Gone Medieval - The Wars of the Roses: Rise of the Beauforts

Episode Date: May 28, 2022

As part of our Wars of the Roses special month, there’s one family that demands more attention than they usually get: The Beauforts’.The influence of the Beauforts’ in the Wars of the Roses can still be felt today, as Margaret Beaufort, the eventual heiress, gave birth to Henry VII, the first Tudor monarch. Though like most things in history, it’s not straightforward, and it doesn’t help that our guest and host today disagree on pretty much everything to do with the Wars of the Roses.Narrating this dramatic story, Matt Lewis is joined by author, Nathen Amin. The two delve deeper into the intriguing story of the Beauforts and the years of war and turmoil that followed. From bastards to princes, the Beauforts family tree is packed with some incredible characters.The Senior Producer on this episode was Elena Guthrie. The Producer was Rob Weinberg. It was edited and mixed by Thomas Ntinas.If you enjoyed this episode, make sure to check out the rest in the Wars of the Roses series:The Wars of the Roses: The OriginsThe Wars of the Roses: Dynastic WarThe Wars of the Roses: EndingsAnd if you want more from Nathan Amin on Gone Medieval, check out our very first episode, which Nathan was also the guest for: The Rise of King Henry VIIFor more Gone Medieval content, subscribe to our Medieval Mondays newsletter here. If you'd like to learn even more, we have hundreds of history documentaries, ad free podcasts and audiobooks at History Hit - subscribe today! To download, go to Android or Apple store.Join the History Hit Book Club in time for the June and July read of Charles Spencer's, The White Ship. Become part of a community of readers who are passionate about history and its thrilling lessons. Members read a new book every 2 months, and get a £5 Amazon voucher towards the cost of the book, as well as exclusive access to an online Q&A between History Hit presenters and the author in the second month Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. History Hits Book Club is back with a bang and this time we've gone medieval. See what I did there? I'm Matt Lewis, co-host of History Hits Gone Medieval podcast and one of the most interesting guests I've had on was Charles Spencer, author of The Fascinating the White Ship, which retells with thrilling, movie-like, heart-thumping prose, the story, of one dark, cold night

that forever changed the course of English history. In June and July, we're reading The White Ship and book club members get exclusive access to events and info from behind the scenes as we build up to a live Q&A with Charles Spencer, which I get the pleasure of hosting. You'll also get free access to other history hit events included with your book club membership,

as if you needed any other reason to sign up. Join in the fun, learn about history's key news, moments, people and themes, and join Charles Spencer and I for a live Q&A session in July. You can sign up today by following the link in the description below to start reaping the rewards of membership of History Hits Book Club. Welcome to this episode of Gone Medieval. I'm Matt Lewis. As part of our Wars of the Roses special month, there's one family that demands more attention than they usually get, and my guest today has been putting that right. The Beaufort family were descended. from royalty at the core of the Lancastrian faction during the Wars of the Roses,

and provided the royal route of the Tudor dynasty. Packed with some incredible characters and a confusing number of Dukes of Somerset, their story has been brought into the light by historian Nathan Amin, whose best-selling House of Beaufort, the Bastard Line that captured the Crown, has breathed life into this family and their story, which is at the heart of the beginnings of the Wars of the Roses. Anyone who follows Nathan or I on social media will be well.

aware that we tend to disagree about pretty much everything. For me, the Beauforts were the cause of much of the trouble in England for which the Duke of York is usually blamed. So please know how much it hurts me to have Nathan back as my first returning guest on Gone Medieval, but also please take it as a measure of how good his book is and how important reading it is to understanding the Wars of the Roses. Even when we disagree, we remain friends. And Nathan has repeatedly challenged, changed and refined my knowledge and understanding of this most complex of periods. So welcome back to Gone Medieval, Nathan. Thank you for having me, Matt. Always happy to duel you over your views on all things, Wars of the Roses. So let's start off with. What do we know about the origins of the

