#John de la Pole

[cesareeborgia]

↳ richard iii of england + alphabet

[blackboar]

The de la Pole claim and actions 1/3: Did Richard III named John de la Pole his heir?

It is an accepted fact for many that Richard III named John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, as his heir. Paul Murray Kendall, in Richard III, openly states so, pointing to his claim as Richard III's nephew, his adulthood, and his (supposed but probable) competence. This idea was often put in the public eye, as with The White Queen, in which Henry VII says to John that he was named heir by Richard III (even if John then supports Warwick's claim after). However, Richard III never officially named him heir, which doesn't mean the de la Pole claim is irrelevant in English royal succession.

The only contemporary source openly stating John de la Pole was named Richard III's heir is Jon Rous (1420-1492), author of Historia Regum Angliae, a history of the kings of England. Rous was a cleric from Warwickshire who also wrote about the Beauchamp family. He had Beauchamp connections considering he was chaplain of the Collegiate Church of St Mary, founded by a Beauchamp and in which many Beauchamp Earl of Warwick are entombed. He was a Ricardian supporter before switching after Bosworth to less generous views of Richard III. His Historia Regum Angliae is posterior to Bosworth and more hostile to Richard than his Rous Roll. Rous claim in Historia Regum Angliae that Richard III named Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick (and of the Beauchamp family) as heir after his own son's demise in 1484 but that he changed his mind in 1485 in favor of John de la Pole. For Paul Murray Kendall, those choices might have been made after Anne Neville's death, who pushed for her nephew to be the heir. Her death allowed Richard III to change his mind. Needless to say, no official document confirms that. Charles Ross also doesn't think it's true, considering that Edward Plantagenet couldn't be named heir by a king whose own claim is based on the exclusion of his nephew, barred from royal succession by an act of attainder.

The truth is difficult to assess. On the one hand, it's possible that Richard III would again infringe on succession rules for his nephew Warwick if he desired so. Familial solidarity might have played: Edward was the last Plantagenet after him. On the other, it could create a dangerous heir that Richard III couldn't afford at the moment

Naming John de la Pole was better because he didn't have a lineage that suffered from a recent attainder. He was a magnate with extensive connections: his father was duke of Suffolk, and his stepfather was the Earl of Arundel. Richard III might have needed to secure their support by naming John heir. John de la Pole was also a magnate on his own right, with many estates given by his father to give him the estates necessary to maintain his ranks of Earl. He was the son of a younger sister of Richard III, and his eldest sister, Anne of York, already had a daughter (Anne St-Leger). Richard III couldn't choose Anne St-Leger as heiress, considering he executed her father for treason less than two years ago and that having a ruling queen would be unprecedented in England.

So John de la Pole was an adult nephew, a magnate with significant connection and a capable man. It make sense that Richard III would chose him amongst the various candidate of his family. However this analysis is clearly made a posteriori. It is made with the inside knowledge that Richard III would die at Bosworth heirless and without any new marriage that would bring him a new heir. It's telling that Rous wrote about John de la Pole's promotion after Bosworth (and maybe Stoke) and would fall under the fallacy that Richard III should have named an heir as if he preempted his future demise. We know that Richard III was under negotiation for the hand of Joanne of Portugal. An unfounded rumor spread about his potential marriage with Elizabeth of York, and others have theorized about a marriage with Anne of Britanny. Richard III was under the active search of a new queen that would eventually bring him heirs. This option actively pushed him to not name a presumptive heir considering that in his mind, he would only keep this position for a short time. It was needless to do it, and similar kings without male heirs for a time acted the same (Edward IV until the birth of Edward V in 1470, Henry VII before Arthur's birth in 1486).

That doesn't mean Richard III didn't consider it or sent hints to John de la Pole, as to secure his family's loyalty. John was given lands worth 500 marks and an annuity of £176 13s 4d from the duchy of Cornwall. He was also named Lieutenant of Ireland in October 1484 and made him president of the newly-established Council of the North. Those were good rewards, and one can point out that the Lieutenancy of Ireland and annuities from a duchy traditionally given to the king's heir were hints of a potential royal destiny. The Lieutenancy of Ireland and Cornwall was granted before to Richard III's sole son and heir. However, it is worth noting that the Lieutenancy was also granted to other members of the royal family or even outsiders. It might have been a hint of Richard III's consideration for John and a tacit message that John would be preferred to other pretenders if Richard III couldn't have heirs but not a clear patent making John de la Pole heir to the throne. Richard III certainly thought unnecessary to elevate one family member as heir and risk creating a dangerous precedent, and creating discontent amongst his nobility. He intended to have a son as his heir shortly and this is why he never bothered with naming a presumptive heir.

[blueberry-bubbles130]

We are now truly diving into the mad historical hypotheticals folks:

For this hypothetical we are just dealing with the shark from the first Jaws movie. Just a regular old killer shark.

I don’t have any proper rules for this one. Just they’re on a boat and have to survive and/or kill Jaws.

