Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 1

= May 1 =

Lessons of the wars
I have another question for Clio the Muse, or anyone else who knows the answer. What military lessons did England learn from the wars in Scotland and how were these applied? SeanScotland 05:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Focus, specifically, Sean, on the Battle of Dupplin Moor, a seminal contest in the Anglo-Scottish wars. At the beginning of the war the English army's main offensive weapon was heavy feudal cavalry, with infantry appearing as something of an afterthought.  But the charge of the knights against the Scottish infantry schiltrons had shown how disastrous this tactic was when confronted by compact ranks of enemy spearmen, standing in a good defensive position.  In the years that followed things began to change, and in 1322 Andrew Harclay, had demonstrated the value of dismounted archers with wings of supporting infantry fighting against knights at the Battle of Boroughbridge.  In a more fully developed form, Edward Balliol had used wings of archers to create a cross-fire, cutting down the Scottish infantry charge at Dupplin.  Edward III later employed these tactics on an even greater scale, and to a more devastating effect against the French at the Battle of Crecy at the outset of the Hundred Years War.  For a good bit of the following century the English were able to dominate the battlefields of Europe, with great wedges of long-bowmen destroying the advance of enemy knights, no matter how heavily armoured.  Clio the Muse 05:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Far be it from me to argue with Clio, but I believe the English got the idea of the longbowmen from campaigns in Wales, and the Welsh provided longbow troops from the time of Edward I, who also introduced compulsory archery practice. I am sure they learned the tactics of using them in Scotland too though.137.138.46.155 07:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please argue with me, 137; I love being argued with! Yes, you are quite right: the English did indeed learn the use of the longbow from the wars in Wales, and a great many of the best archers at both Crecy and Agincourt were Welsh.  You will find longbowmen in English armies sent to Scotland as early as the Battle of Falkirk in 1298, though there was still a predominance of Continental cross-bowmen in the army of Edward I.  The point is that it took the English a number of years to learn the effective use of bowmen as an independent arm, as opposed to an auxiliary for the support of cavalry.  This comes in the battles I have mentioned above, first Boroughbridge, then Dupplin, and finally, in the most developed form, at Crecy.  Clio the Muse 07:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really arguing, I was seeking clarification. Thanks for that. 137.138.46.155 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bears in Britain
Bear baiting used to be popular. Beowulf, the eponymous hero of England's national epic poem is often interpreted as a kenning for bear. And the crest of Warwick involved a bear. Were these bears imported? Known about from the continent? Or were bears, like wolves once native to the British Isles?137.138.46.155 07:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to List_of_extinct_animals_of_the_British_Isles, the answer to your last question is yes (though the date of disappearance seems unclear). ---Sluzzelin talk  08:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bears, like wolves, were indeed once native to the British Isles. I know that the last wolf was shot in the early part of the seventeenth century, and I suspect that bears were gone long before then. I would imagine their range would have declined significantly, from Roman times onwards, with the steady disappearance of much of the natural woodland. By the Middle Ages bears, according to this site were being imported for baiting. It's possible that some were also bred in domestic 'bear farms.' Clio the Muse 08:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Caution about Beowulf: first, the story is told of a European nation (Denmark, most likely), and the hero is very much European. The story came over with the Anglo-Saxons from Jutland.  Additionally, the "bear" in question did not have to be ursus, exactly.  Finally, he appears to be an adaptation of another Norse hero who literally changed into a bear.  Therefore, he's no indication of bears in the British Isles in 780 AD.  Geogre 10:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Per a few sources, bears became extinct in Britain in the early Middle Ages. Marco polo 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Marco! Not in any way, shape or form doubting you, but could you provide a few of these sources, in case anyone reading this wants the details? Skittle 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. I know Beowulf wasn't set in England I was just saying that bears were obviously known well enough to be in such an important poem. But anyway thanks for all the info, how about we re-introduce bears like they have suggested with wolves?137.138.46.155 13:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it can result in unexpected diplomatic consequences, though you might be safe with Britain being surrounded by the sea. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps somebody can start campaigning for the return of elephants as well! --LarryMac 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalin-was there an alternative?
