf, I'd go with Theon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheers ran for the links.

littlefinger does'nt feel like Richard to me. Littlefinger is a far better politician and is no where near as pious.

i like the theon or Renly as Clarence. but as we have pretty much all stated there elements of one person mismatched in other people. time over time again.

if the Starks = York in a loose basis and the Lannisters the Lancasters. who would be the Stanleys? the lords in the vale? or Highgarden?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am currently reading 'the sunne in splendour' and it really feels like im reading asoiaff kind of. style,tone, types... awesometh..kind of

penman is a brilliant writer. her books featuring the welsh rebellion, here be dragons and the reckoning, are especially good, thought sunne in splendour probably remains her best work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 Settings: We have Duke Richard of York vs King Henry VI of Lancaster. Henry is known to be an inept leader with history of mental illnesses. His wife is Margeret of Anjou, a powerful and scheming woman who'd do anything for her son and heir Edward.

Henry VI suffered from periods of mental breakdowns which were followed by periods of clarity. He is supposed to have inherited the mental instability from his maternal grandfather, Charles VI of France.

Charles VI had a variety of symptoms thoughout his life. From violent rages and attacks on traitors, real and imagined, with his sword at hand to periods of lost memory and strange reactions to those around him. Including running in terror from his own wife, failing to recognise his own children and searching around for people already deceased. He was even known to roam his palace on all fours, howling like a wolf. Modern historians attribute his symptoms to a variety of causes: schizophrenia, porphyria or bipolar disorder.

Margaret of Anjou was powerful but most of her acts were defensive in nature. Cersei reminds me more of a combination of Isabella of France and Isabeau of Bavaria.

Isabella the "She-Wolf" was the wife of Edward II of England. She successfuly orchestrated the deposition of her husband and possibly his murder in his cell. Isabeau was the wife and Regent of Charles VI. She spectacularly failed at her duties, starting internal conflict at court and failing to win a single victory against the English, under a youthfull Henry V. Meanwhile her affairs with various brothers of her husband, both cast doubt on the paternity of her children and turned brother against brother. With the conflict between the Dukes of Burgundy and Orléans starting in about 1407 and lasting at least to the 1450s.

Henry VI is a grandson of Henry Bolingbroke who overthrew King Richard II. Richard II was the oldest son of King Edward III, Henry was a son of 3rd son of Edward, and Richard of York is a grandson of 5th son of Edward III thru father and a great greatson of 2nd son of Edward III.

Edward III had the following sons who survived to adulthood:

*Edward, the Black Prince. Also known as "Edward of Woodstock" by his birthplace. Prince of Wales. He led many campaigns during the first phases of the Hundred Years' War, from 1345 to 1371. However in 1371 he starts suffering from a "wasting illness" which costs him his life in 1376. Predeceasing his father by a full year.

**Edward was the father of Richard II. Richard took the throne in 1377 and was deposed in 1399. He died in captivity early the following year. Richard was twice married but never had any children. The Black Prince's line goes extinct with his death.

*Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence. He devoted most of efforts in attempts to govern Ireland. Lionel died in 1368. There were strong suspicions that he had been poisoned by his new father-in-law Galeazzo II Visconti, Lord of Milan.

**Lionel was the father of Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster. Philippa was the heiress of Richard II from 1377 to her death in 1382. Her marriage to Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March produced five children.

***The eldest son of Philippa was Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. He was heir to Richard II from 1382 to his death in 1398. His son Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March was heir of Richard II from 1398 to the deposition of the King in 1399.

****Edmund caught the plague and died childless in 1425. He had survived all his siblings. However his sister Anne de Mortimer had married Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge. They had two surviving children, a son and a daughter. The eldest son was Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York who was thus the senior heir to the English throne by cognatic primogeniture.

*John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Arguably the most powerful political force in England between the death of the Black Prince in 1376 and his own death in 1399. Also claimed the throne of Castile for much of this period in the name of his second wife.

**John had seven children by his fist marriage to the heiress of the previous Duke of Lancaster.He had two children by his marriage to a claimant of the Castilian throne. He also had four legitimised bastards who took the last name "Beaufort". The descendants of the legitimated included Henry VII Tudor.