Beaufort family? Who were they and where do they come from? The Beauforts are probably most famous, not for what they themselves did in the early generations, but for who their parents were. They are famously the offspring, the illegitimate bastard offspring of John of Gaunt and Catherine Swinford. I think Catherine Swinford is probably more well known in the modern era through the fiction work, Catherine, by Ania Seton in the 1950s, which told of this great love match, this romance between her and the powerful Duke, John of Gaunt, a son of Edward the third. John was one of the richest men in his time, an incredibly powerful and interesting influential royal duke, a royal prince even, and Catherine Swinford was the daughter of a lowly knight

from the low countries. She was in fact in charge of his royal nursery. They've obviously met each other through this role, and over time they have entered into an extramarital affair. It was an affair that yielded four children, that we know of at least, born out of wedlock. They were the Beauforts, who rose to become these great, supporters to the House of Lancaster. They're kinsmen. You know, it's a very obscure origins in some ways compared to some of the other great families of the age,

the Yorks, the Starrfords, the Mowbris. But no one can say that despite their somewhat obscure origins, they didn't really give it all when it came to the 15th century. They really made their mark known. So they're kind of the result of one of those cliche things of having an affair with the babysitter. Do we know where the name Beaufort comes from? So we have these illegitimate children born to John of Gaunt and Catherine Swinford.

Now, they had no entitlement to their mother's married name of Swinford, and it certainly wasn't considered proper for them to be given the name Lancaster after their father's title. So the eldest son of this illegitimate clan, John, he certainly couldn't be called John Lancaster or John Swinford. Now the name that was eventually given to him and to his siblings, the name Beauford, this was inspired by a former French possession of John of Gaunt, the lordship of Beaufort in the Champagne region in the northeast of France.

It's probably likely that John of Gaunt wanted to give a name to his children, his illegitimate children, that didn't bring any personal conflict with his legitimate air, Henry of Bolingbroke, the future Henry IV. Now, they were certainly not born in France, as is often claimed. Most books we read that disgust of Beauforts always has them being born in France. But we have to remember, Catherine Swinford had three children of her own, young children, that she was raising in rural Lincolnshire. Rural Lincolnshire was part of John of Gunt's vast holdings, and it was almost certainly there that these Beaufort children were born. The Lordship of Beaufort in France, John of Gant actually lost this lordship to the French in 1369.

Now, we date the first Beaufort child to 1372. So it's almost certain that he's given them a name of a lordship he no longer possesses, but which doesn't bring the family into conflict with his legitimate Lancastrian lineage. You know, it's a shrewd move, and it's a pretty cool name. To this day, we still have the Dukes of Beauford, and they're still the only Dukes in the Peerage, who have a title that's not named for somewhere on mainland Britain. I suppose it's a neat way of giving them a name

that means something to the Lancasterian family, but doesn't give them a claim over a distinct piece of land that they could expect to inherit or anything like that because it's no longer in John's possession. So it's quite a neat little way of tying it all up. And what's interesting is that even in, one of the chronicles of the day by Jean Frossar. He refers to John Beauford as John Beaufort of Lancaster. That's almost his full name. John Beaufort of Lancaster. So, you know,

people certainly knew who the father was. But yeah, it's a certainly nice name. And it's certainly a name that's far more resilient, I guess, than John of God's lordship in France. And I guess who they were and where they came from becomes important as we approach the Wars of the Roses. So can you tell us where that left the first generation of Beauforts kind of legally, and in particular with reference to the Crown? Were they considered royal in any way? So the Beauforts, to begin with, certainly up to their late teens and their early 20s, they were very much part of John of Gant's household.

They were recognised as John of Gant's children with Catherine Twinford, but not part of the royal family per se. You know, they were very much his recognised bastard offspring. Now, John have gone to something remarkable in 1396, which is he marries his long-time mistress, Catherine Swinford, the mother of the Beaufort. By marrying Catherine Swinford, he is able to retrospectively ask for the Beaufort children

to be declared legitimate. And this is something that he does. You have to do this by the two courts of the day, by the law of the church and the law of the kids. of Parliament and John of Gaunt in 1396 and 1397 he seeks out these two dispensations. We have records in the paper letters for 1396 which show that John of God sent a messenger to the Pope seeking dispensation for all offspring past and present to be declared legitimate. In 1397, Parliament met in London to discuss the legitimacy of the bothhoods.

Again, at this time, they're in their late teens and early 20s. By being granted legitimacy in Parliament, it was declared that they were now begotten of royal blood. And they were permitted to receive, retain and assume all honours in the land, whether they be called Duchess, Principalities, Earldoms, etc. They have been made legitimate. So it is really from 1396 and 1397 that they are now. considered part of the English royal family. I think the line of the parliamentary act actually states as if you were freely and lawfully born in lawful matrimy. So I would say to begin with,

they are recognised as the bastard offspring of the Duke, but just that. By being illegitimate offspring, they can never attain or enter any sort of formal office. They could never inherit any irdoms of their own. They couldn't enter the church. John have gone, makes them legitimate in their late teens and early 20s, and this now brings them formally into the royal family as legitimised royal blood. And I think it was always believed that they were specifically barred by that Act of Parliament from ever claiming the Crown, so removed from the line of succession. But you question the legality of that clause in your book.