Hi, I've just started a course on modern Russian history and I would appreciate some help with my first assignment. The question is 'In the political struggles in Soviet Russia in the 1920s was there a realistic alternative to Stalin?'. I've looked at all the relevant Wikipedia pages (I think?), but I'm still not quite sure how to go about this. Was there an alternative to Stalin? Could this have been Bukharin? All comments welcome. Fred said right 10:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Stalin was one of many people vying for power at the time. Trotsky, Bukharin, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Kirov, etc. Basically just look at all the people who Stalin saw as principle political enemies and had purged, and you'll have possible alternatives to Stalin. As for "realistic," it depends on how you argue it. I don't see any a priori reason to assume Stalin is the only "realistic" answer; to me that sounds like a post hoc decision based on what ended up happening, though as with most things in history there was a lot of contigency at the time. --24.147.86.187 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the many hours I spent grappling with twentieth century Russian history as an undergraduate, particularly the political struggles of the 1920s, my very favourite period, when, beneath the outward calm of the long summer of the New Economic Policy, some of the most intense and dramatic contests were being fought out within the ranks of the Communist Party. Never warming to the brilliant, but mercurial Leon Trotsky, my own personal favourite, by far, was 'the darling of the party' Nikolai Bukharin. I think I can hazard a fair guess that the professor who has set your assignment has taken the theme from Stephen Cohen's book Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: a Political Biography, 1888-1938. Consider this from the introduction to the Oxford paperback edition:

''Just as there are is no historical inevitability, there are always historical alternatives. And yet when I began work on this book in the mid-1960s, the writing of Soviet history in the west as well as in the USSR, was based largely on the axiom that there had been no alternative to Stalinism. Both Western and Soviet historians adhered, though in different ways and for different reasons, to variations of this axiom. Either Stalin's policies, from the forcible collectivization of the peasantry in 1929-33 to the twenty-one year system of mass terror and prison camps, had grown inevitably from the nature of the Bolshevik Party and its revolution, or they had been necessary for the modernization of a backward peasant society. Western and Soviet scholars were captives of a historigraphy without alternatives even though the idea of a non-Stalinist alternative actually had a long tradition in Communist politics''. (Oxford paperback ed., 1980 p, xv)

Cohen goes on to explore this question at length in his introduction and the rest of the book; so, your first task is to get hold of a copy at the earliest opportunity. It's a good argument and, in a sense, Bukharin and the Right Opposition was, indeed, the only real alternative to Stalin, not Trotsky, Zinoviev and the others in the Left Opposition, commonly assumed by Isaac Deutscher and others to be the antithesis of the Stalinist path. Why? Because the policies of collectivisation and industrialisation being argued for by Trotsky and his allies in the 1920s were the very things that Stalin implemented in the 1930s. Bukharin's 'socialism at a snail's pace' and co-operation with the independent peasantry, which Stalin adhered to in the mid-1920s for opportunistic reasons, did represent a real alternative, in political and economic terms, to the interpretation of Marxism most favoured by Leninism. What you now have to ask yourself is would this path have been practicable; would it have been possible for Soviet Russia, in other words, to have continued to operate the NEP system to the eve of the Second World War? Even before the introduction of mass collectivisation, grain deliveries to the state were beginning to drop significantly, which placed the Soviet economy as a whole in a high degree of risk. Beyond that one has to consider the political hostility of the so-called kulaks to the whole Soviet system. The emphasis of the Five Year Plans, especially the second, was on military investment, which enabled the Soviets, in the end, to counter German aggression. Would this have been possible if Russia's capital programme was still moving at a snail's pace on the eve of Barbarossa?. Anyway, some food for thought. Get a hold of Cohen's book and also Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore. Taken together, these should provide sufficient information for you to produce a superb answer to your question. The very best of luck. Clio the Muse 14:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Fred said right 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Trotsky's book on Stalin
How useful as a historical guide is Trotsky's book about Stalin? Fred said right 10:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you have to take it as a primary source, a voice of a participant and an actor, not as the work of an independent historian (which would even then need evaluation). --24.147.86.187 12:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a political polemic. As a work of history it has done more to obscure the real Stalin than possibly any other book on the subject. Stalin was not the 'grey blur' and the bureaucrat depicted by Trotsky, but one of the most talented of the Soviet leaders, intelligent, personable and very well-read. As a political operator, moreover, his skills were considerably in excess of the distant and senatorial Trotsky. Trotsky's greatest failure in the struggles of the 1920s was to underestimate the abilities of his chief rival. He continued to do this when he wrote Stalin. It has some value as an eye-witness account of the political struggles in Soviet Russia, before and after the death of Lenin. It has no value whatsoever in providing any meaningful understanding of Stalin, either as a man or as a politician. Clio the Muse 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fred, I've just recently finished reading an advance review copy of Simon Sebag Montefiore's new book Young Stalin. You could do no better than read this for a considerably more accurate depiction of Stalin's character, intellect and personality than that presented by Trotsky.  It's scheduled for publication this week, I think.  Clio the Muse 09:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Event Management
