The Wars of the Roses were a series of bloody civil wars for the throne of England between two competing royal families: the House of York and the House of. War of the Roses, 1455-1485.

Cover of the play script published in 1970.The Wars of the Roses was a 1963 theatrical adaptation of 's first historical tetralogy (, and ), which deals with the conflict between the and the over the, a conflict known as the. The plays were adapted by, and directed by Barton himself and at the. The production starred as, as, as the, as the, as, as the, as, as and as.The plays were heavily politicised, with Barton and Hall allowing numerous contemporaneous events of the early 1960s to inform their adaptation. The production was a huge critical and commercial success, and is generally regarded as revitalizing the reputation of the Henry VI plays in the modern theatre. Many critics feel The Wars of the Roses set a standard for future productions of the tetralogy which has yet to be surpassed.

In 1965, the adapted the plays for television. The broadcast was so successful that they were shown again, in a differently edited form, in 1966. In 1970, published the play scripts along with extensive behind-the-scenes information written by Barton and Hall, and other members of the who worked on the production. Contents.Theatrical Rewriting The most significant initial alteration to the original text was to conflate the four plays into a trilogy.

This was not unprecedented, as adaptations from the seventeenth century onwards had employed truncation when staging the sequence, especially the Henry VI trilogy. In 1681, adapted 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI into a two-part play called Henry the Sixth, The First Part and The Misery of Civil War.

Henry the Sixth comprised Acts 1–3 of 2 Henry VI, with material added by Crowne himself, focusing mainly on the death of, whilst Misery adapted the last two acts of 2 Henry VI and a shortened version of 3 Henry VI. In 1699, 's used scenes from 3 Henry VI as a form of prologue to rest of the play, establishing a tradition still in use in filmic adaptations of Richard III (see, for example, and 's, 's or 's ). In 1723, 's King Henry VI: A Tragedy used Act 5 of 2 Henry VI and Acts 1 and 2 of 3 Henry VI. In 1817, 's Richard Duke of York; or the Contention of York and Lancaster used material from all three Henry VI plays, but removed everything not directly related to. Adapted all three plays into a single piece for a performance at in 1923 as part of the celebrations for the tercentenary of the.

In 1957, also at The Old Vic, directed a production of the trilogy under the title The Wars of the Roses. Adapted by, the trilogy was again altered to a two-part play; 1 Henry VI and 2 Henry VI were combined (with almost all of 1 Henry VI eliminated) and 3 Henry VI was performed in a shortened version.'

S adaptation would divide the plays up in a new way. The first play ( Henry VI) featured a shortened version of 1 Henry VI and roughly half of 2 Henry VI (up to the death of ).

The second play ( Edward IV) featured the second half of 2 Henry VI and a shortened version of 3 Henry VI. This was followed by a shortened version of Richard III as the third play. In all, 1,450 lines written by Barton were added to roughly 6,000 lines of original Shakespearean material, with a total of 12,350 lines removed. Barton defended the controversial decision to cut from and add to the text on the grounds that the Henry VI plays 'are not viable as they stand,' arguing they needed to be adapted 'in the interests of audience accessibility.'

As an example of the alterations, in the original text, the character of the appears only in 1 Henry VI, whereas in The Wars of the Roses, he appears throughout all three plays, as a constant ally of and the. Numerous characters were also removed, such as 's father, the, a major character in 2 Henry VI, and some of the battle scenes were amalgamated to cut down on stage combat (such as the and the, which take place in 2 Henry VI and 3 Henry VI, respectively).In his introduction to the published script of the plays, defended Barton's edits, arguing 'there is a difference between interfering with the text of the mature Shakespeare and with the text of the Henry VI 's. These plays are not only apprentice work, uneven in quality; we cannot be sure that Shakespeare was their sole author.' : vii–ix In tandem with Barton, Hall also argued the plays simply didn't work in unedited form;I have seen the original versions played twice. Shakespeare's voice is heard sporadically, and his vision, sharp and intense in some scenes, is swamped by the mass of history in others. All the same, I was doubtful about publishing our version.

