#Margaret of Anjou I will avenge you

[rmelster]

This whole “see this character / historical figure that is renowned for being very pious, chaste and prudent? Scratch that, they’re a whore now and you should hate them for it” phenomenon in recent shows is surely disgusting. Using a character / historical figure sexuality (most of the time altered and exaggerated to the writer’s whim) to make them look hypocritical is quite misogynistic, because the vast majority of said character are females. Why this character that was always faithful to their spouses (even if their relationship was the most admirable) is so suddenly eager to be unfaithful to them? Why can’t an antagonistic character in a period show have sex after loosing their spouse without being criticised for being hypocritical? Why is them having pleasure (perhaps for the first time in their lives) aimed to make them look horrible? Why is it all so out of character?

Also, the whole thought of that “empowerment” seems to have been twisted into being intrinsically joined to having a toe-curling sex life is merely wrong. Having a healthy and totally consensual sex life IS truly empowering (even more in historical settings), but so is being celibate or in a platonic relationship by choice! CHOOSING THE PATH YOU PREFER is empowering!

[foul-z-fowl]

Soooo I know probably no one cares, but I was bored this afternoon and decided to make a list of historical period dramas following the history of the English monarchs

(Note: these are all DRAMAS. None of them are perfectly historically accurate, several of them are downright offensive. Also, several British monarchs are multiple depictions and some had none. I did my best, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Do your own research on each of the films for any triggers or content warnings.)

William the Conqueror- The Early Life of William the Conqueror, up to the Battle of Hasting and the Invasion of 1066

1066- William the Conqueror, the invasion of England and the Battle of Hastings

[William II does not have any film dedicated to his life or his reign (that was usable, anyway]

[Henry I does not have any film dedicated to his life or his reign]

Pillars of Earth- This series does not focus on it, but it is set to the backdrop of the Anarchy, which is absolutely fascinating, and it is a crime we do not have any good films about Empress Matilda

The Lion in Winter- Henry II and Elanor of Aquitaine (another woman who needs her own miniseries)

Richard the Lionheart (2021)- Richard I

King John (1899!)- John I [ALL of the other movies with these two were fucking Robin Hood movies]

[Henry III has never been depicted in film]

Outlaw King- Edward I

Edward II- Edward II (this is Piers Gaveston erasure that I could only find this one film)

The Dark Avenger- Edward III (and Edward the Black Prince as a bonus!)

Richard II- Richard II (any adaptation works, there are multiple)

The Hollow Crown- Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V

The King- Henry IV and Henry V

[Henry VI has no film depictions of his life or reign. WHICH IS A CRIME GIVE ME MARGARET OF ANJOU YOU FUCKING COWARDS!)]

The White Queen- Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, and Henry VII (plus a fuckton of other historical figures)

Richard III: The Princes in the Tower- Richard III, Edward V

Richard III- Richard III (any adaptation will work, there are multiple. Be forewarned that although modern portrayals tend to be sympathetic, Shakespeare thought he was dick and it shows.)

The White Princess- Henry VII (plus his family)

The Spanish Princess- The last years of Henry VII's reign, the beginning of Catherine of Aragon and Henry VIII's marriage, and Prince Arthur! (Still salty we haven't had a KING Arthur yet)

The Tudors- Henry VII (+plus his six wives and Mary I) (Henry VII has an absolute fuckton of movies about each of his wives, I recommend picking a few more from the list) (also, be warned that this show is as historically inaccurate as shit, but good for drama)

The Prince & The Pauper- Edward VI (I don't think this one is very historically accurate either, but the most interesting thing about this Edward was his birth and death sooooo)

Lady Jane- Jane Grey

[Mary I has no film depictions of her life or reign (GIVE US A MOVIE YOU COWARDS!) (She does appear in the Tudor's and in some of Elizabeth I's shows though)]

Becoming Elizabeth- Elizabeth I (plus her siblings, I think)

Reign- Mary, Queen of Scots (VERY historically inaccurate, but one of my favorite period dramas. Mary's story is also very important to Elizabeth I and James I's)

Mary, Queen of Scots- Mary, Queen of Scots & Elizabeth I (2018) (this show covers the time in between Mary arriving in England and being executed)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age- Elizabeth I

Elizabeth I- Elizabeth I (2005)

Mary & George- James I & VI (This one isn't out yet, but none of James' other movies are that great- like AT ALL, and this one looks like its shaping up to be interesting)

[Charles I has no film depictions of his life or reign (which is very disappointing- this guy was so awful he got his head cut off and caused a civil war! Where's the vilification?)]