What are the internal and external factors that need to be considered when staging an event such as a carnival eg Mardi Graz Parade?? Please help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.249.243 (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, you have almost a year until the next Mardi Gras comes around. Event planning is neither a thorough nor especially professional article, but it does list some of the factors to be considered by an event planner. Perhaps you can get some ideas there for a starting point. Bielle 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We also have an article Event management. Budget and liability are some key concepts. Don't forget to take out insurance. The easiest may be to consult your course notes. --Lambiam Talk  08:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Global (international) financial centres
Hello, I'm writing a diploma "International financial centres". The point is that I can't find information about the present situation of such centres,their comparison with each other and so on...I will be very glad if somebody can help me!!! Elena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.117.85.87 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

I typed "International Financial Centres" into Google, and received 54,000 options. For "International Financial Centers", the number was only 21,500. Perhaps that would be a good place to start. Bielle 22:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln/ habeas corpus
Would Lincoln have been impeached for suspending habeas corpus, had he not been assassinated?--Llamabr 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely. In the United States presidential election, 1864 only 24 out of 36 states were allowed to cast electoral votes, due to the nonparticipation by the Confederate States. While Lincoln had received a mere 39.9% of the popular votes and 180 out of 303 electoral votes cast in 1860, he received 55% of the popular votes and 212 out of 233 electoral votes cast in the United States presidential election, 1864. The Southern Democrats, who would likely have supported impeachment, were not represented in the 39th United States Congress and so could not have voted for impeachment in the House of Representatives, which had 136 Republicans out of 193. The Senate had 39 Republicans out of 54 members. The Copperheads (politics) faction of Northern Democrats were strongly anti-war and anti-Lincoln, and a newspaper published by one of their supporters said Lincoln was a "worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero." Lincoln had asserted powers not explicitly granted him in the Constitution, suspended the right of habeas corpus, and imprisoned 18,000 U.S. citizens without any recourse to the courts. He also spent money without congressional authorization. Most of his actions were later supported by the federal courts and by congress. In ex parte Milligan, however,  the Supreme Court in 1865 upheld the suspension of habeas corpus, but repudiated the use of military tribunals to try citizens in areas under control of the U.S. government and where the courts were functioning. Lincoln in 1864 had used military tribunals to try northern Copperheads, and the tribunals had sentenced them to hang. The court also ruled that the federal government, during suspension of habeas corpus, could hold citizens, but could not try them and not execute them. In summary, the political base was not there to impeach or convict  Lincoln  during his first two terms. In some alternative universe where he was not assassinated, and perhaps where he was elected to a third term, when the southern states had rejoined congress, or if he had applied his non-punitive policies toward the defeated southern states as Johnson did, and had run afoul of the Radical Republican as Johnson did, his position vis a vis impeachment might have been weaker.  Impeachment of Andrew Johnson shows that the radical republicans were willing to impeach a president for attempting to remove Stanton as Secretary of War. There is no guarantee that Lincoln would have been secure had he survuved and attempted the same. Edison 14:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Press censorship and suspension of habeas corpus were both protested in the South much more loudly when they occurred (for a much shorter period of time) than when they were instituted in the North. "Why" is a hard question to answer, but it could well be that the Northern populace felt more vulnerable to internal dissent than the Southern populace did, and consequently agreed with these abridgments of basic rights under the banner of exigency and public safety.  Whenever such things have been tried in the west, the popular mood is fear (incl. the internment of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor).  Utgard Loki 15:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that he wouldn't have been impeached. Two Presidents have been impeached (both acquited) and one was on the fast-track to impeachment (and likely would have been convicted).  But it takes an incredible amount of political will combined with really bad "high crimes and other misdemeanors" (not even a big Radical Republican majority could remove Andrew Johnson in the vote for the verdict at the end of the trial).  This isn't to say that Lincoln didn't do some constitutionally questionable acts (such as throwing the entire Maryland legislature into jail); I just don't think this was a primary concern.  Plus Congress at the time would have been more concerned with the operation of the war. –Pakman044 01:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chávez/Venezuela and the IMF/World Bank
