History: Why did the Yorkists loose the crown by 1461?

Question

What are the reasons/main factors for this? Thanks x

Answer 1

The Yorkist conquest of the Lancastrians in 1461 did not put an end to the Wars of the Roses, which rumbled on until the start of the sixteenth century. Family disloyalty in the form of Richard III's betrayal of his nephews, the young King Edward V and his brother, was part of his downfall. Henry Tudor, a claimant to the throne of Lancastrian descent, defeated Richard III in battle and Richard was killed.


See the following for additional information. There are in fact a lot of sites on this subject.

http://www.btinternet.com/~timeref/y101460.htm

Answer 2

The Yorkists didn't lose the crown by 1461 - they hadn't had it at all before that (that was the whole reason why they rose up against Henry VI in 1461. They also didn't win the crown in 1461 - it wasn't until 1470 that Edward IV deposed Henry VI and became king (before losing the crown to Henry again, and then winning it back, again!)

Answer 3

Because the Act of Accord, was too pushy, and proved unacceptable to the Lancastrians, who then rallied to Margaret of Anjou, forming a large army in the north.

Although Margaret of Anjou's army outnumbered Yorks by more than two to one, on December 30th York ordered his forces to leave Sandel Castle and mount an attack. His army was badly defeated at the Battle of Wakefield, and York was killed in the battle. His head, his son's and Lord Salisburys were all put on the gates of York.

Answer 4

When Richard III (Plantagenet) killed his nephews in the bloody tower, Henry Tudor, who was of Lancastrian descent, defeated Richard III in battle and claimed the throne for himself in the sixteenth century.

Answer 5

because they were against the house of Lancaster, and we Lancashire folks always beat them in Rugby League county of origin, plus them being from Yorkshire didn't help either!

Answer 6

Cos we wern`t ready
get em next time
YORKSHIRE guy

Answer 7

Because they could not spell...like you. Lose is not loose.

Answer 8

Cos it was too tight? Haha!

Answer 9

1461 - Towton: Yorkists vs. Lancastrians
1461 - Mortimer's Cross: Yorkists vs. Lancastrians
The Yorkists
The Yorkists seized the throne from the Lancastrians in 1461. The period of their rule coincides with the most intense phase of the Wars of the Roses. Edward IV's success in restoring stability in the 1470's was undermined by his brother's usurpation in 1483. The Yorkists, like their predecessors, distributed a livery collar - the collar of alternating suns and roses. This is admirably shown on the brass of Sir Anthony Grey at St Albans. Among the grandest brasses of the period is that of Henry Bourchier, earl of Essex, Edward IV's treasurer, at Little Easton; the earl is shown wearing the robes of the Order of the Garter. Also very striking is Joyce Tiptoft's brass at Enfield; her mother was the widow of the Earl of March. The epitaph on the brass of Richard Quartremayne at Thame celebrates the commemorated's career as a servant of Edward IV's father, Duke Richard of York.