Our production was perceived with a knowledge of the whole text. If we cut an important passage, we only did so in the conviction that its values were being expressed in other ways. What follows is what we found meaningful in the 1960s in Shakespeare's view of history. Its values are ephemeral, and its judgements are inevitably of the decade which produced it and us.: vii–ixAlthough some scholars were highly critical of Barton's edits, others praised them, arguing they improved on the originals. Hunter, for example, who was actually critical of the production itself, praised the editing, commenting that Barton was able to 'cut away the superfluous fat, tap out the unhealthy fluids, and rescue from the diffuse, stumbling, dropsical giant, a trim, lithe, and with-it figure, sharp and resilient.'

Referred to the plays as 'a triumph of scholarship and theatrical awareness,' arguing that 'by inspired weeding, contradiction, and even in places by brazen invention, he has created from a seldom revived mass of sword-rattling chronicles, a positive addition to the canon of popular works.' : 20 argued the additions were so well integrated into the existing material, he was at times unable to distinguish between the original Shakespearean and Barton's new verse, whilst noted that although the changes to the plays represented the most drastic alteration to Shakespeare since the days of the, the resulting production was of such a consistently high quality that any such changes could be forgiven. Politics In terms of the of the plays, Barton and Hall were both equally concerned they reflect, but not directly refer to, the contemporary political. According to, when Hall founded the in 1960, he 'insisted upon one simple rule: that whenever the Company did a play by Shakespeare, they should do it because the play was relevant, because the play made some demand upon our current attention.' This was very much in evidence during the production of The Wars of the Roses. Both Hall and Barton felt the civil chaos and breakdown of society depicted in the plays were mirrored by the contemporary political situation, in events such as the building of the in 1961, the in 1962 and the in 1963. Hall argued that 'we live among war, race riots, revolutions, assassinations, and the imminent threat of extinction.

The theatre is, therefore, examining fundamentals in staging the Henry VI plays.' He also stated that during pre-production, 'I realised that the mechanism of power had not changed in centuries. We were in the middle of a blood-soaked century.

I was convinced that a presentation of one of the bloodiest and most hypocritical periods in history would teach many lessons about the present.' : 9 Similarly, in her introduction to the edition of the trilogy, challenged 's dismissal of the Henry VI plays as a depiction of England as a 'perfect ', writing 'perhaps because we are more aware than ever before what a beargarden the whole world is, we see in these plays a microcosm of so many of the violent and tragic conflicts of our own time. The romantic view of Shakespeare, popular with the and lasting almost to the first half of this century has now changed, and we have become more aware of Shakespeare's political absorption and inspired interpretations of man's difficulty in governing himself and others.'

Ashcroft relished the opportunity to develop the character of over all four plays, and her resulting performance was one of the most lauded aspects of the entire production.Another lauded performance was that of Peggy Ashcroft as Margaret, whose role is usually heavily cut, and often eliminated entirely from both 1 Henry VI and, especially, Richard III. Margaret is the only character to appear in all four plays (unless one counts the Ghost of Henry VI in Richard III), and Ashcroft relished the chance to develop the character over the entire production, arguing that Margaret is 'a if ever there was one - and prototype for, - was Shakespeare's first 'heroine' - if such she can be called. It takes four plays to make her one of the great female characters in Shakespeare - and the full-length portrait has been seen only in The Wars of the Roses cycle - but she has facets that are not touched on in any other.' Ashcroft saw the scene from 2 Henry VI where she appears on-stage carrying the head of her lover, the, as pivotal to both the character's development and her own understanding of Margaret; 'I came to realise why this scene was of paramount importance - for later in what is one of the greatest and certainly most horrific scenes. when Margaret wipes the blood of York's son on the Duke's face.

I found that seemingly impossible bestial act to be credible as the result of the violence that has been perpetrated on her lover.' John Russell Brown singled out Ashcroft's performance during this scene as especially noteworthy, arguing that her performance, with its mixture of hatred, violence and laughter, 'was a portrayal of weakness in cruelty, helplessness in victory. the cruel humour of the lines was played close to hysteria: 'I prithee grieve to make me merry' was an almost necessary request to excuse Margaret's impulse towards helpless laughter, a physical and emotional relief and a breakdown of control.' Writing in the, commented, 'I shall long remember the speech she makes to her dispirited followers making their last stand.

