Wars of the Roses: Family Trees

These are some family trees. The first gives you an idea of how the main royal noble houses came about in their descent from Edward III.

Wars of the Roses

 

 

The Neville Family Tree

The Neville’s originated from the Conquest, and steadily grew in power during the 13th and 14th centuries. This Family tree starts from Ralph Neville, the 1st Earl of Westmoreland. You can read a little more by going to the ‘Major Families’ page

Neville Family Tree

The Percy family tree

The Percy family was threatened by the rise of the Nevilles. For many generations Percy and neville had worked together, and indeed continued to work together – the Percies remained related by marriage to the senior line, the Earls of Westmoreland, bit was Salisbury and Warwick’s lines that now dominated the family.  Once again, there’s more in the ‘Leading Families 1450’ page, and the ‘Leading Families 1471‘ page.

Percy Family Tree

14 thoughts on “Wars of the Roses: Family Trees

  1. Very beautifully done family trees. The only suggestion I’d make is that it should be made more clear in the first tree that Henry Somerset is descended directly from John Beaufort and not from Joan Beaufort. The tree as drawn makes it seem like they are Targaryens where John is the father and Joan is the mother. If you are able to bring Henry, John, and Edmund down slightly in the diagram, that would allow space to draw a line up to John Beaufort.

      1. I hate to be a perfectionist, but I did want to mention that the death of Richard III’s son is listed on the family tree as 1479 when it really happened in 1484. I only mention this because it was a question of importance in the succession and I was confused by it when listening to the podcast. I have the family tree picture saved on my computer and look at it frequently when listening to the podcasts on the War of the Roses. When you talked about Richard III’s son dying while Richard III was king, at first I thought you were jumping back in time in the podcast and then I thought that Richard III might have had two sons. Only today did I verify that the date of Richard III’s son was just listed wrong here. Sorry for the multiple requests for corrections, but it just goes to show how useful the family tree is.

  2. And you could of course make it even more complicated by adding in that Edmund Tudor Earl of Richmond was a half brother to King Henry VI via their mother!

  3. I’m following along rather late to the party, but enjoying the podcasts a lot. I’m prepping to explain the Wars of the Roses to a continuing ed class for seniors (i.e., people over 50) and so have been checking on all of the relationships. The family trees are an IMMENSE help. However, On the Neville family tree, you show Margaret, Countess of Salisbury (daughter of George D of Clarence) as married to Richard de la Pole. In fact, he was not a de la Pole — his family came from Wales. He may have had a more distant relationship to the de la Poles, from the East of England, but he definitely is not of 15th C de la Pole heritage. Since the Poles are important in the Tudor years, I thought I should mention this to you. The reason the Poles (not de la Poles) were so dangerous to the Tudor succession is because they descended from the Dukes of York through their mother. Sir Richard Pole was connected to Henry VII. From Wikipedia: “A descendant of an ancient Welsh family, Sir Richard was a landed gentleman of Buckinghamshire, the son of Geoffrey Pole, Esquire of Worrell, Cheshire, and of Wythurn in Medmenham, Buckinghamshire (1431 – 1474 / 4 January 1479, interred in Bisham Abbey). His mother was Edith St John, daughter of Sir Oliver St John of Bletso, Bedfordshire (d. 1437) and the half-sister of Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII. They shared the same mother, Margaret Beauchamp of Bletso, who had married three times; this made Richard a first cousin of the half blood to Henry VII. Sir Richard was thus first cousin of Alice St John, wife of Henry Parker, 10th Baron Morley and mother of Jane Parker, wife of George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford.”

    1. Thanks Leanne, nicely explained; I’m away at the moment but will have a look and do any amendments when I am back

Leave a Reply to David Crowther Cancel reply