[saibennettdaily]

SAI BENNETT as Mary Tudor, Princess of England

↳ The Spanish Princess, Part Two Episode One - Camelot

[une-sanz-pluis]

In the end, if there is a single theme in the duke's career, it is one of obedience to Henry's personal authority, something which was gaining definition only at this time. The king's new prominence must play an important part in explaining his acquiescence during the years which followed. Faced with the destruction of his wife, a series of threats to his property and, finally, a thoroughly dubious charge of treason, Gloucester was unresisting. Was this because he accepted the central pretension of Suffolk's rule, that it was backed by the will of the king?

John Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

[sleepythug]

What are some movies that every aspiring cinephile should watch?

battleship potemkin (sergei eisenstein, 1926)

city lights (charlie chaplin, 1931)

M (fritz lang, 1931)

freaks (tod browning, 1932)

brief encounter (david lean, 1945)

out of the past (jacques tourneur, 1947)

the third man (carol reed, 1949)

late spring (yasijuro ozu, 1949)

kiss me deadly (robert aldrich, 1955)

a man escaped (robert bresson, 1956)

touch of evil (orson welles, 1958)

la dolce vita (federico fellini, 1960)

peeping tom (michael powell, 1960)

man who shot liberty valance (john ford, 1962)

the exterminating angel (luis buñuel, 1962)

shock corridor (samuel fuller, 1963)

kwaidan (masaki kobayashi, 1964)

dragon inn (king hu, 1967)

playtime (jacques tati, 1967)

once upon a time in the west (sergio leone, 1968)

two-lane blacktop (monte hellman, 1971)

aguirre, wrath of god (werner herzog, 1972)

touki bouki (djibril diop mambety, 1973)

the conversation (francis ford coppola, 1974)

the passenger (michelangelo antonioni, 1975)

nashville (robert altman, 1975)

the killing of a chinese bookie (john cassavetes, 1976)

mikey and nicky (elaine may, 1976)

sorcerer (william friedkin, 1977)

days of heaven (terrence malick, 1978)

blow out (brian de palma, 1981)

8 diagram pole fighter (lau kar-leung, 1984)

mishima: a life in four chapters (paul schrader, 1985)

tampopo (jūzō itami, 1985)

blue velvet (david lynch, 1986)

something wild (jonathan demme, 1986)

landscape in the mist (theo angelopoulos, 1988)

sonatine (takeshi kitano, 1993)

salaam cinema (mohsen makhmalbaf, 1995)

fallen angels (wong kar-wai, 1995)

taste of cherry (abbas kiarostami, 1997)

cure (kiyoshi kurosawa, 1997)

the thin red line (terrence malick, 1999)

beau travail (claire denis, 1999)

yi yi (edward yang, 2000)

all about lily chou chou (shunji iwai, 2001)

memories of murder (bong joon-ho, 2003)

dogville (lars von trier, 2003)

tropical malady (apichatpong weerasethakul, 2004)

silent light (carlos reygadas, 2007)

sparrow (johnnie to, 2008)

holy motors (leos carax, 2012)

phoenix (christian petzold, 2014)

personal shopper (oliver assayas, 2016)

[eclipsedzs]

can u do quackity doing a video with short hispanic reader?

SORRY IF ITS TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR

have a nice day and stay hydrated ❤️

𝗗𝘂𝗺𝗯 𝗩𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼

𝗘𝗖𝗟𝗜𝗣𝗦𝗘𝗗 ▰▰▰▱▱▱ Volume: Quackity

Genre: ✓

Paring: Quackity x Fem!Reader

Summary: Irl Mario Cart with your boyfriend- Alex and best friend- John Smith.

Disclaimer(s): Cursing, Google Translated Spanish (Sorry D:) (sorry if it’s not good, got to get back into the grove of writing)

♫ ― ♫

YOUR FOOT RESTED snuggly on the small petals of the cart you sat in, phone snugly in your hand as you awaited your boyfriend to finish fiddling with his camera.

John, who was parked next to you, played on his phone- his tongue slightly out as he concentrated on his game.

Looking to him as you whip hair that stuck to your face from the window. “Qué juego estás jugando?” You ask, raising a brow as you peak to his phone. (What game are you playing?)

“Un estúpido juego lleno de anuncios.” He clicks his tongue, his hand pressing on the power off button with a click. (A stupid Game full of ads)

“¿El de los tacones altos?” You pondered- glancing over and pausing once you saw the subtle wave of Alex’s hand, alerting you of your needed entrance. (The one with the high heels?)

“Oh, Alex nos necesita ahora.” You wave your hand to Alex, alerting him you noticed it. You looked to John, indicating him to go first.

“Seré su en un segundo.” You ramble, nodding him to Alex. With a quick message of your phone you quickly sped to get caught up with the men who decided to race.

♫ ― ♫

“YEAH JOHN SMITH, i’m so happy.” The sound of Alex knocked you from you small debate with John, who was currently trying to steal a sparkly american type hat from your head.

“¡Ojo! Vete a la mierda." You cursed at him, grabbing the hat. Your eyes caught Quackitys, well at least as much as they could from his sunglasses.

Alex smiled softly at you for a moment, a clear blush on his cheeks. You watched as he bent over slightly to the side, grabbing something from the bag of items you and him had gotten a couple days ago.

“You know what else, i got somthing for you.” In his hands he held a big, plastic baby bottle in his hands.

