"Yorkist or Lancastrian ?" Topic

Hello everyone,
When it comes to WOTR, what is your favorite camp?

Yorkists or Lancasters?

Or another?

And why?

Yorkist,

Yorkist

Why ?

An extended family squabble for an illegitimate throne. I'll pass.

I imagine most will say Yorkist due to Edward IV and his military successes.

We had a poll on this before. York won. (Sort of. They had 42%)

I always went for Yorkists in Kingmaker.

I kinda like Jasper Tudor when you read about the major players.

York. Superior claim, IMHO.

York – Richard III seemed like a fun guy.

My family from Yorksire, so I am in with the York, of course.

How does York have a superior claim?!

Henry VI was the reigning king for many years, and was a direct descendant from IV and V. I know it gets muddy before that, but you gotta draw the line at some point.

York -- because I had great fun playing in an historical-fantasy RPG game as a Yorkist.

OlYeller, Edward IV was the party guy!

Lancastrian. They seemed to lose more battles
Makes it easier to not let them down when I command an army.

martin

Yorkist, and mostly Ricardian.

Which thrones are legitimate, advocate?

I'm with Martin.

My grandad always said the only thing on the other side of the Pennines of any note is the north sea and I can't find any reason to disagree 😂

When playing Bloody Barons, possibly the best Wars of the Roses rules ever, I always go for Lancaster.

Just to add a historical note: Yorkist has NOTHING to do with Yorkshire, and Lancastrian has nothing to do with Lancashire.

What Herkybird said. Much of Yorkshire was actually Lancastrian. It was houses, not geography.

Having said that, I'm from Lancashire, and live in South Yorkshire, so Lancaster all the way. Tbh, the Tudors and their hilariously tenuous 'claim' to the throne are far more fun than either of them.

@advocate
Nobody was legit? You are a Republican.

@Herkybird
Military successes and legitimacy within it belonged to whom?

Bravo, it's true that the Yorkist has nothing to do with Yorkshire, and Lancastrian has nothing to do with Lancashire.

@Deucey
On the military level, the Yorkists achieved more success?

The Yorkists are the House of Plantagenet, which would make them more legitimate?

@Parzival
York because of their military successes?

What if you had lived in England at that time?

@0ldYeller
York.Richard III is perhaps not responsible for all the crimes of which he is accused?

Personally for my country and if I had lived at the time, I would say Richard 3, am I the only Richardian?

@377CSG
It's a valid reason.

@SBminisguy
What if you had a lot of fun playing a historical fantasy role-playing game as a Lancastrian, Richard 3, Tudor or a Yorkist Pretender?

@martin goddard
Why is it easier not to let the Lancastrians down?

@robert piepenbrink
Which thrones are illegitimate?

@Sean Clark
Do you choose the Lancasters based on a game rule?

Hmmm probably York. I like their people better. But mom's relative was a Lancastrian. So who the H#ll really knows. 🙂

Would England be the England of today, without the Tudors?

Lancastrians because they seemed to have a greater variety of livery colours. They all acted more like mafia bosses than nobles, so "ethical considerations" didn't come into my choice.

Martin. I like the Way you think!

York, but I seem to pick 'lost causes ' because of the romantic aspect.

If you had lived then, you wouldn't get chance to pick. That would be determined by whoever your local lord supported.

York and Lancaster were both Plantagenet ?

Always have been more York. But lately moving to Lancaster as Henry was the true king and his son the legit successor.

A pox on all their houses, long live the republic. But Teddy 4 if pushed

@35thOVI
Would England be the England of today, without the Tudors?
Did you mean Great Britain?

@Dal Gavan
You are absolutely right, whatever the family and the camp, anyway, they all acted like mafia families.

@Deucey
Me too, the Tudors are opportunists.

@mildbill
Where is the romantic aspect?

Is taking a poleaxe blow "sur le coin du nez"is romantic?

@forrester
It's true, given the political and social system, in general the guys didn't have much choice, except those who sold their military services.

@Pimu Meson
Lancaster?

A Constitutional succession would not have been useful, because the people of the time knew well who was legitimate.

@Dagwood
Yes

@Grattan54
Henry VI was the true king and his son the legitimate successor…
Was Henry IV legitimate? And not Richard II?