If Chávez takes Venezuela out of the World Bank and the IMF, what effect (negative or positive) could this have on the personal financial situation of the population, especially the Venezuelan middle class? Thankyou in advance for any info.--AlexSuricata 14:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's mostly a symbolic act - Venezuela does not have debts with the World Bank or IMF anymore - so I doubt it will have much effect. Skarioffszky 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The International Monetary Fund helps to guarantee the financial stability of member states.  If Venezuela withdrew from the IMF, international investors would almost certainly lose faith in Venezuela as a place to invest money.  This is already happening with Venezuela's moves toward nationalizing the petroleum sector.  Venezuela would almost certainly have a much harder time obtaining credit on global markets, which would make it difficult for the country to maintain its infrastructure, including the vital petroleum infrastructure.  Internally, it would have a choice between raising interest rates to keep the money supply from outgrowing the economy, which would slow economic growth and cause unemployment to rise, or allowing the money supply to balloon, causing hyperinflation and a complete collapse of the Venezuelan bolívar, which would destroy domestic savings, already reduced by recent inflation.    The former course (high interest rates) allowed Argentina to stabilize economically and to bring back foreign investors even though Argentina repudiated some of its debt in violation of IMF requirements.  If Venezuela pursued that course, it might be able to attract credit, investment, and trade even outside of the IMF.  However, it would be a surprise if Chávez followed Argentina's course, as it would throw much of his political base out of jobs.  If Venezuela instead slid into hyperinflation, the living standards of the middle class would fall, and their domestic savings would be wiped out.  (Foreign exchange controls would also be likely to cut off access to offshore dollar savings.)  This could lead to an exodus of the upper middle class to places like Miami.  (Lest you think that my dire predictions are influenced by my POV, I am actually quite sympathetic to Chávez's social goals.) (edited)  Marco polo 16:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

United States healthcare vs. British healthcare
Considering that free healthcare means higher taxes, does the average US taxpayer or the average British taxpayer get cheaper healthcare? Vitriol 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The easiest and clearest way to measure this is total healthcare spending per person from all sources, public or private. According to the first Powerpoint presentation linked here, in 2003 US healthcare spending per person was $5,635.  In the same year, UK healthcare spending per person was $2,231.  I cannot find a source at the moment, but I believe that public spending on health care per capita is similar in the United States and in typical European countries.  However, public spending covers only a fraction of the US population because of the higher cost of healthcare in the United States.  Most Americans see little benefit from public health care spending.  In addition to a healthcare-related tax burden similar to that of the UK taxpayer, most Americans (or their employers) have to spend thousands of additional dollars of their own money per year on private health insurance.  Despite this great expense, according to this source, about 16% of Americans have no health coverage at all. These people face bankruptcy if they have a health emergency.  If they have no assets, they will get free care, but only after waiting outside an emergency room.  (However, there has been a trend of hospitals eliminating money-losing emergency rooms.)  Marco polo 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, much of the difference in cost between the United States and the UK is accounted for the layers of bureaucracy employed by private healthcare providers in the US to maximize profits or minimize costs. Another part of the difference is accounted for by higher prices paid for pharmaceuticals, because the British government negotiates big bulk discounts for its national healthcare system, whereas US healthcare providers generally do not.  Marco polo 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * An additional factor is the question of whether or not "cost" is monetary and whether the "money" is recirculating or not, and how. Let's suppose that all governmental organizations experience waste at a 15-17% rate and that corporations were capable of eliminating waste altogether (which is silly, of course).  Is the corporation's profit going to exceed the waste percentage of the non-profit governmental source?  Is the corporation's profit going to recirculate freely in the economy, and how?  Is that profit available for reallocation in emergencies (sudden increase in costs due to an epidemic, etc.)?  These things all added together get nearer to 'cost' in health care, and this is in addition to other public policy concerns.  Utgard Loki 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As previously discussed on the Reference Desk, American governments spend more per capita on healthcare than governments in other countries, even though most Americans don't have government health insurance. So we pay all the taxes the other countries pay for healthcare, then pay more out-of-pocket beyond that. The difference is other countries work harder to keep healthcare costs down through "rationing," drug price controls, etc. -- Mwalcoff 00:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hegemony
Why was hegemony not considered generally good as a concept for worldwide use?--Doug talk 18:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that hegemony has been dismissed as a "bad concept" as opposed to just being impractical? Our article suggests several modern cases or rough equivalents, as well as several historical ones. &mdash; Lomn 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are correct and I should rephrase my question: Why was hegemony not considered generally practical as a concept for worldwide use? --Doug talk 18:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think you're asking a loaded question. Your phrasing presupposes that some group debated imposing hegemony versus, say, the UN, or global anarchy, and elected for anarchy (or the UN).  Why would hegemony be practical, implementable, or good in the first place?  Also, the use of "was" makes the question a little vague: how far in the past are we talking about?
