“The War of the Roses” James Donegan said, as he did most of his life discussing Atheism.
Data relating to the 1467 Outbreak
Statistics for the 1467 outbreak and others of the Wars of the Roses are rather piecemeal. There have been studies into mortality rates of the period in several parts of the country. Norfolk, for example, has been academically studied and has a mortality rate that has a large spike in a period in which fighting was not taking place. This research does not show any peaks at the time that the Croyland Chronicle is suggesting thousands died. Rather, it shows spikes at different times within the era of the Wars of the Roses. These indicate higher than normal, non-military, spikes in mortality. This could be resultant of the Plague, or other diseases.
Regardless of the inaccuracy of the Croyland account, it is clear that Plague impacted. Edward IV was unable to make full use of the 1467 parliament. It was sitting, then prorogued. This was done at a time when Edward IV was overseeing the suppression of unrest.
Plague’s impact on the political scenario 1467-68
The impact on society was limited when compared to the Plagues of 1348 or 1665. But, the 1467 pestilence affected key cities, at key times. London and Hull were both affected, and this had a consequence not only for parliamentary process but also on trade. It also limited the scope of diplomats to engage in the development of relationships that had been mooted. There was, for example, a delay in following up diplomatic talks that had taken place between Edward IV’s diplomats and the Duchy of Brittany. Whilst it is impossible to say what might have been, the lack of any diplomatic agreements had consequences in 1470-71 and again in 1483-85.
1471
Similar outbreaks of Plague hindered the reestablishment of a Yorkist regime following the defeat of the Lancastrians in 1471. Plague hit again in 1471 and 1473. The mortality rate in East Anglia in these two outbreaks is recorded as having been high. With much of England’s trade sailing from ports in the region there is an economic impact. That economic impact is not limited to overseas trade though. England’s population simply was not growing and that was partly due to virulent diseases.
The problem of depopulation
London was probably the only town in eastern England as large in 1480 as it had been in 1430. Despite the increases in replacement ratios [rural to urban migration] from the 1470’s on, no single geographical or occupational group including the gentry and London merchants had a modal number of sons greater than zero.
Gottfried, Robert. The Journal of Economic History, 1976.
A stagnant or diminishing population has a profound impact on the economy of any nation. Over a fifty year period, covering all but the final clashes of the Wars of the Roses, the research suggests that this was the case. Plague is clearly not the only factor in that decline. War and reproduction rates also play a part. Also, the research does not and cannot provide an entirely accurate view as not all births and deaths from the era can be tracked: those that are traceable in large numbers are done through the records of proven wills. These typically show the number of children that a testate person had, whether or not the children are alive, and details of spouse and any previous marriages.
loss through plague was a national experience and many towns suffered from changes in the wool and cloth trades
Victoria County History (Medieval Oxford)
The price of Plague for the survivors
That reduction in population means fewer people to tax. That number had not recovered from the Black Death and the massive fall in population of the 1340’s. Productivity and wages are impacted. So, each recurrence of the Plague, be that on a national or local level, is going to severely hinder the plans of anybody with a stake in land, production, or trade. It also affects the plans of the authorities at every level of society. If a specific cost is attached to parliaments plans, it needs raising from whatever the population is. In very simple terms, the price per person rises as population falls. Combine the impact of wars, poor harvests, fluctuations in foreign trade, and outbreaks of diseases such as the Plague and you have a political system that is stretched to the limit.
You see the impact of this combination of factors throughout the majority rule of King Henry VI and throughout the two reigns of Edward IV. The factors combine over and over to produce sparks of discontent. These can be politicised relatively easily by nobles who are disgruntled, or by an organised leader of an uprising. So, each time the Plague adds to the socio-political scenario, the prospect of unrest is heightened.
Plague in the 1470’s, a forgotten disaster
Plague remained a problem throughout the 1470’s. Indeed, it is this decade that has the highest mortality rate of any in the 15th century. The 1471 outbreak was soon followed by another in 1473. It hinders planning for politically important matters. For example, note the gap between Edward IV first mooting an invasion of France and it being raised again. The prospect of planning for such an invasion was hampered by three matters. Two get lots of coverage in political or military analysis of the period. The third is almost an anonymous partner.