The Grandisons’ vast possessions included a castle at Asperton near Hereford, the cathedral of which city houses the magnificent tomb of Otho’s elder brother, Peter, but their principal seat was at the Kentish Farnborough, then in the parish of Chelsfield. The Hospitallers, as owners of the Ash advowson, cannot have been much pleased to welcome this family as counterparts in matters secular. In the year 1318, there had been much trouble between them, the Prior of the Hospital complaining that William de Grandison and his sons Peter and Otho had broken into his houses at Dartford and committed robbery and assault and William counter claiming that there had been theft of his goods there.20
The history of the Grandisons’ manor of Ash was thenceforth long bound up with that of three other manors belonging to the family, Chelsfield, Old Fawkham and Easthall in Orpington. Otho’s son, Sir Thomas, was the last of his line and the four manors later passed to Sir Guy de Bryan, a remarkable and long-lived warrior and diplomatist, who had married a daughter of one of the Grandison co-heiresses. His son, Sir William do Bryan, who lies buried in the church of St Peter and St Paul at Seal, died without issue and, after his time, Ash came to Sir Guy’s widowed granddaughter, Philippa Devereux, later the wife of Sir Henry le Scrope, and subsequently to her sister, Elizabeth Lovel. Some years on, the owner was Sir James Boteler, who became Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond. A staunch Lancastrian, the Earl was captured by the Yorkists in 1461, at Towton, and taken to Newcastle, where he was executed. His head was displayed on London Bridge, which was perhaps as near to Ash as he usually came.
The Earl’s estates being forfeit to the Crown and the Crown itself having changed hands at Towton, the new King, Edward IV, granted the lordships and manors of ‘Chellesfelde, Esthall, Faukehan, Ayssh and Wylmyngton’ to his uncle, William Neville, Earl of Kent and his heirs male, but he did not live long to enjoy them nor leave any male heir. Afterwards, Fawkham was hived off to the family of Poynings and Chelsfield, Easthall and Ash were given to Henry, Earl of Essex, and his wife Isabel, who was Edward IV’s aunt. The Countess, who survived her husband, died possessed of the Ash manor during the brief reign of Richard III.22
After King Richard fell on Bosworth field, the ownership was much in doubt. For long enough, the old aristocracy had been preoccupied with destroying itself and, with one King’s traitor becoming another King’ s martyr, there could be much confusion in the succession to great estates. The establishment of the strong Tudor monarchy provided a background against which such problems could be resolved.
In the case of Ash and very much else, the question resolved itself into an argument as to who was now heir to the estates of Sir Guy de Bryan, who had died nearly a hundred years before. Four formidable survivors from the Wars of the Roses staked their claims; they were Harry, Earl of Northumberland, Thomas, Earl of Ormond, Sir Thomas Seymour and Sir Edward Poynings. Lawyers examined the titles, many meetings were held and in 1488, after a battle of words that had lasted two years, a compromise was reached. Harry of Northumberland was recognised as Sir Guy’s heir, for which acceptance each other claimant received his quid pro quo. In the ensuing partition, the manors of Chelsfield, Easthall, (Old) Fawkham and Ash went to Sir Edward Poynings.23
As appears from the deed of settlement, the success of the negotiations had owed something to the mediation of ‘good lovers and frends’. Such affectionate, but anonymous, assistance might well have cloaked an intervention by the King himself. If so, it would not have been to Poynings’ disadvantage that he was one of Henry Tudor’s most ardent supporters, had landed with him at Milford Haven and had fought with great gallantry at Bosworth.
Edward Poynings was the son of Robert Poynings, who had been one of the principal Kentishmen implicated in Jack Cade’s revolt, and of Elizabeth Paston, of the Paston Letters. He later received the Garter and was for some time Warden of the Cinque Ports. He was also, while Lord Deputy of Ireland, the author of "Poynings’ law", which subjected Irish law-making to the approval of the English council and held sway for three centuries Poynings’ only legitimate child died during his father’s lifetime. Poynings’ fighting proclivities passed to one of his natural children, his estates to a distant relative, Harry Algernon Percy, fifth Earl of Northumberland. Percy died in 1527, leaving a legacy of debt to his son, the sixth earl, who nevertheless established his claim to the manor of Ash. This Henry Percy, having been so ill-advised as to cast eyes upon Anne Boleyn, had been forced by his father into marriage with a daughter of the Earl of Shrewsbury. The stratagem may have saved his head, but failed to provide an heir to the earldom. A year before his death in 1537, Percy granted all his estates to the ‘most dread, invincible and most excellent Prince, Henry VIII’. That was perhaps making a virtue of necessity; the invincible Prince had already taken care to ensure that if Percy died childless, his estates should pass to the Crown.24
The King did not for long retain the manor of Ash in his own hands, nor for that matter did its new grantee, Thomas Cromwell.25 Cromwell, who must rank as one of the ablest but more unpleasant lords of Ash, was in the year 1540 ennobled, disgraced and beheaded, all within the space of a few months. His ultimate sin, his use of Holbein’s all too flattering portrait of Anne of Cleves, was perhaps his least sin, but was for him the most costly.
With Cromwell’s fall, the Ash manor again reverted to the Crown. There for the present we leave it, to return to a family who probably knew little of and cared less for the more distinguished or notorious personages who had latterly been lords of that manor. Likewise, we leave those other Ash manors that, with the dissolution of the Hospitallers aid of the nuns of Halywell, had also fallen into the hands of Henry VIII.
The Hodsolls had made their bow in these parts

