h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The First War of the Roses - A1111366
Author: And Introducing... A Leg -- My five-part historical epic - Coming Soon!!! - U194118

Part II

There are points in this article in which I wasn't sure whether the person described by a new geographical reference=same person or different character.

Can you give me some examples, and I'll have a look.

Sentence starting "Warwick and March..." Who has sworn loyalty to whom?

Are Rutland and March brothers?

By the time we get to Clifford (under your section Towton), I have no idea who he is. Was he referred to geographically before?

Under Last of the lancs. This Edward you mention here, is he York (formerly March, now the king) or is this Warwick being diplomatic?

Was Burgundy a separate country or was he a person, or was he being treated as his own power to spite Louis?

Still going well - wasn't this where Warwick picked up his nickname ? Is it worth bunging that in ? - Kingmaker.

Good style incidently and I think you're keeping the characters nicely in line, though of course I know who they are, which makes it easier. But whilst mentioning Somerset's treachery when he meets his end, you've not really explained which side he was on at the time.

The Duchy of Burgundy was located in modern Flanders and North-East France. The Duke paid homage to the king of France, but only nominally. In reality, Burgundy was a wealthy and powerful independent state, due to its position on the medieval trade routes. I think that needs a footnote. I'll put one in soon (not straight away, though, I'll give it some thought.)

As to Warwick, I've given him his nickname during the second war. I'm not entirely sure when he was first called Kingmaker - the records are unclear - but I'm certain that, had he not rebelled and restored Henry, the nickname would not have lasted.

Thanx for your comments, BTW.

Aha! This explains the concentration on Calais, and why someone there might be in a position of power. The realpolitik becomes more clear, too.

Sorry all for not knowing the personages involved. This is largely glossed over in American classrooms-we really like (other peoples') royalty, only so long as it's not us that *has* to pay too close attention to it. I was thinking my naive view would help you think about your entry from a distance. I know just having done an entry that I had spent so much time close in on the subject that I missed some quite obvious things.



Was Twdwr still of primarily Norman descent, or could it be said he's the first native to rule since the Invasion?

Henry Twdwr claimed the throne in part from Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy, but any trace of Norman blood had almost certainly vanished by his time. And the Twdwr family had no Norman ancestry at all. I tend to think of the Twdwrs as the first native (if you can count Welsh as native) dynasty since 1066.

That said, the kings since 1154 were Angevin (Counts of Anjou, south of Normandy) rather than Norman, and were all descendents of Alfred the Great. (After the Battle of Hastings, a boy called Edgar Atheling, of the old dynasty, was appointed king. He fled to Scotland with his sister Margaret soon after, where Margaret married King Malcolm. Their daughter married Henry I of England, and his grandson was Henry II). So you could say that the old Wessex dynasty had been restored in a form long before.

I've added the Burgundy footnote now, but to the article on the causes of the Wars, where it is first mentioned.

Yes, as you say, there's a natural tendency to not explain things that are at the same time very important to an article, and not directly related to it, if you see what I mean. And that is what peer review is for, and I'm grateful to you for taking an interest.

You made me go back and read both articles! Now the story reads clearer. There is still a pronoun of ambiguity I don't quite understand here.

Did (captured) Henry VI use his royal standard when going back to London with Warwick and March, or was March using some dimidiation with his arms and Henry's, or did Warwick complicitly march alongside March knowing full well that March was using only the royal standard and thus claiming himself king, or were both Warwick and March, both still (presumably) being on the side of the king now using the King's standard for their combined armies (We Protect the King! *snicker*)?

Henry was using the royal standard, as he was king. Warwick and March would have used the coats of Arms of Warwick and the Marches, and York the Arms of York. The change was when York used the Royal standard - that is, the English lions and the French fleurs-de-lys, which only a king had the right to use. It was a symolic statement that he was going to claim the throne.

I must have a look to see if there's an article on heraldry. If not, that'll be my next project.

So the 'he' in the sentence "He was using the royal standard without any additions." is March.

What is the significance of Warwick's and March's duplicity-since banners are meant to be quite visible, why should it be a matter of concern what Henry VI believed? Was Henry VI blind at the time?

No, the 'he' is York, March's father, making his way over from Ireland. Warwick and March would have used their own coats of arms as they accompanied Henry to London - nothing unusual about that at all. Remember, Warwick and March invaded from Calais, captured Henry, and then York came over from Dublin. He surprised his followers as much as his opponents when he claimed the throne.

Now I understand. I must remember that communication was something of a challenge in those days and that just because March was York's son, doesn't mean he got a cell phone call from daddy saying "you're a Prince now, boy!".

Another superb entry so if you don't mind I'll recommend this one as well.
sbe

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Well done, 2 out of 2. Great work. If any of the others are around next month I'll do the same, but I think I've blown your cover now!!
sbe

Excellent, Announcing!

-- Four down, just the one to go!!!! Yessss Indeedy!