“You big, Fucking baby.” He held back a laugh while handing it to the bearded man. You held back a laugh, leaning forward slightly on the wheel.

“You complain about everything ever John smith.” Quackity glanced at the camera and smirks. “You come in here and try to steal my girlfriends glittery hat.” He laughs, trying to stay serious.

John Gasps, holding the baby bottle for a moment before throwing it at you. “Bro!” You laughed- eyes closing as you gasped for air slightly. The mix of funniness were catching up to you.

♫ ― ♫

YOUR HAND STRETCHED OUT, grasping into the warm one of your boyfriends as you drove down the long curvy path. His giggles filled your ears as he held onto you.

Him and John were laughing, going on and on about that you guys were the new fast and furious.

Gasping when a pole was in the way you let go of Alex’s hand- laughing when he immediately started whining.

“Hold on you baby.” You laughed, though it was funny to watch his reaction when you purposefully stayed away from him.

You stuck your tongue out at him- watching his mouth open wide as if you just murdered his whole family.

Laughing you blew him a small kiss, speeding off to win the race.

[andiatas]

Royal(ish) Reads: Jul-Sep 2024

Note: Some of the following links are affiliate links, which means I earn a commission on every purchase. This does not affect the price you pay. Also note that all titles mentioned are written by historians, researchers, or scholars. Only in rare cases are featured titles not written by someone with training in historical research.

For more book recommendations like in this post, you can follow my blog & Instagram

The Tragic Life of Lady Jane Grey by Beverley Adams (published Aug. 30, 2024) // All His Spies: The Secret World of Robert Cecil by Stephen Alford (published Jul. 4, 2024) // Dancing With Diana: A Memoir by Anne Allan (published Sep. 10, 2024)

Son of Prophecy: The Rise of Henry Tudor by Nathen Amin (published Jul. 15, 2024) // Planning the Murder of Anne Boleyn by Caroline Angus (published Aug. 30, 2024) // The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA by John Ashdown-Hill (new paperback version published Sep. 26, 2024)

The Fall of Egypt and the Rise of Rome: A History of the Ptolemies by Guy de la Bedoyere (published Sep. 10, 2024) // Richard Beauchamp: Medieval England's Greatest Knight by David Brindley (new paperback version published Aug. 29, 2024) // A Voyage Around the Queen by Craig Brown (published Aug. 29, 2024)

Henry III: Reform, Rebellion, Civil War, Settlement, 1258-1272 by David Carpenter (new paperback version published Sep. 24, 2024) // Stuart Spouses: A Compendium of Consorts from James I of Scotland to Queen Anne of Great Britain by Heather R. Darsie (published Sep. 30, 2024) // Prince Eugene of Savoy: A Genius for War Against Louis XIV and the Ottoman Empire by James Falkner (published Aug. 30, 2024)

Normal Women: From the Number One Bestselling Author Comes 900 Years of Women Making History by Philippa Gregory (new paperback version published Sep. 26, 2024) // The Romanovs: Imperial Russia and Ruling the Empire, 1613-1917 by Professor Lindsey Hughes, Professor Erika Monahan (2nd edition published Sep. 19, 2024) // Lady Pamela: My Mother's Extraordinary Years as Daughter to the Viceroy of India, Lady-in-Waiting to the Queen, and Wife of David Hicks by India Hicks (published Sep. 3, 2024)

Hannibal and Scipio: Parallel Lives by Simon Hornblower (published Sep. 26, 2024) // Oliver Cromwell: Commander in Chief by Ronald Hutton (published Aug. 27, 2024) // Catherine, the Princess of Wales: The Biography by Robert Jobson (published Aug. 1, 2024)

Henry V: The Astonishing Rise of England's Greatest Warrior King by Dan Jones (published Sep. 12, 2024) // Courtiers: Intrigue, Ambition, and the Power Players Behind the House of Windsor by Valentine Low (new paperback version published Sep. 17, 2024) // Kings & Queens: The Real Lives of the English Monarchs by Ann MacMillan, Peter Snow (new paperback version published Sep. 12, 2024)

The Romanovs Under House Arrest: The Russian Revolution and A Royal Family’s Imprisonment in their Palace by Mickey Mayhew (published Aug. 30, 2024) // Queen Victoria's Favourite Granddaughter: Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, the Most Consequential Royal You Never Knew by Ilana D. Miller (published Aug. 19, 2024) // Cooking and the Crown: Royal recipes from Queen Victoria to King Charles III by Tom Parker Bowles (published Sep. 26, 2024)

Pure Wit: The Revolutionary Life of Margaret Cavendish by Francesca Peacock (new paperback version published Sep. 12, 2024) // Henry VIII and the Plantagenet Poles: The Rise and Fall of a Dynasty by Adam Pennington (Sep. 30, 2024) // Everyday Life in Tudor London: Life in the City of Thomas Cromwell, William Shakespeare & Anne Boleyn by Stephen Porter (new paperback version published Aug. 15, 2024)

Kingmaker: Pamela Churchill Harriman's Astonishing Life of Seduction, Intrigue and Power by Sonia Purnell (published Sep. 19, 2024) // The Secret Diary of Queen Camilla by Hilary Rose (published Sep. 26, 2024) // Adventures in Time: Heroes: The Box Set by Dominic Sandbrook (published Aug. 29, 2024)