***At the time of John's death, the only legitimate son surviving him was Henry Bolingbroke. Henry was in exile when his father died. Richard II issued orders preventing Bolingbroke receiving his inheritance. With a special provision that he could still inherite when Richard says so. Instead of trying to restore himself to royal favor, Bolingbroke organised the rebellion that gained him the throne by the end of the year.

****Henry IV reigned from 1399 to his death in 1413. He had seven children. The one who succeeded him was "Henry of Monmouth" or Henry V. Henry reigned to his death in 1422. Henry VI succeeded at this point.

*Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. Mostly overshadowed by his brothers. Died in 1402. He had two sons and a daughter. His daughter married into the Beauchamp family and was ancestor to Earls and Dukes of Warwick.

**His eldest son was Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York. He died at the Battle of Agincourt in October, 1415. He was childless and his younger brother ,Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge, had been executed for treason in August, 1415.

***Cambridge had two children. His son was not allowed to succeed his father but was allowed to succeed his uncle. Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York who would become the senior Plantagenet in 1425.

*Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester. Leader of the Lords Appellant, the alliance of barons attempting to rest control from Richard II. He was assassinated in 1397 by Nicholas Colfox, a knight following orders by Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk. However Rchard II was widely believed to have been behind Norfolk in this occassion.

**He had four children who were not allowed to inherit his title. However his daughter Anne married first into the Stafford and then in the Bourchier families. Her descendants include Dukes of Buckingham, Earls of Essex and Barons Berners.

After several battles, Yorks capture Henry again and this time an Act of Accord is made where Richard of York is made Henry's heir and regent while Henry's son Edward is disinherited and banished from London along with Margaret his mother who vows revenge.

Not exactly. Henry VI was captured at the Battle of Northampton on 10 July, 1460. Several of his most loyal nobles died while tried to defend his tend while the battle was already lost. The fighting mostly died out because the Lancasters did not dare to endanger the life of Henry.

Richard wants to legitimize his rule by Parliament and so summons one. About three months pass while preparing for it. The Parliament starts in London on October, 7, 1460. The discussions draw at length. The Act of Accord passes on 25 October and makes Richard heir to Henry.

Richard remains in London while Margaret of Anjou is reorganizing the Lancaster forces and recruiting new allies. When news arrive of Lancaster negotiations for an alliance with Scotland, Richard finally realised that its time to act again when Yorkshire is under Lancastrian threat. He leaves London on December 2. By 21 December, 1460, Richard arrives at Sandal Castle to find that the city of York and most of Yorkshire were in Lancaster hands already. He looses his life at the Battle of Wakefield on 30 December, 1460.

Meaning that two months of Parliamentary negotiations were wasted time for the Yorks and extremely useful for the Lancasters. The initial mistake was assuming victory when Margaret and her son Edward of Westminster were not in custody. Giving the Lancasters a more effective leader than Henry and a good figurehead respectively.

#6 Third Act: After death of Edward IV, his brother Richard rebels and captures Edward's sons (12 and 8-yr boys) proclaims them illegitimate due to "secret" wedding of Edward and Elizabeth and imprisons them after which they vanish in history. Becomes Richard II

Not an actual rebelion. Edward IV dies on 9 April, 1483. Leaving ten legitimate children by Elizabeth Woodville. His eldest son becomes Edward V. At the time of succession Edward VI was in Wales while Richard, Duke of Gloucester moves to take control of London government.

Richard captures the entourage of Edward on his return from Wales. On 30 April, Gloucester is declared Lord Protector. Thus being the effective Regent and King in all by name.

A few months later priest Robert Stillington and theologian Ralph Shaa bring forth evidence that Edward IV was already betrothed to Lady Eleanor Talbot when he married Elizabeth Woodville. By the laws of the time making Edward IV effectively bigamous and invalidating the second marriage. Gloucester made the story official with the "Titulus Regius" Act of Parliament (which makes the marriage.

The rest is the matter of succession laws in effect:

*Edward V was declared a bastard and deposed.

*The same bastardy removes from the line of succession his surviving full siblings Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York, Elizabeth of York, Cecily of York, Anne of York, Catherine of York and Bridget of York. Removing six heirs with one act.

*The next in line would be the next brother of Edward IV. This would be Edmund, Earl of Rutland who had been executed by the Lancasters in 1460. His line had died with him.