 * Anyway, that aside, our article notes that opinions are divided as to whether or not the US' present status as sole hyperpower constitutes hegemony, with the divide appearing to coincide with whether or not the US is in fact a practical hyperpower. The core question of global hegemony is whether or not political entity X can dictate policy arbitrarily to all other political entities.  If it can, then your question as phrased has merit.  If it can't, then hegemony isn't just impractical but impossible, regardless of how it's considered. &mdash; Lomn 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hegemony or Survival (ISBN 0-8050-7400-7), by Noam Chomsky discusses the effects of global hegemony as a political policy. It may offer some insight to your query. Rockpock  e  t  00:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the concept of justice
Have any anthropologists, sociologists or other researchers ever discovered a social group which does not have any notion of justice or fairness? In general, people talk as though the idea is innate and universal - I wonder whether that is true. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.211.173.88 (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * You might find this National Geographic article interesting: Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness. --TotoBaggins 18:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't really an authoritative answer to your question; however, just about anyone who has raised children from birth can attest that they grasp basic ideas of fairness extremely early. Not that they will act in a fair/just manner without being taught, but even very young children can and do judge whether others are treating them fairly. And that is certainly suggestive. Tugbug 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This group, according to some ;P (Although I really should know better, I couldn't resist. Sorry)   Rockpock  e  t  07:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Touring at London
How many people go to London yearly to visit the tourist attractions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.11.72.39 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Per The Guardian, over 15 million visitors from overseas alone in 2005. The article does not give numbers for domestic visitors, but presumably they are similar or even higher.  Marco polo 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well worth the trip, too. See the Royal Institution and Faraday's first transformer, the British Museum, the BBC, and the Transport Museum, not to mention the Cabinet War Rooms and 221B Baker Street (tho renumbered). Edison 05:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Retailing and Immersive environments
I've noticed how there's been a trend in retailing recently, where shops have created fully immersive environments. For example, the Abercrombie and Fitch store, has no windows, and the second you step inside, the door, you're hit with loud music, a strong smell of cologne, and low lighting levels, like a sort of sensory overload. My question is, what other store, around the world, offer this sort of immersive environments? --Richy 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point, and I suppose I could go threw my head of all the stores I know of (here in the UK) which have this kind of environment... but, sufficive to say, the majority do. However, I would also question whether or not this is a recent phenomenon... were not the Fora of the Roman Empire, or the Middle Eastern Bazaars or any other number of commercial enterprises just as immersive? 194.80.32.12 00:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses
What were the political causes of the Wars of the Roses and what was the outcome? Was Richard III the last Englishman to occupy the throne? Janesimon 23:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends. What's your definition of an "Englishman"? Lewis 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You will find most of the answers you are looking for, Jane, on the Wars of the Roses page. In short, this is the name given much later to a series of dynastic wars that embraced England in the period from 1455 to 1485. It should be stressed that this was not, in any sense, continuous warfare, but short periods of hostilities, which punctuated long phases of political calm. The wars are generally accepted to have come to a conclusion in 1485, with the death of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth, followed by the accession to the throne of Henry VII, the first of the Tudor monarchs, though, in fact, embers continued to burn for quite a while afterwards.