before the end of the twelfth century, as appears from the fact that in 1198 one Ralph de Hodeshole was a party to two Fines relating to land in the parish of Southfleet. Then, in 1271, there is record of two of their number, William and Michael de Hodeshole, giving evidence, in company with two other local residents, John de Chimbeham and Thomas de Peavincomp, in a law suit at Westminster. The case, which was heard before Sir Stephen de Penchester, the most notable of the Penchesters of Penshurst Place and the builder of Allington Castle, concerned the escape of four robbers from the prison of the manor of Kingsdown. The lord of a manor being liable to a penalty if felons escaped from his gaol, the question at issue was whether Ralph Fitz Bernard had been, at the time, of age and so the fully fledged lord of Kingsdown manor, or whether the liability rested with the executors of Sir Ymbert Pugeys, to which Sir Ymbert the custody of Ralph’s lands had been committed during their owner’s minority. In the result, it was decided that the escape had occurred a year and a half before Ralph had attained his majority and that responsibility rested either with the executors or with Sir Ymbert’s son and heir. What emerges incidentally is that the Hodsolls were a family of repute with local knowledge and must then have living in the neighbourhood, perhaps at Hodsoll Street.26
The first conclusive evidence that the family were in fact settled in Ash comes from the year 1342, when two young men from the parish, Henry, son of Thomas de Hodeshole and William de Hodeshole, took their initial steps into the priesthood by receiving the first tonsure. Henry’s father may have been the Thomas de Hodesole who figures in the Lay Subsidy roll of 1334-35 for the hundred of Axton, when he was assessed at 4s.4d;

others of the family who appear on this roll are Clement, assessed at 10s.3¾d., more than the manor of ‘Esse’, which paid only 8s.11½d., Michael, assessed at 3s.ld. and William, whose 8d. was the smallest contribution in the hundred. Another contemporary record of the Hodsolls is of a law suit in 1345, when Roger, son of Clement de Hodeshole, and his brother Thomas were defendants to proceedings brought by Otho de Grandison concerning a fee of Otho’s at ‘Eashe next ffaukham’ - presumably his fee at South Ash.27
Henry and William had not been the first of the Hodsolls to receive the tonsure. Robert, son of William de Hodeshole, had done so in 1335 and it is likely, though not certain, that he, too, came from Ash. Nor were the Hodsolls of those times by any means the only Ash family to provide candidates for the priesthood. Other men from the parish who took the same first step were John: and William de Suthayse, on the same day in 1325, John ate Crouch and John Tenaunt, on another day in the same year, Henry Mendecourt, in 1326, John de Yidele, in 1335, John Bere, Robert, son of Robert le Clerk, John Launce and John, son of Thomas de Wolcumb, all on the same day in 1338, Alexander de Yedelegh, in 1345, and Henry Clerk, in 1348.28
Several, at least, of these men came from families who were important landowners in Ash. John and William do Suthayse were of the family at South Ash Manor. The name ‘de Yedele’ or ‘de Yedeleg’ appears in 1226, so that John do Yidele and Alexander de Yedelegh were of a family that had been at Idleigh since at least the earlier part of the thirteenth century. That it was a family of standing is indicated by the fact that one of its number, John de Idelegh, was amongst the trustees

entrusted by Sir John de Cobham with the task of providing from the de Cobham estates an endowment for the college at Cobham that he had founded in the year 1362.29
Another Ash landowner of the fourteenth century was one John Martyn. Little is known of him, indeed rather less than of his maidservant, a young woman called Marion, who was a leading participant in a series of events in the year 1348 that must have been meat and drink for the local gossips. According to her story, she had agreed to marry a certain John Hancock, who had then jilted her for Margaret, daughter of Felicia Peucompe, a lady perhaps of superior social standing. Marion’s revenge was sweet; when the banns were called for John and Margaret’s wedding, she forbade them. That caused quite a furore and led to a trial of the issue in Rochester cathedral

Kingmaker at Warwick Castle

The Wars of the Roses which began in the 1450's have a lot to do with Warwick Castle. Warwick Castle under Richard Neville, supported the Yorkists and when the Yorkists won in 1461, Henry VI conferred the title of Earl of Warwick on Richard Neville in recognition of his services to the King.

As fortunes changed and allegiances proved difficult to maintain the Earl of Warwick sided against Henry VI and took the King prisoner at Warwick Castle. The Kingmaker at Warwick Castle beautifully demonstrates the preparations for battle, the life of everyday men and women. This is as realistic as it gets. Waxworks by Madame Tussaud provide realistic settings and as the story unfolds you can almost imagine yourself there amongst the people, people unaware of the destiny of the Earl of Warwick and the King of England.
1460
*Battle of Wakefield. Richard of York is defeated and killed; Earl of Warwick (the Kingmaker) captures London for the Yorkists; Battle of Northampton: Henry VI is captured by Yorkists

1461
*Battles of Mortimer's Cross and Towton: Richard's son, Edward of York, defeats Lancastrians and becomes king; Edward IV, King of England (to 1483)