Absolutely. So the original Act of Parliament in 1397 clearly stipulates these Beauforts can be elected, assume, enter, retain all offices, whatsoever name they are. They are legally, lawfully born, members of the royal family. Now, 10 years later, in 1407, John Beaufort, the eldest of the Beauforts, he requested his legitimacy be reconfirmed by Parliament. And the reason he's done this is almost certainly tied in to the change on the throne. So in the intervening period, his elder half-brother, Henry of Bollingbrook, has actually usurp the throne and has become Henry VIII.

So John Boford simply requests his legitimacy be reconfirmed. He has his own group of children at this point. He's probably just crossing the T's and darting the eyes. And this grant is given. However, it later has come to light and nobody ever seems to be able to tell when it came to light. this could have been a couple of hundred years later once historians have started going through the parliamentary documents and roles

but it has later come to light that a small caveat was scribbled in on the original parliamentary act it's actually scribbled in between the lines and it says that the Beauforts were except to the royal dignity in that they are not able to be raised to the throne

the principalities, earldoms, baronies fine but they could not be raised to the throne and nobody's ever really questioned this. People have just assumed that Beauforts were bad. But when was this scribbled in for a start? It's effectively an act of graffiti on a parliamentary role. And the reason I say that is for any act of Parliament to be changed. It has to go back through Parliament.

Parliament has to either repeal the original Act, say this 1397 Act no longer exists, we have a new Act, or they are. endorse the changes. None of this has ever happened. There's no record whatsoever anywhere of Parliament changing the Beaufort's right to inherit the throne. If we fast forward a couple of decades to 1450, there is rumours that young Margaret Beaufort's pedigree was going to be used by the Duke of Suffolk to put his own blood on the line. The Beaufort claim didn't just suddenly appear in 1485 under Henry Tudor to challenge return to the throne. The Beaufort claim was always there.

We don't know when, how or who scribbled in this three words on the Parliamentary Act. We just know somewhere in the intervening couple of hundred years it has appeared. Now, what I would love to do if I ever had the power or the influence to do it, as I'd love to have this parliamentary role where somebody scribbled in these three words analysed. and assessed to try and at least date, perhaps, when it was scribbled in. But the bottom line is, at the end of the day, Parliament themselves never ever endorsed any barring of the Beauforts. And that's the key thing we must always remember. I think, as you say, the bit about Margaret Beaufort being used to secure a claim to the

throne for William De LaPoll's son as part of an attempt to bring down William de LaPole really does highlight that, at the time, people felt like the Beaufort name, was. connected to the throne legitimately and that being married to a Beaufort gave you that link. So in 1450 it was understood that they weren't barred from the line of succession. Absolutely. I mean, we have to remember that in 1407, when John Bulford requested his legitimacy to be reconfirmed, the sitting king of the day, Henry IV, had four sons and there was widespread expectation that each of these four sons would in turn have their own four sons. You know, the Lancasterian lineage was robust in 14 or 6. No one could have foreseen that fast forward to

1450 and we have one Lancasterian male heir left or male member, which is the king, Henry the 6th, and he has no, at the time, no heir of his own. His uncles had all died without their own legitimate heirs. The Lancasterian line in one generation has gone from being completely sturdy and robust to dwindling down to just one person. And this is where then the Beaufort claim and everybody else's claim of the day has started to come into the wider discussion. But there's no need in 14 or 6 for anyone to bar the Beauforts. Why would you when there were four legitimate Lancastrianaires waiting? And if we go off on a little bit of a tangent from the Wars of the roses just for a second. I got the definite impression from your book that you liked and admired one of the

less well-known Beaufort. So Thomas Beaufort seemed to be someone who really stood out for you. Who was he? And why do you think you were attracted to him as a character? What I like about Thomas Beaufort, who was the youngest of the original generation of Beauforts, a younger son, not expected to rise as high as his elder brothers, one of whom quickly became an earl and one of whom quickly became a bishop after they were made legitimate. Nobody expected much of young Thomas Beaufort, but I liked that a later chronicler referred to him as the wise and well-learned Thomas Beaufort.