Adventures in Time: Heroines: The Box Set by Dominic Sandbrook (published Aug. 29, 2024) // Justinian: Emperor, Soldier, Saint by Professor Peter Sarris (new paperback version published Sep. 12, 2024) // Women in the Valley of the Kings: The Untold Story of Women Egyptologists in the Gilded Age by Kathleen Sheppard (published Aug. 19, 2024)

Marriage, Tudor Style: Love, Hate & Scandal by Sylvia Barbara Soberton (published Jul. 29, 2024) // A History of the Roman Empire in 21 Women by Emma Southon (new paperback version published Jul. 4, 2024) // A Rome of One's Own: The Forgotten Women of the Roman Empire by Emma Southon (new paperback version published Sep. 17, 2024)

Cleopatra: The Woman Behind the Stories by Alexandra Stewart and Hannah Peck (published Aug. 15, 2024) // The Wisest Fool: The Lavish Life of James VI and I by Steven Veerapen (new paperback version published Sep. 5, 2024) // The King's Loot: The Greatest Royal Jewellery Heist in History by Richard Wallace (published Aug. 8, 2024)

The Beaumonts: Kings of Jerusalem by Kathryn Warner (published Sep. 30, 2024) // Emperor of the Seas: Kublai Khan and the Making of China by Jack Weatherford (published Sep. 26, 2024) // Ravenous: A Life of Barbara Villiers, Charles II's Most Infamous Mistress by Andrea Zuvich (published Jul. 30, 2024)

[racefortheironthrone]

Don't know much about papal history so was wondering "What if" at 1550 papal conclave Englishman and cousin to the Tudors Reginald Pole had won which in real life he nearly did? He seems to be not completely fairly viewed as conservative because he opposed the Act of Supremacy and his own life outside of the Tudors gets overshadowed.

I don't particularly know much about Reginald de la Pole's intra-Catholic religious politics (where did he stand on the Counter-Reformation? Was he an arch-traditionalist or more of an Erasmian reformer?) but I think he's generally viewed as someone with strong Catholic beliefs, given his position on the King's Great Matter let alone the Act of Supremacy.

To be honest, I think the main impact of de la Pole being elected Pope would be the rapid acceleration and intensification of English Anti-Catholicism.

If the Bishop of Rome is not merely attempting to assert a foreign jurisdiction in England, but is a Yorkist Pretender to the throne seeking to bring down England's Josiah, things are going to get very dicey very suddenly because now being an open Catholic or having Catholic sympathies is going to be seen as high treason pure and simple. In this timeline, exclusion from the succession is not going to be enough for Mary, and she will probably go down in history as a willing martyr for the True Religion.

With Queen Jane I and King John II jure uxoris leading the charge after Edward's death, there will be no room for the more Catholic-friendly elements of the Elizabethan religious settlement - England is going to go full Calvinist along with Scotland, the Netherlands, and the Huguenots. In fact, England is going to get stuck into the French Wars of Religion and try to detach as much of coastal France as it can in the name of Reformed Religion.

[travllingbunny]

Hi! I don't know how much you're interested in the subject today, but considering how i really adored a lot of your opinions/views of the Wars of the Roses and some people involved, especially Richard III, i was wondering how you think a scenerio where Richard remained King for more time or simply won Bosworth would be

Thank you for the teresting question.

Contrary to historical fiction works that portray him as desperate at the Battle of Bosworth, I think it's more likely Richard was hoping to get rid of Henry Tudor quickly and saw him as just a temporary nuisance. If only the battle had happened a couple of days later, when Richard got reinforcements from the North, or if William Stanley had not made the decision to definitely switch sides to Henry, the battle would've probably gone completely differently.

Below is my speculation of what happens if Richard wins:

The immediate outcome seems relatively clear - we know now that Richard was in the middle of secret negotiations with the royal family of Portugal for a double marriage between him and Infanta Joanna, and Elizabeth of York and King's 16-year old cousin Manuel, Duke of Beja, which were apparently going very well. It seems unlikely that Joanna, who had been refusing to get married for so long, would accept, but supposedly the negotiations were going well. We know Richard had sent her a personal letter, so it's fun to speculate what he said that would make her reconsider. I'm thinking he may have talked about religion (as they were both known to be pious) and pitched the marriage in terms of a partnership, and how she could do good for peace and the people of England through charity work (which she was known to do) and maybe even assured her that she wouldn't have to keep having children after she gave birth to an heir? Richard was expected to remarry and have a son after his only legitimate son and his wife died, but going by his choice of bride, he was looking for a great Queen and political partner above all, and not a broodmare - I can't imagine Joanna, who wanted to be a nun and was against marriage, agreeing to keep popping up a child every year or two until she hits menopause. He also may not have been two concerned because he had an heir and spares already, even though not 'of his body'- - his adult nephew John de La Pole and his younger brothers William, Edmund and Richard. The Portugal double marriage would've been a genius political move for many reasons: it would allow Richard to claim that he was ending the York/Lancaster rift for good by marrying Joanna, since the Portuguese royal family were through the female line the main surviving Lancastrian branch; it would fulfil his promise to Elizabeth Woodville that he would find good matches for her daughters in spite of their new 'bastard' status - and how! a Portuguese royal marriage was worthy of a princess* - and could be seen as healing the rift between the Yorkists too (and would at the same time make it impossible for Henry Tudor or anyone else to try to claim the throne of England by marrying her); and it would give England a great, intelligent and respectable Queen, who had experience in ruling as regent and could rule in RIchard's absence when he spent time abroad in wars, and whose reputation for piety and charity for people would help restore his tarnished reputation.