She summons some inner strength from out of the weariness of defeat and, though she speaks like a lioness, the beast in her, you can feel, is already dead.' Randall Martin wroteAshcroft's full-spectrum performance extended the dramatic boundaries of Margaret's public agency and personal emotions. This came about. in part because of Hall and Barton's emphasis on psychological detail and motivational complexity. Ashcroft convinced audiences of Margaret's human growth from passionate youth to self-possessed maturity. By the time she reached Edward IV, and until the moment of 's death, she dominated the production's two main sites of power and conflict; the council-board and the battlefield. At the same time, Ashcroft strongly conveyed Part Three 's new dimension of maternal solicitude, problematizing the stereotype to which her male opponents always seek to reduce her.Another especially celebrated aspect of the production was the set, designed by, who used the work of and as his primary visual inspiration.

Bury constructed the set primarily from plated steel, even the walls and floors were covered in textured metal, giving the entire stage a cold, metallic appearance. At the back of the stage was a steel and movable walls of triangular shape covered with riveted plates. Worlsey commented of the set that 'we seem to be claustrophobically caught between two swinging metal wings that crush us from one side then from the other.' According to Bury, 'this was a period of armour and a period of the sword; they were plays about warfare, about power, about danger. This was the image of the plays.

We wanted an image rather than a setting. We were trying to make a world, a dangerous world, a terrible world, in which all these happenings fit.' Bury employed the notion of 'selective realism'; using one or two realistic props to emphasise the social dimensions of the narrative. In this case, such realism was manifested by a massive oval shaped iron council table which took up a large portion of the stage - the constantly changing group of figures who sit at the table visually emphasising the turbulence and political instability of the period.

Peter Hall himself wrote of the set, 'on the flagged floor of sheet steel tables are daggers, staircases are axe-heads, and doors the traps on scaffolds. Nothing yields: stone walls have lost their seduction and now loom dangerously - steel-clad - to enclose and to imprison.

The countryside offers no escape, the danger is still there in the iron foliage of the cruel trees, and, surrounding all, the great steel cage of war.' : 237 Reception The production was hailed as a triumph, and is generally recognised as reviving the reputation of the Henry VI plays in the modern theatre.: 72–74 Writing for the, called it amonumental production.

One of the mightiest stage projects of our time, a production to remember all our lives, whose final third was carried through to the end with the same bloodstained power, the same attention to the verse and the depth of characters who speak it that characterised the first two-thirds. The last scene - the - sums up and sets the seal on all that has gone before. At the end Richard, broken, mad, and exhausted, a with only his visor for a bunker, summons up his last strength for the duel with Richmond. It is savage, primitive, and horrible: so were the Wars of the Roses.Harold Hobson wrote 'I doubt if anything as valuable has ever been done for Shakespeare in the whole history of the stage.' The adaptation was immediately seen as the yardstick against which all future productions would be measured, and as late as 2000, it was still regarded by some critics as the finest ever production of the tetralogy; reviewing 's 2000/2001 production for the RSC, Carole Woddis wrote The Wars of the Roses 'remains still the benchmark in terms of political and psychological elucidation and drive.' Television In 1965, broadcast all three plays from the trilogy.

Directed for television by and, the plays were presented as more than simply filmed theatre, with the core idea being 'to recreate theatre production in televisual terms - not merely to observe it, but to get to the heart of it.' Filming was done on the stage, but not during actual performances, thus allowing cameras to get close to the actors, and cameramen with hand-held cameras to shoot battle scenes. Additionally, camera platforms were created around the theatre. In all, twelve cameras were used, allowing the final product to be edited more like a film than a piece of static filmed theatre. The TV adaptation was shot following the 1964 run of the plays at Stratford-upon-Avon, and took place over an eight-week period, with fifty-two BBC staff working alongside eighty-four RSC staff to bring the project to fruition.

1965 broadcast Henry VI. The English. as. as.

as. as. as Captain to Talbot. as.

as. as. as. as Vernon. as Lawyer. as Bassett.

as. as Lieutenant of the Tower. as. as. as English Soldier.

as. as Messenger to the Council.

as Messenger to York. as. as Messenger to Gloucester. as Sir John Hume.

as. as. as A Townsman. as Simpcox. as Simpcox's Wife.

as First Murderer. as Second Murderer. as First Citizen. as Second Citizen. as Third CitizenThe French. as. as.

as. as. as. as. as. as French Messenger. as French Soldier.

as Papal LegateEdward IV. as. as.

as. as. as. as. as. as. as.

as. as.

as. as. as. as. as First Messenger.

as Second Messenger. as Third Messenger. as.