You know, this was a man who ultimately provided a lifetime of service to the House of Lancaster on sea and on land with sword and pen. You know, he was a scholar, a soldier and a statesman. He really did it all over his lifetime. I consider Thomas Beaufort, above all others really to have been the man who secured

the English position in France during the wars the famous wars of Henry V. It was Thomas Beaufort who was personally tasked with holding the towns of Hafleur and Rouam in the face of intense pressure whilst Henry VIII is back in England

regrouping his army to launch repeated invasions of France. He was someone who was brave in war, pious by nature, loyal to the House of Lancaster, absolutely loyal to his core and very close to his nephew, Henry V. What I like about Thomas is that he was a very competent military man.

He even served as Chancellor, so he was truly a well-learned man for a soldier of the day. But we know that he was very generous to the unfortunate of his period. We are told by a chronicler William Worcester, for example, that Thomas Beaufort fed regularly 100, 200 or even 300 men a day with potage and wine, which I always think makes him sound like a very good friend in time of need. And if anyone in France had served with him and had fallen on hard times, you know, Thomas Beaufort would always provide food, fuels and candles.

I find him a remarkable figure who nobody discusses when we talk of the great knights of the late Middle Ages. We hear of Warwick the Kingmaker, we know about previous earls of Warwick, we know about Bedford, Gloucester. We very rarely discuss Thomas Beaufort. And I wonder if that's because he passed away without children. You know, he never had anyone to carry forward his incredible legacy, which certainly would have made the Wars of the Roses,

farm and entertaining if Thomas Beaufort did have his own clan there to take up the fight. And I guess for a younger son to ride, to become Duke of Exeter offers a really good example of how the Beaufort family provided this foundation of support for the House of Lancaster. He clearly was backing his nephew Henry V to the Hilt, performing a vital role in supporting the House of Lancaster. Absolutely. You know, when Thomas Boford was made Duke, there were only two other dukes in the Kingdom at that time, and they were the Dukes of Gloucester and the Dukes of Bedford, who were the King's brother. You know, Thomas Beauford was thought so highly of from his nephew, Henry V, that he was made a royal duke.

You know, and again, he was a younger son of an originally illegitimate line. This is a man who's risen to the top through his qualities rather than anything else. How can toilet training cows help save the planet? Should we start renting our clothes? And why on earth is beds from the Happy Mondays now keeping bees? I'm Jimmy Doherty, TV presenter, farmer and conservationist. And these are just a few of the questions we'll be answering on my new podcast on Jimmy's Farm from History Hit. Join me on the farm to hear from the likes of the founder of the Eden Project, Sir Tim Smith,

Professor Dieter Helm on how to stop climate change, and my old friend, Jamie Oliver. Listen to On Jimmy's Farm Now, wherever you get your podcasts. And you mentioned there that one of the original generation of Beauforts went on to become abyship. and this is Henry Beaufort, who is the Bishop of Winchester and also becomes a cardinal in his career as well. And for me, the feud that begins between Henry Beaufort, the Bishop of Winchester and Humphrey, the Duke of Gloucester, who you mentioned there was one of Henry V's brothers. I think the feud that develops between then is the real forerunner to the Wars of the Roses. So I guess the deliberately unfair question to ask is who was right out of Winchester and Gloucester?

If I was being just provocative just for argument's sake, I would say the Bishop of Winchester, big Henry Beauford. But of course, as we know, history is a lot more complex than simple goodies and baddies. It's an interesting period because England now, after 1422, it has a child king, and child kings always lead to periods of political and social unrest. You know, Henry VI becoming king are just nine months old. has really caused a power vacuum. It's just that age-old question, isn't it? Who should have taken power and who had right to have power?