One interesting consequence of his marriage alliance is that Elizabeth of York would eventually have become a Queen Consort, but of Portugal, as Manuel eventually became King.Manuel I in 1495.

Once the situation became more stable, Richard would've probably focused on the things he had already started to do during his short reign - legal reforms aimed mostly at bettering the judiciary and the status of common people, and he would no doubt also want to curtail the power of major noblemen of questionable loyalty such as the Stanleys - and things he is known to have enthusiastically talked about planning to do, such as trying to convince other European countries to mount a campaign to stop the Ottoman Empire's conquests in Europe. (France would be an unlikely ally, Portugal and Burgundy would be obvious ones, and he'd no doubt try to pitch it to the Holy Roman Empire.)

I don't know whether he'd be successful at that, or how long he would live, but a few most obvious historical consequences would be:

the way the previous few decades were remembered in history would be very different, and no one would ever call them the "Wars of the Roses" - which was a name given by Walter Scott in the 19th century based on the fact that Henry VII used the red-white Tudor rose as his sigil, promoting it as a sign of supposed unity between the Lancaster and York dynasties - in spite of the fact that the Lancasters didn't actually use a red rose, or any kind of rose, as their sigil. Henry VII also presented the conflicts that had gone on as a part of one ongoing conflict that he ended with the Battle of Bosworth and by marrying Elizabeth of York. In reality, these were a few conflicts separated by years or even decades in between, and before the battle of Bosworth, the last actual armed conflict fought over the throne of England had been 14 years earlier, when Edward IV won his second and decisive war over the Lancasters. The conflict between the two Yorkist factions after Edward's death did not result in any actual battle (in 1783, Buckingham failed to ignite a rebellion, and his ally Henry turned back to France, realizing the war was lost before it began), so Henry basically 'ended the Wars of the Roses' only after he restarted them in 1485. (Not to mention that Henry had to fight another battle two years later against the Yorkists led by Jon de la Pole, which is always conveniently left out in history books, and had to catch, exile or execute various Yorkist pretenders throughout his reign.) If Henry loses the battle, he becomes only a footnote in history. Edward IV remains considered the one who ended the Lancaster-York conflicts with his decisive victory in 1471. Richard probably manages to be popular and respected king (much more than Henry was with his notorious tax laws) and would likely have claimed to have 'united the York and Lancaster branches' with his marriage to Joanna (though he probably wouldn't have made a huge deal out of it as Henry did, since Henry was promoting himself as the founder of a new dynasty that would start a new era). But what of the Princes in the Tower? Well, we don't know what happened to them and Richard may be suspected to have murdered them, but Henry definitely did imprison 11 year old Edward of Warwick and keep him locked up in the Tower until he was 25 and then executed him on trumped up treason charges just because he was another pretender to the throne, but barely anyone talks about it or cares, so... (insert something about history being written by the winners)

Scotland and England remain separate independent countries. It's very unlikely that the same chain of events would happen where the daughter of a king of England marries a king of Scotland, and then a century later her descendant becomes not just the king of Scotland but also the heir to the throne of England because the ruling dynasty of England died out. There is never a Tudor dynasty, never a Stuart dynasty, never a Hanover dynasty. And there's never a United Kingdom.

There is never such a thing as Anglicanism/the Church of England, with the monarch as its head. Mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean that England remains fully or predominantly Catholic - Protestantism was gaining popularity not just in England (even when Henry was still a devout Catholic) but also in Scotland, which didn't have a Henry VIII splitting with the Pope so he could annul his marriage. It's impossible to tell how exactly the Reformation and Counter-reformation would've affected England under different monarchs and a different dynasty, since so much of the religious strife in the 16th century was linked to Henry's decisions, his break from the Pope, his marriages and annulments and his succession issues, and then with the personalities and backgrounds of his children: Edward as a staunch Protestant (just like his mother's family), Mary as a staunch Catholic (completely unsurprising with her background and the fact that her father broke from the Pope so he could annul his marriage to her mother, proclaiming her a bastard), and then Elizabeth, who couldn't be tolerant to Catholics even if she didn't care about religion, since the Pope and therefore all Catholics considered her a bastard and an illegitimate monarch. How would elderly Richard, and/or his heirs, treat Protestants? What would they think of Martin Luther, or of William Tyndale? It's impossible to tell. He was a devout Catholic, but Protestantism didn't exist at the time, and would he (who was the first of English kings to publish official state documents in English) hate the idea of translating the Bible into English so ordinary people could understand it without the help of clergy? I really don't know, and it's even harder to tell what his heirs would be like in that regard. Would there be more religious tolerance in England? For all we know, it might even be less if a particularly fanatical monarch ended up on a throne... but at least I think I can say with some certainty that English monarchs of this hypothetical York dynasty would have no personal and dynastic reasons to persecute either Protestants or Catholics the way monarchs of the Tudor dynasty had due to their specific circumstances.