@Sandinista
Yes, but most dictatorships currently on earth are republics.

Regarding Herkybird's map – I was amused to see it has a double Gloucester!

No I meant England. But one could add Great Britain as well.

I have no particular preference.

I'm into the period, just not into what happened in the British Isles during it.

Was there something about Lancaster being in the area on that map marked "supporting the house of Lancaster" that I didn't understand?

Richard, Duke of York invented the brand of Plantagenet to package his claims.

After Geoffrey of Count of Anjou, father of Henry II, and his 'planta genista' badge, no-one in the Angevin line used the by-name Plantagenet until Duke Richard in the mid-C15th.

@Timbo W
Yes like that, each camp has one.

@35thOVI
No, because Great Britain did not exist at the time.

I have no particular preference.

@The Last Conformist
Yes, I even know some people who play wargames without being interested in history.

@42flanker
Was Duke Richard in the mid-C15th not a legitimate descendant of Richard II?

Richard, Duke of York (d.1460)was descended from King Edward III, his great grandfather, via Edmund of York, third son of EIII.

Henry VI was descended from John of Gaunt, second son of EIII, via Henry Bolingbroke, Earl of Lancaster, his grandfather, later the usurper Henry IV.

Richard of Bordeaux was the son of Edward of Woodstock, eldest son of EIII (later known as 'The Black Prince') who died before his father, so that EIII was succeeded by his grandson as Richard II, deposed in 1399.

Richard of York actually based his claim to the throne not through his father's line (deriving from Edmond of York who, contrary to 42flanker, was the 4th surviving son of Edward III) but from his mother's line (Anne Mortimer, deriving from Lionel of Antwerp the 2nd surviving son – thus senior to John of Gaunt the 3rd surviving son). Thus by strict primogeniture rules the Yorkist claim was superior. But Parliament had ruled in Henry Bolingbroke's favor, disregarding the Mortimer claimant, so the Lancastrians could claim to represent the force of English law and precedent.

Thank you for the clarification.
York, nonetheless was not a descendant of Richard II.

It's not like I've bothered to waste brain cells on it.

Eddy IV= house of Plantagenet, so direct descendant of Henry II, via Matilda the legitimate heir of Henry I.

Strikes me as a closer claim than Gaunt, who's a bit more roundabout, I gather.

But like I said, I've not really put any time into it. I do like Eddy IV's general character— he seems to have been a fairly good king, as kings go.

Hey, I could be wrong on all counts. Not really fussed about it.

If I had been alive in England at the time, I'm not certain where I would have been as my family name occurs in many places. Of two main branches, one would appear to have been in Lancastrian territory, the other Yorkish. So a coin toss. (They may have managed to stay out of it somehow.)

In any case, we made it through okay, and left all that nonsense for America in the 1600s-1700s by all accounts, arriving in New England and then travelling south, eventually settling from Virginia down to Georgia. I've found relatives on the rolls of Valley Forge and Yorktown. So a pox an all your kings!

Of course, that's all on my father's side, which is joined by a bunch of Scots, and from my mother more Scots and Huguenots as well. I'm a motley mongrel of conflicted warring clans, I am.

@42flanker
As Henry IV was a usurper, so was Henry VI illegitimate?

To be legitimate you had to be a descendant of Richard II?

@Eumelus
Parliament again…

@Parzival
Edward IV seems to have been a fairly good king?

How many did he assassinate or have murdered?

I dunno. You tell me. And tell me how many did the Lancasters do the same to?

Maybe you should just tell us all the "right" answer, and we can all agree with you and be done.

Anyway, I'm out. It's a silly question to begin with. :p

"It's not like I've bothered to waste brain cells on it."

We had an inkling

@Parzival
Despite Shakespeare, the reputation of Edward IV and his brother Richard III was not usurped, Henry VI and his son did not commit crimes of the same kind.

@42flanker
If Henry IV was a usurper, Henry VI is illegitimate.

To be legitimate you had to be a direct descendant of Richard II.

But since he didn't have one…

Who would be his legitimate descendant?

Henry IV?

Whoever can trace the best lineage back to King Arthur.

Or Brutus?

@Deucey
There definitely was one.