Humphrey of Gloucester, he believed that he should have been made regent of England. You know, he said that this was his dying brother's wishes that he would be regent. Henry Beauford, the Cardinal, on the other side of the coin, had spent a couple of years in the political wilderness. He now saw this as his way of coming back to power but for him he couldn't be made regent

So his way to power Was to really put forth the argument for Consilia Governance The council should be in charge Not just one man It's the start of a personal A deeply personal food between two men Who really you know they were uncle

Our nephew Did Henry Beaufort see something in his nephew's Character that he felt needed to be covered England really needed a council to lead the charge. He himself definitely needed a council to help safeguard his position. So it's definitely an act of selfishness

involved. I would argue in this scenario, my reading of this scenario, is cards on the table, I'm not a fan of Humphrey of Gloucester. I find him a very rash man, a very proud man. And I do think that England at this time did need the vast experience of someone like Henry Beauford

who seemingly had the support of the vast majority of the nobility at this time behind him. I just think they're A feud is a really good example of how it's difficult to categorise this history as goodies and baddies and right and wrong, because this is really about unpicking the end of the 100 years war for England. Do you sue for peace with France or do you desperately just keep fighting? Henry Beaufort kind of bat the peace cause. Humphrey of Gloucester really believed in continuing the war with France. And for me, it's difficult to know whether there's a right or wrong

answer to that. They both had justification for what they were saying. But it kind of reflects the political situation in England as Henry the 6th is growing up and the problems that he's about to face internally because of all of this foreign policy disaster that's going on abroad. I think what a lot of people, you know, later students of the Wars of the Roses, I don't think what a lot of people realise is just how bitter this food was between Gloucester and Bishop Boford. You know, we have Bishop Boford excluding Gloucester, the protector of the realm, from power making. We have Gloucester accusing his uncle. Bishop Beauford of intending to seize the king and usurp the crown.

We even have them both amassing small armies and facing off against each other on London Bridge. This could have been the first war, a first battle if you want, in the Wars of the Roses. And it was only stopped by the intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prince of Portugal, who happened to be in the country at the time, and was actually a kinsman of both men. You know, they came that close to a battle, you know, the Battle of London Bridge. Imagine that story in history. You know, all of the seeds of the Wars of the Roses are really sewn in this food between Gloucester and Beauford. And we see this by where in future, the separate factions in the Wars of the Roses almost derive their sense of right from.

Yeah, because those two factions are the original two factions in the country that, then become about Lancaster and York. You know, it starts off as Cardinal Beaufort and the Duke of Gloucester. But they kind of project that feud into the next generation, don't they? Because Henry Beaufort champions his Beaufort, nephews, particularly. The next generation of the Beaufort family wants to secure power and position for them. Humphrey Duke of Gloucester projects his complaints onto men like Richard Duke of Gloucester, who is being excluded from power for all sorts of other reasons. but kind of gets sucked into Humphrey Duke of Gloucester's fear. There's no evidence that I've ever seen that that York particularly sought that,

more that Humphrey drew him in. So you end up with that polarisation being continued and projected into the next generation where you've got kind of a Beaufort faction developing, another faction that will follow Humphrey who doesn't have any children, but nevertheless finds people to project it onto. So I think we're really seeing in the 1430s and into the 1440s, the Wars of the Rose is really beginning to split England's, politics. And what's fascinating is, in this 1430s period, we have young men like Richard of York,

Edmund Beaufort, William de La Poul, your future Duke of Suffolk, all in France serving together, not necessarily young men, you know, they're in their mid-20s, early 30s, but they're already having their positions, their future path laid out before them. You know, they're being taken on converging routes. And this is partly due to the influences drawn in on them. from above. It's hindsight, isn't it, at the end of the day? We see this again in modern politics sometimes where former allies suddenly get taken on divergent paths. I think it's an interesting dynamic, an interesting fiction book possibly should be had to write of these young men's experiences in France in 1430s before they all became the bitter rivals that led to their

violent deaths 20 years later. But it's certainly very much, the Wars the Roses is absolutely rooted for me in this early minority period of Henry V. 6th and that driving faction food between Bishop Beaufort and the Duke of Gloucester. The original York and Lancaster in many ways, despite them both being of the House of Lancaster. Yeah, and I think particularly in that next generation, we see after Humphrey Duke of Gloucester's death, Richard Duke of York becomes seen as that kind of leader of the opposition in his place. And, as, as a very good judge of After, you know, a short while there's John Beaufort, the first Duke of Somerset, who passes away, and is followed by Edmund Beaufort, the second Duke of Somerset.