[richmond-rex]

What is the relationship between Elizabeth of York and her father's relatives? She seems to have a good relationship with her mother's relatives

Hello! It's difficult to say because there's little evidence of her relationship with them. Her aunt Margaret left for Burgundy when Elizabeth was only two years old so I doubt any relationship was ever established between them. Elizabeth's other aunt, Anne of York, died when Elizabeth was still young. We don't have evidence of Elizabeth's relationship with the aunt with whom she shared a name either (Elizabeth of York Duchess of Suffolk), though Elizabeth did maintain friendly relations with her daughter, Anne de la Pole the Abbess of Syon — a monastery Elizabeth's father Edward had particularly supported. Elizabeth also maintained cordial relations with Edmund de la Pole, Anne's brother (another paternal cousin), but the extent of her patronage/support of him is much less clear. It's intriguing to wonder what Elizabeth thought of their brother John, though, considering she had been placed under house arrest in the North under his supervision during Richard III's reign (he was, in a way, her gaoler). John would later betray the confidence Elizabeth's husband had placed in him, so it's likely she didn't hold him in high regard by the time he died at Stokefield.

When it comes to the children of her uncle George of Clarence, Elizabeth probably had a friendly relationship with her cousin Margaret. Margaret played a visible role in Arthur's christening and was present at the exclusive box where Henry VII and his mother watched Elizabeth's coronation. Margaret was, of course, Margaret Beaufort's ward and she probably only left the king's mother's household when she married the king's cousin, Sir Richard Pole. Sir Richard was made Prince Arthur's chamberlain and they lived far from court, so it's unlikely Elizabeth and her cousin Margaret ever had much opportunity for a closer relationship. In regards to Margaret's brother Edward of Warwick, we'll never know Elizabeth's feelings for him, but she probably valued her sons and husband more than the cousin she only knew as a child. Elizabeth certainly wasn't opposed to receiving the revenues of some of his Warwick estates during his minority, either.

The most intriguing relationship would be the one Elizabeth had with her paternal grandmother Cecily Neville. They don't seem to have been close from what evidence we have, though both of them were godmothers to Bridget, Elizabeth's youngest sister, and Cecily bequeathed her some important jewels in her last will, which she didn't do to any other grandchild. It's difficult to say if it was simply a matter related to status, though. Cecily certainly was proud enough to call herself 'the queen's grandmother' during Henry VII's reign. Henry, in turn, rewarded Cecily's musicians (which indicates she was present at the court's festivities on the occasion) and safeguarded her income/lands in his first parliament, so that might be why Cecily left him some money and a golden cup in her last will too. It's possible Henry's good treatment of Cecily might have been for Elizabeth's sake or in response to her request but generally, Henry doesn't seem to have been vengeful or harsh when it came to dealing with the Yorkist family (challengers to his rule aside).

Going back to Elizabeth of York and her paternal relatives, she certainly seems to have been friends with her half-brother Arthur Plantagenet, an illegitimate son of Edward IV. She employed him in her household and, after her death, instead of sending him away Henry VII employed him in their son's household, perhaps in respect for the affection Elizabeth felt for him. That might be one of the clearest examples of her affection for her father's relatives, but Elizabeth seems to have been close to all of her siblings in general, so it certainly fits what we know about her (Polydore Vergil said she held extraordinary affection/love for her siblings).

These are all the relatives I can think about now but I'll go back to this question if I remember anyone else 🌹x

[stairnaheireann]

#OTD in Irish History | 10 March:

1478 – John De La Pole, the Duke of Suffolk, was appointed lieutenant of Ireland for 20 years, but did not take office. 1653 – Sir Phelim O’Neill was executed by Parliament forces in Dublin, after refusing to confirm that the forged letter from King Charles I which started the rebellion was actually authentic, he was sentenced to die as a traitor. He was hung, drawn, and quartered. 1807 – Birth…

[blackboar]

If Richard III and Henry VII die, who should be the king of England?

It depends on the context.

Considering you put their ruling number, I assume you imagine they would die at the moment they were both declared king, which is the Bosworth campaign.

At that point, it really depends on conjuncture: Was John de la Pole captured? Did he flee? Which magnate has kept its army?

For instance, Norfolk getting killed at Bosworth means that John de la Pole or Edward Plantagenet might carry less weight, considering that he was a diehard Ricardian. On the reverse, the Marquess of Dorset which might support Edward Plantagenet is in France which can either be a curse (he's out of the immediate picture) or a blessing (he can ask for French support).

Many solutions are possible: the Ricardian faction might either favour John de la Pole or Edward Plantagenet. It depends if whether none, one or both fall under Tudor custody. The Tudor coalition is gone. Jasper could marry Elizabeth of York, but he doesn't have the Beaufort blood, and he's around 50 years old and heirless, which isn't great. Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, has royal blood but is merely seven years old. At that point, prominent magnates would decide what's best for the country and themselves.

