The war about The War of the Roses

[a_svirn]

> Catlady: 
> > I learned from Josephine Tey that Richard III was a good man and a
> good king, but what would be different NOW if he had kept his 
throne?
> > The only good thing I ever hear anyone say about Henry VII (7) was
> that he wrote 'Greensleeves', but without Henry VIII (8) would 
England
> still be Catholic, with an Inquisition? 
> > 
> > Elizabeth I is said to have been a genius at getting her country's
> economy up and growing prosperous - without her, would it be like
> Spain or Italy was before the European Economic Community started
> subsidizing them? How would that have affected the colonization of 
the
> Americas - would there now be only Spanish speaking, Portuguese
> speaking, French speaking countries in the Americas, or would the
> Dutch colonies have grown?
> > 
> > Without Elizabeth I, I imagine there wouldn't have been James I, 
and
> while he personally would be good riddance, would England and 
Scotland
> still be separate countries, with Scotland allying with France 
against
> England? That would have made the twentieth century's two Great Wars
> rather different.
> >
> Carol responds:
> 
> Henry VII wrote "Greensleeves"? I seriously doubt it. He was not a
> musical or a romantically inclined man. <snip> Henry VIII is
> a much more likely composer of the song. *He* loved his pleasures 
(as
> did his Yorkist grandfather, Edward IV).

a_svirn:
There is a legend that Henry VIII wrote "Greensleeves". He was a very 
musical man, and did indeed write some songs. However, there is no 
proof that "Greensleeves" was his creation. 

> Carol:
> England never had an inquisition that I know of (though the
> Lancastrian* Henry V's brother John, Duke of Bedford, took part in 
the
> burning of Joan of Arc in France), 

a_svirn:
You make it sound like he had personally tied her to the stake. He 
was the regent of France (The English France, naturally) and oversaw 
the trial and the execution. However, it was the French who condemned 
her. Not that I imagine Bedford had anything against the verdict. Why 
should he have? Anyway, he was a very decent sort, a good soldier, a 
good governor, loyal and fair man. Even his enemies respected him. 
Which is more that can be said of his other relatives, whether from 
the house of York, or from the house of Lancaster. I believe that Tay 
was alluding to the burnings of Lollards when she was takling about 
the Lancastrian "inquisition". 

> Carol:
and Richard III was remarkably
> tolerant of proto-Protestantism for a late-medieval Catholic 
monarch.

a_svirn:
Was he, though? In what way? He certainly was pious (founded 
religious colleges and so on), but tolerant? 


> Carol:
> I wouldn't credit Henry VIII with any form of religious tolerance. 
He
> just wanted to be the head of the Church of England so that he could
> divorce Catherine of Aragon.

a_svirn:
On that we are in the total agreement. 


> Carol: 
> The development of Protestantism in England, it would have been
> different, but it would have happened. But England wouldn't have had
> Catholic monarchs killing Anglican subjects (Mary I) and vice versa
> (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I). The Puritan overthrow of an English 
monarch
> might have taken place just as it did, but the monarch would have 
been
> a Catholic Plantagenet instead of an ostensibly Anglican Stuart with
> Catholic sympathies. 

a_svirn:
They did overthrow a catholic monarch in France. All in all I think 
the English were better off with Cromwell that with Robespierre. 

> Carol: 
> * I didn't list Henry V and his father Henry IV as Lancastrian kings
> yesterday because they predate the Wars of the Roses. Henry IV 
deposed
> and imprisoned his childless cousin Richard II and may have had him
> killed.

a_svirn:
He didn't, however, kill or even imprison in the Tower his young 
cousin March, who had a much better claim to the throne (and passed 
it subsequently to Richard of York). So points to Henry. We have one 
Prince in the Tower less we could otherwise have.