The Historical Background of England’s Civil Wars

The second half of the 15th century witnessed England torn apart by dynastic conflict in what would become known as the Wars of the Roses. This series of civil wars between the rival houses of Lancaster and York fundamentally reshaped English political culture, governance structures, and concepts of legitimate political participation. The conflict emerged from a complex interplay of factors including weak royal authority under Henry VI, financial mismanagement, military failures in France, and competing aristocratic ambitions.

At the heart of these transformations was the changing role of the “commons” – a term that by the 15th century had evolved to encompass not just parliamentary representatives but all members of the political community who participated in governance through taxation, military service, or local administration. This period saw both the zenith of popular political influence and its subsequent decline as the Tudor regime consolidated power.

The Rise and Fall of Popular Political Participation

Historians widely recognize the late medieval period as one of expanding political participation. The concept of “popular politics” or “the commons” entered elite discourse, challenging the traditional monopoly of nobles and clergy over political affairs. The commons included urban burgesses, yeomen, and even literate peasants who demonstrated growing political engagement by the mid-15th century.

The political awakening of the commons had deep roots in England’s social and economic transformations following the Black Death (1348-1350). The demographic catastrophe empowered surviving laborers to demand better wages and greater freedoms. By 1400, peasants had emerged as full members of the political community, serving as jurors, constables, tax collectors, and local officials across England’s shires. Similarly, urban representatives had been regularly summoned to Parliament since 1327, though tensions between oligarchic and more inclusive forms of municipal governance persisted.

What unified these diverse groups was a shared political language centered on the concept of the “community” (communitas). This terminology appeared in parliamentary petitions, urban disputes, and even the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, where rebels employed the same political rhetoric used by Parliament in its confrontations with royal ministers. As one scholar noted, to be part of the commons in 1381 meant being “part of the governance of the community, speaking and acting for the kingdom’s community in ways similar to the magnates of 1215, the knights of 1259, or the parliamentary representatives of the fourteenth century.”

Cultural and Linguistic Dimensions of Political Change

The political emergence of the commons was facilitated by cultural and linguistic developments. By the early 14th century, Middle English had developed as a written vernacular that could be understood across regional dialects. This allowed for the growth of a “literature of clamour” – popular complaints expressed through petitions and other writings that reached their peak during the 1381 uprising.

The Lollard movement, a heretical challenge to Church authority that advocated for an English Bible and an end to clerical abuses, further contributed to this political vernacular. Lollard petitioners adapted parliamentary petitionary language from French into English, bypassing elite discourse to connect directly with broader audiences. This English political language gained royal sanction when Henry IV used it to justify his claim to the throne in 1399.

The Lancastrian monarchy’s legitimacy depended partly on this vernacular political dialogue. Court poets like John Lydgate wrote works that both defended royal policy and subtly critiqued it, while commoners increasingly voiced opinions about taxation, war, and governance through petitions and protest. By the 1440s, the “voice of the commons” had become a powerful political force, expressed through popular poetry, bills of complaint, and public demonstrations.

The Crisis of 1450 and Its Aftermath

The political influence of the commons reached its peak during the crisis of 1450, triggered by military defeats in France and widespread discontent with Henry VI’s government. The rebellion led by Jack Cade demonstrated the sophistication of popular political understanding. Cade’s rebels employed carefully crafted manifestos that echoed parliamentary petitions, showing how thoroughly commons political culture had permeated English society.

As one royal official lamented, “the foul and horrible language that runs through the land almost every commoner’s mouth” demonstrated the government’s inability to control political discourse. The Yorkist opposition, led by Richard, Duke of York, would later adopt much of this popular reform platform, including its emphasis on the “common profit” or public good.

However, the eventual Yorkist victory did not preserve popular political participation. By the 1470s, Edward IV and his successors worked to reclaim control of political discourse through official chronicles and propaganda. The Tudor regime completed this process, redefining the “commons” as the vulgar masses rather than legitimate political actors. As Sir Thomas More and other Tudor writers would argue, popular participation in governance became associated with rebellion rather than proper political order.

The Transformation of England’s Fiscal Culture

The Wars of the Roses also transformed England’s financial governance. Sir John Fortescue, writing in the 1470s, contrasted England’s “political and regal” governance with France’s purely regal system, where kings taxed arbitrarily. The English system, requiring parliamentary consent for taxation, theoretically protected subjects’ liberties while ensuring the kingdom’s strength.

However, the late medieval fiscal system developed under the Edwards proved inadequate during the Wars. The Lancastrian regime’s financial difficulties stemmed from several factors: structural weaknesses in revenue collection, the costs of the French war, and political reluctance to approve taxes for an ineffective government. By Henry VI’s reign, the system neared collapse, forcing both crown and nobility to rely on private resources rather than public finance.

The Yorkist kings, particularly Edward IV, developed alternative financial mechanisms centered on the royal chamber rather than the Exchequer. This shift from a “tax state” to a “domain state” reduced dependence on parliamentary grants but also diminished accountability. Henry VII perfected this system, treating most royal income as private funds beyond parliamentary scrutiny. While this solved the crown’s financial problems, it came at the cost of the “political and regal” balance Fortescue had praised.

Humanism and the Renaissance of English Political Thought

The 15th century also witnessed England’s engagement with Renaissance humanism. Early influences came through figures like Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who patronized Italian scholars and collected classical texts. While initially limited to literary circles, humanist ideas gradually influenced political thought, particularly through engagement with Cicero’s works.

By the 1460s, writers like Sir John Fortescue, William Worcester, and Bishop John Russell applied Ciceronian concepts to English governance. They emphasized the “common weal” (a translation of res publica) and advocated for conciliar government to compensate for weak kingship. Fortescue proposed a formal council of 24 to advise the monarch, while Russell reimagined nobles as senators rather than independent magnates.

These humanist influences provided frameworks for addressing problems exposed by the Wars of the Roses: how to maintain stability with a weak king, how to balance noble power, and how to define legitimate political participation. While not immediately transformative, these ideas would influence Tudor political thought and the development of the English state.

Legacy of the Wars of the Roses

The Wars of the Roses reshaped English political culture in profound ways. The conflict marked both the high point of late medieval popular participation and its subsequent decline under the Tudors. It transformed fiscal governance from a public, accountable system to one centered on royal prerogative. The intellectual response to these crises, influenced by humanism, would inform early modern political thought.

Perhaps most significantly, the wars demonstrated the consequences of weak governance and the importance of balancing royal authority with broader political participation. While the Tudor regime suppressed the more radical aspects of late medieval political culture, the underlying tensions between crown, nobility, and commons would continue to shape England’s political development into the early modern period.