And that rivalry between York and Beaufort and Edmund Beaufort is, I think, every bit as bitter as it had been between the Bishop of Winchester and the Duke of Gloucester and kind of really drives home that division and faction that will become the Wars of the Roses. So I think one of the things that you and I agree on is that the beginnings of the Wars of the Roses isn't about York and Lancaster. It's about York and Beaufort. The Wars of the Roses for me have always been a York. and Beauford rivalry. You know, the actions of a somewhat inert Lancaster and King on the sidelines

is a bit irrelevant. It is very much York versus Beaufort. And this is taken all the way through the wars to its terminus. Bosworth is still a battle between York and Beauford. It's just the Beaufort is now named Tudor. But it's still the same age-old rivalry, that golden thread down both factions.

One thing just going back a step that's quite ironic in some ways is that Bishop Beauford and Humphrey of Gloucester died within months of each other, or perhaps even weeks, I think, in 1447. It's almost as if once Gloucester died, Bishop or Cardinal Beaufort at the time, had no need to fight any longer. And he, you know, gave up his ghost. 1447 is definitely the end of one generation and the start of a new, you know, rancorous. period in English history, you know, what we now call the Wars of the Roses, you know, it certainly has that, you know, the older generation have died and the dogs are off the leash, so to speak. It's almost like Cardinal Beaufort just holds on just long enough to see Humphrey gone so he can claim a victory there and then he pops his clogs as well.

So the first Battle of St. Albans on the 22nd of May 1455 is often used by, I think, most people, as a start date for the Wars of the Roses. Do you think it was? I do if we're talking about things simply from a military aspect. You know, there clearly is a skirmish of some sorts that has occurred at St. Albans. I often view it very much as an assassination hit. It's a mafia-esque hit on the Lancaster and leadership, rather than, you know, the more traditional views of Bartle. But I think, yeah, I mean, I don't really have too much concerns

with pinpointing St. Albans as the start of the Wars of the Roses, simply because it's a deeply troubling shedding of noble blood that has created long-lasting desires for vengeance, you know, a very much a circular problem that never really goes away. Even, you know, it has his legacy deep into the reign of Henry VIII and even Mary and Elizabeth, that lingering sense that we can force a change on the throne through violence.

So, yes, I... I'm happy to take the fall of St. Albans 22nd of May, 1455, as the official start of the Wars of the Roses, if we will, but as we've already discussed, it certainly has its seed sown a lot earlier than that. See, I find it tricky to accept that as a start date of the Wars of the Roses, just because I think if you think of it as a dynastic struggle for the throne, it isn't because this is about York and Somerset,

and it's never about deposing Henry. So if you think of it as a feud, between nobles, it's been going on for years, decades, by this point already. So whilst I think the First Battle of St Albans is a real sea change in that this is armies in the field killing each other, I think it's either a continuation of something that's been going on for a while, or it isn't yet the beginnings of a dynastic struggle. So for me, I don't buy it as a beginning day to the Wars of the Roses, but it's nevertheless one that's been in the map for an awfully long time. We could have a very good claim for 1450, for example. You know, this is a year

where there is small outbreaks of violence between the factions of York and Somerset, aka Edmund Beauford, in that Edmund Beaufort is nearly lynched in London by followers of York, apparently only able to make his escape along the Thames. His castle of Cough is then ransacked by York supporters. I'm not seeing the York himself necessarily gave the order,

although I have my suspicions, but it certainly is as early as 1450 small tit for tat attacks going on between York and Somerset's followers. Like I said, you know, 22nd of May 1455, it didn't come from nowhere. It did, people didn't just wake up that morning and decide, I'm going to have myself a war. So, you know, I will accept it for just arbitrary reasons as the start of the Wars of the Roes-Deges, but it really isn't, you know, we need to keep on working back. You know, 1399 very possibly can set a lot of this in motions with the usupation of Richard the second. It's only then he started to deviate from a widely accepted line of

succession. But yeah, I mean, it's the York versus Somerset story for me from the moment that they first butted heads, which is probably late 1430s once they've started to be, you know, as impressionable young men with powerful food in patrons. And so Somerset is killed at the Battle of St. Orban's, along with other Lancastrian sort of leaders like the Earl of Northumberland, Henry the Sixth is injured, Somerset's son is led away from the battle in a cart because he's so badly injured. Lord Clifford is famously killed, so we start this big round of feuding. So why, I mean, I tend to think of the Wars and Rose's at this point as being about York and Somerset. So with the death of Somerset, why doesn't it end at St. Orban's York has killed his enemy, he has

