The War of the Roses appears in the book’s account of the English peerage as a conflict in which the Lords repeatedly shifted their political weight between rival claimants. The changing alignments make the peerage neither a unified force nor a merely ceremonial one: it could help determine who ruled, yet its influence was entangled with the feudal disorder from which the narrative says freedom eventually emerged.

The Lords Between Rival Claims

The account describes the Lords’ support as moving first toward John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and then toward Edmund, Duke of York. Rather than presenting the peerage as a settled party, it emphasizes this change of allegiance. The conflict thus serves as an example of aristocratic power operating through competing dynastic interests, with the balance of support capable of shifting from one claim to another.

Feudal Conflict and Political Authority

The War of the Roses is placed within a longer history of aristocratic resistance and intervention. The narrative associates the disorder surrounding the Lords with the foundations of English freedom, while also showing the peers acting directly in contests over royal authority: they could raise rival claimants, arbitrate disputes over the crown, and take up arms. Against that background, the war’s changing alignments are part of a broader pattern in which the Lords restrained the Crown but also exercised power through their own rivalries.

The Decline of the Dukes

The account connects the War of the Roses with the reduction of the English dukedoms. It presents the conflict as beginning a process of aristocratic decapitation that Mary Tudor’s executions later completed. In this interpretation, the peerage’s struggles weakened the ranks of its own highest nobles. The later restoration of dukedoms under James I marks a reversal in policy, but not a simple return to the earlier feudal order: the narrative distinguishes the old feudal duke from the duke made through court favor.

Narrative Significance

The War of the Roses is invoked as historical evidence for the contradictory character of hereditary power. The Lords could oppose royal dominance and preserve a sphere of political independence, yet their authority was exercised through dynastic contests, shifting loyalties, and armed conflict. By placing the war within an account that also traces the later contraction and revival of the dukedoms, the narrative treats it not as an isolated battle sequence but as part of the changing structure of aristocratic government.