Wars of the Roses and John of Gaunt's Love Life

One way to look at the Wars of the Roses is how the descendants of the mistress knock the descendants of the first wife off the top branch of the family tree.
The Wars of the Roses was about the history of a nation and a monarchy. It's also about a family. What was at stake wasn’t simply a series of battles between York and Lancaster. These events shattered the norms that had held the English monarchy together for hundreds of years. The Wars of the Roses kept asking the same question: Is it ok to get rid of the King? Sometimes the answer was “yes.” It’s the story of one man and how the descendants of his wife and the descendants of his mistress played nearly all the key roles in this giant power struggle. Just one man. John of Gaunt.

[@nancybradford8514]

Wow, I really enjoyed that one ❤, my favorite story of all, is the wars of the roses, and I liked how you explained the relationship with John of Gaunt, it helped in explaining a very complicated story .❤❤

[@kimberlypatton205]

I love this whole story!You couldn’t make it up any better if you wrote it as a scenario of “ Game of Thrones”! Your explanation of the relationships is excellent, especially for those unfamiliar with them! I adore medieval English history! Great video!

[@monicacall7532]

There were problems in the whole Lancaster-York situation that had nothing to do with John of Gaunt to begin with. Problem 1 was that Edward the Black Prince and Edward III’s heir died before his father did which left his young son Richard II as the next king. Regencies or ruling councils are almost always a terrible thing (look what happened during Edward VI’s early reign!) because the members of the council are usually only looking out for their own interests and figuring out how to get the young monarch on their side and not looking to train the young monarch to become a wise ruler who wants the best for all of his/her people. Or the opposite happens as with Edward V whose uncle Richard decided that rather than run his nephew’s council he’d get rid of the nephew and his younger brother and reign in their place instead. Because Richard II was so young when he became king and because he had sycophantic courtiers around him he felt that he could do no wrong. When he banished both Bolingbroke and Mowbray he shocked the nation, but when he confiscated Bolingbroke’s Lancastrian lands and castles he went too far. Most English citizens were happy to have a new king who didn’t rule by whim or to please his favorites. Henry V’s biggest mistake was marrying Catherine of Valois even if it was an important dynastic marriage uniting England and France. Her father the king of France was seriously mentally ill. While she didn’t deal with those problems that serious mental instability was genetically passed on to her son Henry VI. He had the double misfortune of becoming the king at just 9 months and also inheriting his grandfather’s horrible mental illness.
Granted, the mess between the Lancastrian and Yorkist factions were truly horrendous on many levels, but they weren’t the only causes that led to the Cousins’s War that we now call the War of the Roses! Thank goodness for the end of that civil war on Bosworth Field!

[@alpacinoravidutt]

Yeah edward of woodstock and henry v dying were 2 biggest vauses of the cousins. War

[@bbmtge]

It never ceases to amaze me how people write things without citing sources as if they possess some form of superior knowledge. It's even more amazing when they cite things as "common knowledge." This is a very simple introduction to a vast subject. And your notion/claim of an inheritance of mental illness is purely subjective, not factual. I trust you are impressed with yourself while failing to understand that you shouldn't be.

[@laurabrowning7973]

There was a caveat that barred them from ascending to the throne. they could inherit property and titles, but not the throne.

[@carolannlloydshakeup]

It's interesting. Although the original decree making them legitimate was ratified, the addendum/caveat barring them from the throne might not have been. It's not clear it was legally binding. Nathen Amin does a really good job discussing that.

[@leanie5234]

I love that you have tackled John of Gaunt. I have long thought that his was one of the most interesting stories. I always found it ridiculous that his illegitimate children could be legitimized by greasing some palms. The laws on illegitimacy were so powerful that many innocent children lived lives of desperation. Why should John of Gaunt be allowed to bypass the stigma just because he was wealthy ? He was married and PRODUCING CHILDREN with his legal wife. No papal BS should have changed reality. FFS !! Younger sons of wealthy families could be impoverished (look at the duke of Norfolk's brother's children !), but somehow, a bastard branch of a 4th son, who married a bastard branch of a Queen dowager suddenly merits the throne. Ugh
Please do Edmund Beaufort next. Was he really Queen Margaret's lover ? How about Catherine of Valois ? Could he be the REAL father of Edmund Tudor ?

[@alpacinoravidutt]

Yes younger sons of royals could be poor and without land which is exactly why john of gaunt wanted to legitamize them. So he could legally provide for them and give them some income. And he didnt grease some palms.he was richards ii protector and loyal uncle, he deserved it for his kids

[@williethomas5116]

Yes that twice bastard Tudor claim was ridiculous. Even if you accepted the Papal legitimatization of the Beauforts Henry's claim passed through his mother. If that was allowed then the York's still had a much better claim through descent through Lionel Duke of Clarence John's older brother.

[@NinjaGrrrl7734]

​@@alpacinoravidutt I don't necessarily count loyalty to Richard II as a plus.

[@alpacinoravidutt]

@@NinjaGrrrl7734 not being loyal means he wouldve broken a vow he made to his dying brother to protect his son (richard ii) at all costs. Gaunt loved his brother wayy too much to do anything else

[@jeromesullivan4015]

Well Kat Swynford did birth several Barstewards ..so to speak..

[@rebeccaherschman1635]

Id love this if she had a better voice for history