The causes date back to the deposition of Richard II in 1399 by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, subsequently crowned as King Henry IV. Though a popular move at the time, in view of Richard's poor standing among the higher nobility, Bolingbroke, in terms of the laws of primogeniture, was not the most senior in the line of descent from Edward III. The descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence had a superior claim, which, during the reign of Henry V, passed to Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York. Although Henry IV had faced various challenges to the legitimacy of the Lancastrian succession, his son, the great warrior king, managed to sweep away all opposition by his successful renewal of the war with France. If matters had gone on like this, and if Henry had lived into old age, all former disputes may have been forgotten. But his early death in 1422, followed by the succession of the infant Henry VI once again introduced an element of uncertainty. If Henry had grown up to be the same kind of man as his father the throne is likely to have been secure; but he did not. He was to be one of the weakest, most ill-fitted men ever to occupy the English throne, who seems to have inherited something of the mental instability that afflicted his French grandfather, Charles VI. Henry was effectively pushed to the sidlines as England was torn apart by factions, led by Richard of York, on the one hand, and Edmund Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset on the other. Richard was killed at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, but his claim to the throne passed to his son, who emerged as Edward IV in 1461, the first of England's Yorkist kings. By 1471 the Lancastrain claim was all but extingushed, following the death of Henry VI and his son Edward. Prince of Wales. It was kept barely alive in the person of Henry Tudor, Duke of Richmond, by right of the descent of his mother Lady Margaret Beaufort from Edward III.

In the end the Yorkist cause failed because of the ambition of Richard III, who deposed, and very probably murdered, his young nephew Edward V, thus alienating a large section of Yorkist opinion, and opening the way for Henry Tudor. The Plantagenet dynasty died at Bosworth, which was to be the main political outcome of the wars. It also laid the basis for the Tudor absolutism of the following century.

I'm not quite sure of the implications of your second question. I take this to mean that because the throne was occupied in succession by a Welsh, a Scottish and a German dynasty, then you believe that the Plantagenets were the last of the 'native' English royals? But, you really have to ask yourself, who exactly were the Plantagenets? The answer, of course, is that they were of Norman and French origin. By this argument, then, the last English king has to be Harold Godwinson, killed at Hastings in 1066! You see how absurd this can get. Henry Tudor's Welsh blood was highly etiolated. Even the Scottish James VI had quite a bit of English blood in his veins, and his grandsons, Charles II and James II were more French than anything else. And so it goes on! English monarchs, like their European counterparts, have always been of mixed origin; so tell that to the purists! Clio the Muse 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Clio. Do you think it possible that Richard may not have murdered his nephews? Janesimon 07:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are certainly some people who think so, those who believe the Princes in the Tower somehow survived throughout the reign of Richard, only to meet their deaths at the time of Henry VII, on no compelling evidence, it has to be said. I have never found this to be a plausible thesis.  The very existence of Edward V and Richard, duke of York was a serious political threat to the continuing stability of Richard's rule, and Medieval monarchs were never reluctant to dispose of rivals, no matter how young.  Besides, anyone who has worked their way through close rolls, pipe rolls and exchequer rolls will tell you just how detailed Medieval records can be, right down to matters of minor importance, like laundry bills, small cash grants from the royal purse and other such trivial matters.  Edward and Richard, as important figures, are mentioned a number of times.  By July 1483, as far as the record is concerned, they cease to exist, receiving no further mention whatsoever.  So, although the matter can never be proved one way or the other, it seems likely, on the balance of probability, that they were murdered sometime that summer.  In 1485, when rumours of their deaths were turning opinion in favour of Henry Tudor, Richard only had to produce the Princes to destroy the whole Lancastrian campaign.  He did not.  Clio the Muse 07:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Englishman comment hasn't really been addressed. But it's impossible to answer. I'm not sure how "English" even dear old Richard considered himself. Certainly, his Kingdom amounted to more than just England. Wales had been conquered by Edward I, who also had designs on Scotland (and possibly Norway, for his son). Whilst King John had lost Normandy, Richard may well have considered himself Norman, rather than "English" (ie Anglo-Saxon) and furthermore, there were still considerable assets on continental Europe, and would be until Bloody Mary finally lost Calais. Linguistically, I can't recall at what date English court (Exchequer etc) records began to be written in English, but I think it post-dates Richard. I bet Clio knows... --Dweller 14:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * She knows what's what, she does. Clio the Muse 22:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The precedence of Lionel's issue vs Lancaster is an interesting question. This was the second time since the Conquest that a claim to the throne was made by virtue of a female descent (the first was Henry II). It may be significant that Lionel's daughter Philippa inherited her mother's title (Countess of Ulster) but not her father's (Duke of Clarence). &mdash;Tamfang 07:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)