control of the king and the government. Why isn't that an end to it? I like to focus down a one man's vantage point here, and that is Edmund Beauford's son Henry Beauford, who you've just briefly mentioned. Now, Henry Beaufort is 19 years old. He's in the Royal Convoy heading north with his father, with his cousin, the king, Henry V6th. You know, he's probably excited. This is possibly one of his first big journeys as part of a travelling Royal Convoy into the Midlands for this great council to be held in Leicester. And suddenly, they're attacked. by the Yorkist faction in St. Dolbans. There's chaos, there's confusion,

there's anguish, there's screaming, there's dead bodies. He is injured. I believe in such a small, packed town square, he very likely saw his father ambushed and murdered in front of him. We don't know what exact injuries Henry had. We know, as you say, he was taken off the battlefield in a cart. He is then, having just witnessed his father move, he has then made a ward of the Earl of Warwick,

famously known as Warwick the Kingmaker. Warwick the Kingmaker was the man chiefly responsible for the bloodshed that day. He's the man who broke into the town of St Albans and led this ambush on the Royal Court Party. And now a 19-year-old injured Henry Beaufort is handed over to him to be his master, his guardian, all the while witnessing his father's offices

gets stripped from him and divvied out between the Yorkists. You know, I think the captaincy of Carly being one office, the constable of England being another office, the constable of Windsor Castle, another office, these are all just divvied up. And finally, a couple of weeks later, the Yorkist control Parliament, Edmund Beaufort is officially blamed posthumously

with all the bloodshed. In 19-year-old Henry Beaufort's mind, you know, he's completely losing the plot at this point. His father's been murdered, all his offices are being stripped, he's handed over to his enemies, and his dad's being bullied for this. He's not coming back around any point soon to accepting the new status quo. He utterly goes to war. He has become one of the most vengeful and rancorous nobles ever in England. And that's some history England has when it comes to, you know, implacable nobles.

but Henry desires revenge. He seeks it. He won't let it rest. He goes after Warwick. He goes after York. He constantly tries to ambush them and assassinate them whenever he encounters them over the next couple of years. He is the real driving force of the Lancashrians after St Albans.

And do you know what? I cannot blame him for that. What he has seen, why should he, in effect, simply settle back and accept what has happened? He is a son driven for revenge, and the ironic thing is, is that he gets his revenge. Five years later, he is there to oversee the killing of Richard of York. He avenges his father five years later, but what has he done?

He's created another vengeful son on the other side, which is Edward of March, the future Edward VIII. It's just a cycle of vengeful sons, and this is why St. Albans was. not just a one-time deal. It couldn't be. There was too much revenge needed in the air. Yeah, sort of the rifts and the wounds were too deep by that point to be healed by just one cathartic battle where a few people died and we can call that an end to it. So we see Henry Beaufort kind of go through this rise, as you say, Battle of Wakefield defeats and kills Richard, Duke of York, Second Battle of St Orban's involved in defeating Warwick, the other great victor of the first Battle of St. Orban's. And then we see him suffer a reversal at Tauten, where he's on the losing side. As Edward the fourth,

goes on to become king and the first Yorkist king. And then in the mid-1460s, he kind of gets involved in this Lancasterian resistance, has a couple of battles and ends up executed after the second one. And then he's followed by his younger brother, another Edmund Beaufort, who is the next kind of Duke of Somerset. And what role does he go on to play in the Wars of the Roses? Because he meets his end at the Battle of Chukesbury in 1471. So what's he doing between kind of the mid-1460s and 1471? Chilling out with his feet up in the low countries. You know, after the Yorkists come to power in Tauton, there were two more younger Beaufort brothers. So we have Henry Beaufort, the one we've just been discussing, the elder brother, who meets his end in 1464 in Hexham. Two younger brothers, Edmund and John,

They flee the country. They do what a lot of nobles do at this time. They get in a boat. They slip across the channel. And they put their feet up abroad, hoping for this wheel of fortune to change. And they're in Bruges for several years, the low countries. And over time, that wheel of fortune does spin.

You know, in 1469, Warrick the Kingmaker, he pledges his allegiance to the House of Lancaster. He defects. And we have that famous. eight-month readeption of the House of Lancaster on the throne. Edmund Beaufort returns to England. He raises an army and he is now the chief Lancasterian supporter himself.

He is occupying a role that his brother had before him, that his father had before him. It is now his time. And fortunately for Edmund Beaufort, he meets that incredible strapping figure of Edward VIII. This titan of this age, you know, this military veteran, even at such a young age, that is who opposes him at the Battle of Tewkesbury.