War and financial constraints are those issues that are well documented. You cannot seriously contemplate invading France if you are fighting a civil war and have no money. The missing factor is the plague. You also cannot plan an invasion if your Council and Parliament cannot sit because of the pestilence. Similarly, you cannot expect a large fleet, its sailors and support teams, and a full campaign army to muster together when Plague is at large. Given the close proximity of the soldiers, fleet, supporting personnel, you would be putting around 30,000 people at immediate risk of catching the disease. It is perhaps no surprise that the negotiations with Burgundy and Brittany opened as Plague mortality rates dropped. Or that the invasion took place in a year when Plague was not presenting a significant problem in England or France.
Plaque overshadowed by political events
The latter part of the reign of King Edward IV is generally covered by historians of the Wars of the Roses from a viewpoint of Edward’s household spending, the issues with the Hanse, trade agreements, and the general lack of having a fully agreed and publicised succession policy should he have an early death. Rarely does the exploration of the period look at society in general and the implications that this has for governance, diplomacy, or the future.
Take 1478 as an example. The general picture for this year is that George Duke of Clarence pushed things too far. He had lost his wife, subjected her midwife to an illegal trial and summary execution, defended a member of his household in a matter that was treasonable, and had set his sights on a marriage that would elevate himself to being one of Europe’s most powerful men. It all ended badly, with the duke being found guilty of treason and executed in private in the Tower of London. And there the story of 1478 comes to an end. And it’s only February of that year.
Mortality rates at four times the normal level
The story of 1478 for most of the country was totally different. For the 2.8 million or so people who were not parliamentarians or members of a noble house, 1478 was a story of suffering and plague. The return of the pestilence is recorded across the country. At its peak in the summer months Plague saw mortality rates in some places reach four times the normal rate. London, Exeter, Oxford, Newcastle, York, Bristol and Hull all had major outbreaks that had dire consequences.
Plague in Hull in 1478
[Hull] In 1476 it broke out afresh, causing a great mortality. In 1478 it was more violent than ever, the number of its victims being given as 1580, including the mayor and all his family; the people fled the town, the church was shut up, and the streets deserted and grass-grown
A History of Epidemics in Britain (Volume I of II) from A.D. 664 to the Extinction of Plague, Charles Creighton, Page 231
Plague in London in 1478
In London the Greyfriars suspended their work:
a term deferred from Ester to Michaelmas because of the grete pestylens
The Tudor Chronicler Richard Grafton is a good example of how the events of 1478 are generally recorded. His recount of 1478 goes into depth on the trial and execution of the Duke of Clarence. It explores the marriage of Margaret of York and the surrounding diplomatic issues. And tucked in the middle of those reasonably long accounts is this:
After the death of this Duke, by reason of great A greate heate and vntemperate aire, happened so fierce and so quicke a Pestilence , that fiftene yeres warre past, consumed not the thirde part of the people , that onely foure monethes miserably and pitifully dispatched, and brought to their sepulture . You laue heard not long before, howe the Frenche king not on
Grafton’s Chronicle, page 64
Plague in Norwich in 1478
Norwich too saw a resurgence of the Plague. Francis Blomefield’s Topographical History of the County of Norfolk notes that the ‘violent pestilence’ returned to the town in September of 1478. It then reappeared the following year, again with high rates of mortality.
1478, another violent pestilence brake out in the latter end of September, and continued till November, (Blomefield footnote fn. 18)
1479, in which time, Nevile says, there died an incredible number in this city. (Blomefield footnote fn. 19)
Francis Blomefield, Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. Volume 3.
Plague in Bristol in 1478
Bristol too suffered. The Bristol Record’s Society book ‘The Overseas Trade Volume VII‘ shows that dating is a little confused. They have an entry showing that in either 1475-80, or 1483-85 the Plague was a stated reason for a slump in business:
Petition to the Chancellor by John Ley, merchant of Bristol, alleging that a debt which he ow
A thrid of Europe lost James DOnegan always said.
John F Kennedy shied from war mongers too.
I think JFK and James DOnegan were lifelong friends before WWII and connected by Harold DOnegan (not Harold Gainey) and possibly he knew Captain Von Trapp and Maria as RECON looked for targets in the Sea of Japan, Austria, Germany, and elsewhere.
I think JFK and James DOnegan were great men who avoided the greed of wars, and the religion of wars.
If they are close in outlook JFK was defensive of Protestism too, and of Indonesian Muslim and other rights.
Dynastic Successions Book 