*The next one was George, Duke of Clarence. He had already been the heir to Edward IV from 1461 to 1466. However he had been convicted for treason in 1478 and "privately" executed shortly after. He had left two children Edward (later the 17th Earl of Warwick) and Margaret (later 8th Countess of Salisbury). However the children of traitors were disenherited.

*The next in line was Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the Lord Protector himself. Who is proclaimed "Richard III" on 20 June.

Richard gains the throne by having legal advantages and securing strong support from most of the Yorkist faction as a more capable leader.

#7 Conclusion: Henry Tudor is of house Lancaster (distant relative to Henry VI), comes from France, attacks and deafeats Richard II then he marris Edward IV daughter Elizabeth thus uniting two houses.

Not really distant. Henry VII was a nephew of Henry VI. His father Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond was a maternal half-brother to the last Lancaster King. His Lancastrian claim to the throne was a bit more remote.

*The line of Henry V becomes extinct with the deaths of his only son Henry VI in 1471.

*The next brother in line would be Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence. He had died in the Battle of Baugé back in 1421. His line was extinct with him.

*The next was John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford. The man who executed Joan of Arc. He had died in 1435. His line was extinct with him.

*The next was Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. His wife was Eleanor Cobham, convicted in a witch trial in 1441. Humphrey had been arrested for treason in 1441 and died in 1447. He had descendants but the convictions of both parents eliminated them from succession.

*The next was Blance of England. She ham married Louis III, Elector Palatine. She had died in 1409. Her line had went extinct with the death of her son Rupert in 1426.

*The next was Philippa of England. She had married Eric of Pomerania, King of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. However they never had children. She had died in 1430 and her line with her.

Meaning that in 1471, few descendants of Henry IV were alive and none part of the succession line.

The next in line would be the siblings of Henry IV.

*Philippa of Lancaster had married John I of Portugal . She had died in 1415 but had several descendants viable for the throne. Being Portuguese however probably would not help their case.

*Elizabeth of Lancaster had married into first into the Hastings family, secondly into the Hollands ans thirdly into the Cornwalls. She had died in 1426. Her descendants by 1471 included the Dukes of Exeter, the Earls of Kent and the Earls of Arundel. Somehow ignored usually.

*Katherine of Lancaster had married Henry III of Castile. She had died 1418 but still had descedants in Spanish nobility.

*Next would be the legitimised bastards of John of Gaunt. The Beauforts. The eldest was John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset. He had died in 1410.

**Somerset was succeeded by his eldest son, John Beaufort, 1st Earl of Somerset. He had died childless in 1418 and was succeeded by his younger brother John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset.

***The Duke died in 1444. He had only one legitimate daughter, Lady Margaret Beaufort.

****Margaret was very much alive in 1471. She had married Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond. Their son was Henry VII.

Henry claimed to be the senior Lancaster heir and went on to win his throne in the Battle Bosworth Field. However his "seniority" relied on ignoring the rights of his mother and a number of other female-line-descendants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#6 Third Act: After death of Edward IV, his brother Richard rebels and captures Edward's sons (12 and 8-yr boys) proclaims them illegitimate due to "secret" wedding of Edward and Elizabeth and imprisons them after which they vanish in history. Becomes Richard II

#7 Conclusion: Henry Tudor is of house Lancaster (distant relative to Henry VI), comes from France, attacks and deafeats Richard II then he marris Edward IV daughter Elizabeth thus uniting two houses.

A fine summary by the original poster, excpet that Edward IV's brother usurped the throne as Richard III, not Richard II. Richard II was the last of the Plantagenets, son of the Black Prince and grandson of Edward III. I am assuming this is a typo only.

Aratan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Do you guys agree to those similarities between The wars Of the roses and A song of ice and fire?

I've been thinking and I think it looks a lot like the wars of the roses; this is what I think 

Robert Baratheon: Edward IV

Cersei Lannister: Elizabeth Woodville

Jaime Lannister: Anthony Woodville

Stannis Baratheon: George of Clarence

Renly Baratheon: William Hastings?

Tyrion Lannister: Richard Duke of York?

King Joffrey: Edward of wales

Myrcella Baratheon/Lannister: Princess Elizabeth of York 

King Tommen I: Prince Richard

Twyin Lannister: ?