I think that Elizabeth of York ruling on her own right is definitely out of the picture for patriarchal reasons. The Tudor faction can manufacture a king by marrying her to someone who would rule in her name but I don't think it would happen. To me, the struggle would be between John de la Pole and Warwick. As Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick is a minor, he don't have feud with anybody and that might be enough to push Tudor support toward him. Plus he can marry EoY. Still, if John de la Pole flee and play his cards well, if the Stanleys decide otherwise, if a Perkin Warbeck arises, it can go anywhere.

Thanks for the question, anon.

[dynastymuses]

now you're just a page torn from the story I'm building  

selective, mutuals only indie rp blog. i am over 25, so anyone under 21, i prefer not to interact with 

all I gave you is gone tumbled like it was stone

canon divergant pirate based colin bridgerton @pirtecolin edits blog @dynastymusesedits resources such as gifhunts, psds, and templates blog: @dynastymusesresources II rules II what i do II

thought we built a dynasty that heaven couldn't shake

as such all muses are over 18 (some have been aged up) 

thought we built a dynasty like nothing ever made

i am very open to crossovers, as well as oc’s, but plotting must be done.  if i am not following you, please do not send me in character memes. i am mutual only! 

thought we built a dynasty forever couldn't break up  

fandoms include: bridgerton, various period drama, star wars, lord of the rings/rings of power, wheel of time, shadow&bone/gisha verse. 

It all fell down, it all fell down, it all fell down 

all of my characters as of now (🍊 is high muse) (🌊muses i want plots for) (🧁new muses) starter calls open starters

Bridgerton Verse

anthony bridgerton 🍊

benedict bridgerton 🌊

colin bridgerton🍊

daphne bridgerton🌊

francesca bridgerton🌊

gregory bridgerton🍊

penelope featherington🍊🌊

philip crane🍊🌊

michael stirling🍊

brimsley🌊🧁

sophie baek🌊

kate sharma🍊

gareth st.clair🍊

prince freidrich hohenzollern🍊🌊

king george freidrick 🍊

lady agatha danbury🌊🧁

queen charlotte of mecklenburg-strelitz 🍊🌊🧁

felicity featherington🌊🧁

posy reiling🌊🧁

lucy abernathy 🧁

viloet bridgerton-ledger

shadow&bone/grishaverse

alina starkov 🍊🌊

kaz brekker🍊🌊

inej ghafa🌊

nina zenik🌊

wylan van eck🌊

genya safin🌊🧁

nikolai lanstov🌊

tolya yul bataar🌊🧁

matthais helvar🌊

lord of the rings/rings of power

galadriel🍊

elrond🌊🧁

bronwyn🌊🧁

aragorn🌊🧁

samwise gamgee🌊🧁

wheel of time

rand al’thor🍊🌊

lan mandragoran🍊🌊

siuan sanche🍊

egwene al'vere🍊

elayne trakand🍊

Star Wars

luke skywalker🍊🌊

qui gon jinn🌊

obi wan kenobi🍊🌊

padme amidala🍊🌊

finn🌊

poe dameron🌊🧁

han solo🌊

Rey of Jakku 🌊🧁

osha 🧁

mae

master sol🧁

the musketeers

d’artagnan 🍊

athos

aramis

queen anne of austria🌊

Sanditon

charlotte heywood (sanditon)🌊

lord babington (sanditon)🌊

young stringer (sandtiton)🌊

Marvel

Yelena Belova

Kate Bishop

Tandy bowen

Karolina Dean 🍊

Marcos Diaz 🍊

Esme Frost 🍊

John Proudstar🌊

Hank McCoy 🌊🧁

Chase Stein 🍊

Scott Summers 🍊

Charles Xavier🌊

Jennifer Walters

Sersi 🍊

wade wilson

DCEU

Barry Allen 🍊

Beth Chapel🌊

Barbara Gordon 🍊

Dick Grayson🍊

Mary Hamliton 🍊

Virgil Hawkins 🍊

Pamela "Poisin Ivy" Isley 🍊

Kate Kane🌊

Clark Kent (dceu) 🍊

clark kent (smallville based) 🍊

jenny kord🌊🧁

Selina Kyle 🍊

Dinah Lance 🍊

Gar Logan🍊

M'gann M'orroz 🍊

Tommy Merlyn🌊

Sophie Moore🌊

Yolanda Montez

James Olsen 🍊

Anissa Pierce🌊

milagro reyes🌊🧁

Donna Troy 🍊🧁

Bruce Wayne🍊

Courtney whitmore  🌊

Jinx🌊

Komand'r🌊

hank hall/hawk 🧁

dawn granger/dove 🧁

oliver queen(non arrowverse)

ollie queen (smallville)

garth (titans/dceu)