Edmund Beaufort and the Lancaster, and they lose. They never really were able to match up with their Welsh Leavies under Jasper Tudor and his young nephew, Henry Tudor, and they are annihilated at Tewksbury. Edmund Boford, he experiences a similar violent end that his brother and his father did before him. Death at the hands of the House of York. There's a famous quote about the Balot-Turksbury that Edward VIII, to stop these dynastic wars, he sought to crush the seed.

We always hear that the Tudors were these masters at eliminating their rivals. They merely copied what the House of York were doing throughout this period. And again, why not? You have to eliminate your rivals to achieve stability for yourself. The Barlet-Turksbury is the end of the House of Lancaster. Henry the 6th is murdered shortly thereafter. His son, Prince Edward of Westminster, dies on or shortly after the end of the battle.

And the Beaufort brothers, Edmund and John, are dragged. Edmund certainly is dragged out of Tewkebriabi and executed. Why? Those Beauforts have royal blood. You know, regardless of what people want to discuss today about this so-called barring from the throne, the Beaufort had royal blood and Edward VIII knew it

this is why he chooses to eliminate the House of Beaufort as well as the House of Lancaster after Tewkesbury in 1471 Edward VIII has won he's eliminated his rivals or has he Exactly so I mean do you think then the Battle of Tewksbury 1471

with the death of Prince Edward of Westminster the Lancaster and Prince of Wales and the last male Beaufort's there because there's no children there's no next generation of legitimate Beaufort heirs, and then Henry the 6th shortly afterwards. Is that an end, the end of the Wars of the Roses, at least as a dynastic struggle between York and Lancaster? Well, it turns out there were two Beauforts left standing, although they are not known

to history as Beauforts. One is very famously Henry Tudor, the son of Margaret Beaufort, and it is he who history has shown, you know, took up the Beaufort mantle. He invaded England, what was it, 14 years later. He invades England at the head of an interesting army, shall we say, to challenge Richard III for the Crown. In the ship that brought him out of exile, that brought him from France back onto the British mainland in 1485,

he wasn't the only Beaufort-blooded person there. Next to him was a person called Charles. Somerset. Now Charles Somerset was the son of Henry Beauford who died at HECDum. Ironically, considering the Beaufort's origins, he was the illegitimate son of Henry Beauford. It was Charles Somerset, who was actually the last in this male line of Beauforts, who arrived into England and fought at Bosworth Field. It wasn't Henry Toadah, it was his cousin, but alas, Charles Somerset was illegitimate and he therefore had no claim to accept this mantle as the Beaufort Avenger. That was Henry Tudor.

But I guess we can say that Charles Somerset did have the last laugh in some respects when we discussed the Wars of the Roses. He was ennobled during the reign of the Tudors and why wouldn't he be? He was loyal to his Tudor, Beaufort, Kinsman. And he is the founder of the House of Somerset, which today still holds the dukedoms of of Beauford. There's a very interesting switch there. We had the House of Beauford, who were the Dukes of Somerset. Today, we now have the House of Somerset, who are the Dukes of Beauford. The titles changed because of that illegitimate side step, should we say, under Charles Somerset. So, Beaufort is the day of ultimate vengeance for the House of Beauford. Henry Teudder and Charles Somerset, side by side,

vanquishing the white rose. It's a nice image to end on a ship full of Beaufort Avengers. Thank you so much for coming back to talk to us about that, Nathan. I think that really helps us to set the picture for the beginnings of the Wars of the Roses. Why does it happen? And I think there's so many feuds there that critically involve the Beaufort family. There really are someone that we need to understand. And your book is a fantastic place for anyone to start to understand this really important family.

So go and grab a copy of the House of Beaufort, please. But thank you for joining us again, Nathan. Thank you very much. You can join Dr. Kat Jarman on Tuesday for another brand new episode. And don't forget to also subscribe wherever you get your podcasts from and tell all of your friends and family that you've gone medieval. If you get a moment, please do drop us a review or rate us wherever you listen to your podcasts, including Spotify now.

It really does help to signpost new listeners to the podcast. If you're enjoying this and looking for a bit more medieval goodness in your life, then subscribe to our Medieval Monday's newsletter. You can follow the links in the show notes below. Anyway, I've better let you go. I've been Matt Lewis, and we've just gone medieval with history hits.