Joanna Lannister: Jacquetta of Luxembourg

Eddard Stark: Richard III

Catelyn Stark: Margaret of Anjou

Sansa Stark: Elizabeth I?

Bran Stark: ?

Arya Stark: ?

Robb Stark:

Jon Snow: Edward of Wigmore

Lysa Arryn: Margaret Beaufort

Robin Arryn: Edward of Middleham

Margaery Tyrell: Anne Neville?

Mace Tyrell: Richard Neville 'the kingmaker'

Loras Tyrell: ???

Visery's Targaryen: Jasper Tudor

Deanerys Targaryen: Henry Tudor

Rhaeger Targaryen: Edward of Westminster 

Aegon the conqueror: William I

Aerys Targaryen: Henry VI

Jeyne Westerling: Eleanor Butler

Maegor the cruel: Henry VIII!  LOL

Melisandre: Melusina

Lannister: Woodville

Targaryen: Lancaster

Stark: Neville

Baratheon: York

The north: Scandinavia or northern England

Iron Islands: Some Scandinavian islands

The Eyrie and the vale: Switzerland and Austria

Dorne: Spain

The Riverlands: ???

The Reach: France

The Stormlands: ???

The Westerlands: ???

What do you guys think? 

Ps:  I hate it when people compare Elizabeth Woodville with Jeyne Westerling... And Cersei with Margaret of Anjou;  it's just not right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cersei is a lot like Margaret of Anjou, actually, personality-wise. Look at how Margaret enabled her son, and look at how Cersei enables Joffrey. She's more like Elizabeth Woodville based on her position, but in terms of personality, she's very much like Margaret. I think you have to consider a lot of these people independently — they might fit a person based on personality or position, but the people around them might not fit the people around their historical counterpart. For instance, I think there are shades of Elizabeth of York in Myrcella Baratheon. But I don't think she's going to marry the Henry VII figure (who could be Dany, Jon or Aegon, depending on how their stories turn out).

I'd peg Stannis as Richard III, Renly as George, Duke of Clarence, Joffrey as a mix of Edward V and Edward of Lancaster/Westminster (former's position, latter's personality), Jaime and Tyrion as Anthony Woodville (Jaime's fighting, Tyrion's learning), and Ned as William Hastings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Richard III = Stannis

They're both skilled military leaders, they were both loyal to their king while he was alive, they both accused the queen of committing adultery, they both believed themselves to be the rightful king and fought to the end for it.

Eddard Stark= William Hastings? The loyal friend to Edward IV who was executed shortly after his death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard of Gloucester doesn't technically rebel; he is the Regent designate, and was so specifically legally and publicly by his brother when he lay ill/dying.

As I've seen with a few WoR's figures, Martin has had them reflected more than once. Young Edward IV is pretty much Robb, but older dissipated version in Robert.

Similarly, he's doing an interesting thing with Richard of G/III. Tyrion, in terms of the perception not equaling the reality; contrary to Shakespeare, who was writing under Richard's enemy's granddaughter, Richard was actually viewed as very able and where he ruled himself, popular. Until he reigned as equiv. of Warden of the North, the North had been a Lancastrian stronghold. Richard's sympathetic and just rule completely changed that and it became a seat of York power.

The Princes in the Tower WAS a controversy in its own time, however, and though there are differing takes on who was responsible, there's no doubt it could be seen to help his cause. My personal fave for the crime is Buckingham, who was something of a Littlefinger character. In any event the act would not have been all that unusual for the time, and without Shakes would have gone down as another in a long line of horrible acts on both sides during the Wars. But Tyrion inside/out reflects Richard III, in terms of Imp rep, we see him differently from the inside.

But as I mentioned, GGRrM likes to split these historical characters, and from the Lancastrian POV Rickon could be seen as Richard III...who was knows as DIckon. The wild youngest son who spends a lot of his childhood in exile, etc. Those parallels work too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always felt Richard of York. Cat was very much Cecilly Neville, imo, too.

You mean Richard III? Stannis more like Richard III than anyone. Ned has a lot of similarities to Hastings, except he was better behaved. As for the Nevilles, they're quite like the Tyrells (Mace being Warwick and Margaery being Anne/Isabel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...