TVD Verse

Marcel Gerald 🍊

Elena Gilbert 🍊

Jeremy Gilbert🌊

Tyler Lockwood🌊

Elijah Mikealson 🍊

Hope Mikealson🌊

Lizzie Saltzman 🍊🌊

Shadowhunters

Magnus Bane 🍊🌊

Clary Fray 🍊🌊

Simon Lewis🌊🧁

Alec Lightwood🌊

Fate:The Winx Saga

Terra Harvey🌊

Bloom Peters 🍊🌊

Beatrix 🌊🧁

Flora🌊

Musa🌊

Riven🌊

Sky🌊

Stella🌊

Narnia

Edmund Pevensie 🍊🌊

Lucy Pevensie🍊🌊

Peter Pevensie🌊🧁

Jill Pole🌊

Eustance Clarence Scrubb🌊

the umbrella acaddemy

Deigo Hargreeves🌊

Five Hargreeves 🍊🌊

Klaus Hargreeves 🌊

Sloane Hargreeves 🍊🌊

Lila Pitts🌊

one tree hill

Julian Baker

Jake Jagelski

Nathan Scott 🍊

Clay Evans

Degrassi

Sav Bhandari 🌊

Fiona Coyne🌊

Clare Edwards 🍊🌊

Jake Martin🌊

Drew Torres🌊

Wednesday/Addams Family

Wednesday Addams🌊

Enid Sinclair

what we do in the shadows

colin robinson 🌊🧁

Guillermo de la Cruz🌊🧁

nadja of antipaxos🌊🧁

laszlo cravensworth 🌊🧁

nandor the relentless 🌊 🧁

the boys/gen v

hughie campbell🌊🧁

annie january / starlight 🌊🧁

billy butcher🌊🧁

kimiko miyashiro🌊🧁

queen maeve🌊🧁

other period drama muses

francis valois (reign with some historical influences) 🍊

Sebastian de poitiers (reign)

tom jones (tom jones 2023)🌊

henry tudor (7th) (the white queen/the white princess/the spainsh princess with some historical influences) 🍊

richard plantagent  (the white queen with some historical influences)🍊

elizabeth woodville (the white queen/the white princess with some historical influences)

elizabeth of yorke (the white queen/the white princess with some historical influences)

anne shirley cuthbert (anne with an e) 

marie antoinette( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊

(king) louis bourbon (16th) ( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊

captain henry ossroy  (mr malcom’s list)🌊

selina dalton  (mr malcom’s list)🌊

dido elizabeth belle (belle 2013)🌊🧁

john Davinier (belle 2013)

camlia dunne (daisy jones&the six) 🌊🧁

tim laughlin (fellow travelers) 🌊🧁

jane bennet (pride and prejudice) 🧁

elizabeth bennet (pride and prejudice) 🧁

emma woodhouse (emma) 🧁

nan st.george (the buccaneers)

Other Scifi/Fantasy

lucy carlyle-lockwood&Co🌊

Anthony Lockwood-Lockwood&Co🌊

Wendy Darling-Peter Pan/Disney 🍊🌊

Elinor Fairmont-First Kill🌊🧁

Juliette Fairmont-First Kill🌊

Kat Harvey-Casper🌊

Harvey Kinkle-Sabrina The Teenage Witch/Archie comics🌊

Wyatt Logan-Timeless🌊

Arthur Pendragon-Merlin🌊

Scott mccall-teen wolf 🌊

marnie piper (halloweentown)

percy jackson (percy jackson & the Olympians)

Luna briggs (wolf pack)

Blake navarro (wolf pack)

prince eric (the little mermaid)

fiyero tigelaar (wicked)

OUAT/Fairytales

david nolan/prince charming-once upon a time 🌊🧁

graham humbert/the huntsman-once upon a time 🌊🧁

mary margret blanchard/snow white-once upon a time 🌊🧁

Rapunzel (various media)🌊🧁

other medias

Alexander Clearmond Diaz-red, white, & royal🌊

Lacey Porter-Twisted🌊

Henry Stuart Fox -red, white, & royal🌊

Glimmer-She Ra🌊

comedy

Haley Dunphy (modern family)🌊🧁

Alex Dunphy (modern family) 🌊🧁

Janine Teagues-Abbott Elementary🌊

Clare Devlin-Derry Girls🌊

Gregory Eddie-Abbott Elementary🌊

Jim Halpert-The Office🌊

Ben Wyatt-Parks and Recreation 🌊

chidi anagonye (the good place)🌊🧁

eleanor shellstrop (the good place)🌊🧁

janet (the good place)🌊🧁

original characters

elisabeth barlowe 🍊🌊🧁

jacquetta covington 🍊🌊🧁

maxwell danbury 🍊🌊🧁

dylan lyons 🍊🌊🧁

[natequarter]

Henry [VII] spared Richard's nephew and designated heir, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and made the Yorkist heiress [from 1499] Margaret Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury suo jure.

unless i'm very much mistaken... wrong henry

[wonder-worker]

"The court also provided the forum for forging alliances to further interests in the localities: the court was the obvious meeting point for the 'feminine gang of three'—Alice Chaucer, Elizabeth Talbot, and Elizabeth Woodville— to whom Colin Richmond has attributed a successful campaign to wrest two manors of the Fastolf inheritance from the Pastons and into the hands of Alice Chaucer's son, the king's brother-in-law, John de la Pole. Again this was a queenly role that usually left no evidence but its political importance must not be overlooked."

J.L. Laynesmith, "The Last Medieval Queens: English Queenship 1445-1503"