Aztec tribe rappers youtube. as. as.

as. as. asReconcilers of the Two Houses. as. asThe Commons.

as Lieutenant of the Tower. as First Murderer. as Second Murderer.

as Lord Mayor. as First Citizen. as Second Citizen. as Third Citizen. as Messenger from Derby1966 broadcast In 1966, the production was repeated on BBC 1 where it was re-edited into eleven episodes of fifty minutes each.

'The Inheritance'. Originally aired: 6 January 1966. Content: 1 Henry VI Acts 1, 2, 3 and Act 4, Scene 1 (Henry choosing a red rose and inadvertently aligning himself with ).' Margaret of Anjou'.

Originally aired: 13 January 1966. Content: 1 Henry VI Act 4, Scene 2 ( confronting the French general at Harfleur), and the first half of Act 1, Scene 1 of 2 Henry VI (up to Henry and Margaret leaving the court).' The Lord Protector'.

Originally aired: 20 January 1966. Content: the second half of Act 1, Scene 1 of 2 Henry VI ( unburdening his concerns to the court) and the rest of Act 1, Act 2 and Act 3, Scene 1 ('s soliloquy regarding the fact he now has troops at his disposal, and his revelation of his plans to use to instigate a popular rebellion).' The Council Board'. Originally aired: 27 January 1966.

Content: 2 Henry VI Act 3, Scene 2 to Act 4, Scene 8 (beginning with the aftermath of Humphrey's murder, and concluding with Jack Cade's forces abandoning him).' The Fearful King'. Originally aired: 3 February 1966.

Content: 2 Henry VI Act 4, Scene 9 (Henry pardoning those who abandoned Jack Cade) and 3 Henry VI Act 1 and Act 2, Scene 1 ( rallying, and after the death of their father).' The Kingmaker'.

Originally aired: 10 February 1966. Content: 3 Henry VI Act 2, Scene 2 to Act 3, Scene 3 (beginning with the arrival of the to York, and concluding with Warwick's avowal to remove Edward from the throne and restore Henry).' Edward of York'. Originally aired: 17 February 1966. Content: 3 Henry VI Act 3, Scene 4 to Act 5, Scene 5 (beginning with George abandoning Edward in protest at his marriage to, and concluding with the death of Prince Edward and the Yorkist victory at the ).' The Prophetess'.

Originally aired: 24 February 1966. Content: 3 Henry VI Act 5, Scene 6 (Richard murdering Henry) and Richard III Act 1, Scenes 1, 2 and 3 (Richard sending two murderers to kill George).' Richard of Gloucester'. Originally aired: 3 March 1966. Contents: Richard III Act 1, Scene 4 to Act 3, Scene 4 (beginning with George's murder, and concluding with the arrest of ).'

Richard the King'. Originally aired: 10 March 1966. Contents: Richard III Act 3, Scene 5 to Act 5, Scene 1 (beginning with the Lord Mayor arriving to implore Richard to become King, and concluding with the death of ).' Henry Tudor'. Originally aired: 17 March 1966. Contents: Richard III Act 5, Scene 2 onwards ('s arrival in England).DVD In June 2016, Illuminations Media released the series on DVD for the first time. Presented in the original three-play format, the box-set also included a new 'Making of' featurette, featuring interviews with David Warner and Janet Suzman.

See also. (1960). (1963). (1978-1985).

(1992-1994). (2005). (2012; 2016)References. Knowles, Ronald, ed. King Henry VI Part 2. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series.

London: Methuen. Pp. 2–3. Siemon, James R., ed. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. London: Methuen. Pp. 87–91.

Warren, Roger, ed. Henry VI, Part Two. The Oxford Shakespeare.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 7. Knowles, Ronald, ed. King Henry VI Part 2.

The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series. London: Methuen. Pp. 4–5. Martin, Randall, ed. Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

P. 84. Hattaway, Martin, ed. The Third Part of King Henry VI. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 44–45.

Taylor, Michael, ed. Henry VI, Part One. The Oxford Shakespeare.

Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 33. Quoted in Hodgon, Barbara (1972).

' The Wars of the Roses: Scholarship Speaks on the Stage'. Shakespeare Jahrbuch. 108: 170. ^; (1970). The Wars of the Roses: Adapted for the Royal Shakespeare Company from William Shakespeare's Henry VI, Parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III. London: BBC Books. Hunter, G.K.

