Hi! I was reading about the Wars of the Roses and I’m a little confused. Who actually had the better claim, Lancaster, York, or Tudor?

I don’t know if there’s a right answer to this per se, other than “not Tudor.”

Lancaster held the throne at the outset of the Wars of the Roses, so they could argue that, A. Henry had been anointed by God at his coronation, where he had taken the coronation oath and had been acclaimed and done homage, B. he was the rightful king by inheritance from Henry V and Henry IV before him, and C. Henry had a legitimate male heir. 

On the other hand, the Yorkists could claim that A. Henry’s inheritance was based on the usurpation of Richard II by Henry Bolingbroke and was thus in violation of the laws of succession, and that B. because Richard Plantagent was descended from Lionel of Antwerp the second son of Edward III (albeit on the female side through Anne Mortimer, although he was descended from Edmund of Langley, the fourth son of Edward III, on the male side), his claim super-seded that of Henry IV who was the son of John of Gaunt the third son of Edward IV, and C. that Parliament had passed the Act of Accord naming Richard Plantagent (and his sons) heir to the throne after Henry’s death. 

Whereas all the Tudors had was that the Beauforts were legitimized bastards of John of Gaunt, and that the Tudors had married Henry V’s widow. Oh, and that they claimed descent from Cadwaladr ap Cadwallon, King of Gwynedd, who Geoffrey of Monmouth had named as the last King of Britain, but at that point you’re basically using fanfic as evidence.