'The Royal Shakespeare Company Plays Henry VI'. Renaissance Drama. 9: 97.

^ Quoted in (1991). A Band of Arrogant and United Heroes: The Story of the Royal Shakespeare Company's Staging of The Wars of the Roses. London: Adelphi. Ryan, Lawrence V., ed. (2005) 1967. Henry VI, Part I. The Signet Classics Shakespeare (2nd revised ed.).

New York: Signet. P. 215.

Quoted in Berry, Ralph (1989) 1977. London: Hamish Hamilton. P. Quoted in (1964). Royal Shakespeare Theatre Company, 1960–1963. London: Max Reinhardt.

P. 47. ^ Quoted in Ryan, Lawrence V., ed. (2005) 1967. Henry VI, Part I. The Signet Classics Shakespeare (2nd revised ed.). New York: Signet. P. 217.

Hoenselaars, Ton (2004). 'Part II Introduction: The Appropriated Past'. In Hoenselaars, Ton (ed.). Shakespeare's History Plays: Performance, Translation and Adaptation in Britain and Abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 112.

Quoted in Grene, Nicholas (2002). Shakespeare's Serial History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 46. See (1967).

Shakespeare Our Contemporary. London: Methuen. Pp. 32–47. Knowles, Ronald, ed. King Henry VI Part 2. The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series.

London: Methuen. Pp. 12–13. ^ Quoted in Richmond, Hugh M. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

^, ed. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

P. Martin, Randall, ed. Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 66. Grene, Nicholas (2002).

Shakespeare's Serial History Plays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 45.

Warren, Roger, ed. Henry VI, Part Two. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 10–11. ^ (21 July 1963).

' The Wars of the Roses Review'. (21 July 1963). ' The Wars of the Roses Review'. Quoted in Ryan, Lawrence V., ed. (2005) 1967. Henry VI, Part I. The Signet Classics Shakespeare (2nd revised ed.).

New York: Signet. P. 216.

Martin, Randall, ed. Henry VI, Part Three. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 38–39.

(1973). 'Margaret of Anjou'. Shakespeare Jahrbuch. 109: 7–8. Brown, John Russell (1965).

Shakespeare Survey. Retrieved 6 September 2014. (subscription required). ^ (18 July 1963). ' The Wars of the Roses Review'.

Martin, Randall, ed. Henry VI, Part Three.

The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pp. 87–88. ^ Loehlin, James N. 'Brecht and the rediscovery of Henry VI'. In Hoenselaars, Ton (ed.).

Shakespeare's History Plays: Performance, Translation and Adaptation in Britain and Abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pp. 138–139. Hattaway, Michael, ed.

The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pp. Quoted in Greenwald, Michael (1986). In Leiter, Samuel L. New York: Greenwood. P. Warren, Roger, ed. Henry VI, Part Two.

The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 9–10. (21 July 1963). ' The Wars of the Roses Review'. Woddis, Carole (19 December 2000). ' Henry VI, Part 2 Review'.

Lennox, Patricia (2001). ' Henry VI: A Television History in Four Parts'. In Pendleton, Thomas A.

Henry VI: Critical Essays. London: Routledge. P. 243. Griffin, Alice V. (Winter 1966). 'Shakespeare Through the Camera's Eye: IV'.

17 (4): 385. Willis, Susan (1991). Carolina: North Carolina Press. Illuminations Media. Retrieved 25 May 2016.

'Is this all real? Or has this been happening inside my head?' The topic of this article is of a real-life subject that has been mentioned ' in a source.

The is written from the perspective that all information presented in canon is true (e.g., really exists), and, as such, details contained in this article may differ from real world facts.The War of the Roses were a series of bloody dynastic civil wars between supporters of the rival houses of Lancaster and York, for the throne of. This conflict is called the 'War of the Roses' since the symbol of the House of Lancaster was a red rose, and the symbol of the House of York was a white rose. They are generally accepted to have been fought in several spasmodic episodes between and ending with the victory of, who united the two houses through marriage and founded the Tudor dynasty.

It is a popular historical theory that the War of the Roses began as a dispute between wizarding neighbours over a. Appearances. (First mentioned)Notes and references.