To Kill a King- Oliver Cromwell (+ a little Charles I)

Cromwell- Oliver Cromwell

Charles II: The Power and the Passion- Charles II

[James II has no film dedicated to his life or reign (another one that's a shame, this guy was so unpopular he was ALSO chased off the throne. Down with the Tudors, I want to see some Stuart movies)]

[William III and Mary II have no film dedicated to their joint reign.]

The Favourite- Anne I

[George I has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

[George II has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

Queen Charlotte- George III (and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz)(this one also isn't out yet, but it will be in 2023)

The Madness of King George- George III (and George IV)

A Royal Scandal- George IV

[William IV has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

The Young Victoria- Victoria I

Mrs. Brown- Victoria I

Victoria & Abdul- Victoria I

Edward the Seventh- Edward VII

[George V has no film dedicated to his life or reign]

The Woman He Loved- Edward VIII (and Wallis Nazi Simpson)

Bertie and Elizabeth- George VI (and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon)

The King's Speech- George VI (and Elizabeth Bowes Lyon

The Crown- Queen Elizabeth II

Spencer- Charles III (and Princess Diana)

[natequarter]

number 1 & 7 for the book ask!!?

7: What book do you love but usually not recommend because it’s weird or intense, etc?

the adventures of alianore audley, by brian wainwright. it's incredibly funny and is best described as "richard iii meet james bond meets a guy making fun of both richard iii and james bond". personally, i wouldn't recommend it to the average reader because a) it's clearly a ricardian story (ricardians being the sacred defenders of richard iii to avenge his reputation, and so on and so forth), b) it requires a decent amount of exposure to the wars of the roses (starting with the rise of edward iv and ending in the middle of henry vii's reign), and a good number of the jokes are dependent on understanding the general context of that, and c) it's an irreverent parody, which can be tonally jarring, especially if you like your historical fiction accurate.

however, if you like parody with your history, it's brilliant. it lampshades a lot of modern tropes and conventions, especially in spy stories, whilst seamlessly integrating all this into a medieval context which is clearly not meant to be taken entirely seriously. are you a fan of richard iii? this book rips his reputation to shreds. it does the same to: henry vi, margaret of anjou, edward iv, elizabeth woodville, george of clarence, isabel neville, warwick the kingmaker, edward v, edward of lancaster, henry vii, the duke of buckingham, and probably some other people i've missed. in fact, the only person who escapes this book entirely unscathed is anne neville. you see? that's equality. the princes in the tower escape said tower by crossdressing as girls, if you want an idea as to what kind of level of accuracy it's aiming for.

also, and this is THE highest praise i can give it: it's a well-written first person narrative. i've read about 2.7 other books that deserve that kind of praise. alianore and her purely fictional husband are both brilliantly written, and for me at least, it's laugh-out-loud. alianore is blunt, rude, and just wants to live a peaceful life without being dragged into the typical problems which dog noblewomen in ya romances.

some quotes, to give you an idea of what the book is like (just one won't do):

The trouble with Richard was not that he was hunchbacked but that he had no sense of humour. I shall spell that out to save you from any doubts. NO SENSE OF HUMOUR AT ALL.

‘The King’s forbidden it, that’s why not,’ Richard answered. ‘Then he can flaming well unforbid it!’ Warwick yelled, so loudly that Isabel jumped back six inches without losing her pose.

(Her father, by the way, called himself King of Jerusalem, Naples, Sicily and Aragon, although not one of the kingdoms recognised him as such. If there’s one thing I can’t stand it’s a man who claims to be King of this and that when he isn’t really King of anything. It’s so frightfully middle-class.)

No, if you want to read about quarrels with the neighbours I suggest you ask John Paston to lend you his family’s collection of letters. He’s put them all in a box, and plans to keep them for future generations. Though I cannot imagine why he thinks that posterity will be interested in his sister’s affair with Richard Calle, or his brother’s collection of seedy little friends, or the price of corn in Norfolk in the twentieth year of Mad Harry’s reign.

you probably get the point by now.

(link)

[the-busy-ghost]

Scotland’s late fourteenth and fifteenth century queens are always a source of frustration to me, because what little evidence we have about them indicates that some of them led fantastically action-packed lives and most had strong personalities, but the lack of surviving sources (though there is definitely more than enough for further enquiry) and other historiographical problems mean that they’re so frequently overlooked and that pains me 

[richmond-rex]

Honestly, idk why people focus so much on Edward as the 'strong hot young warrior king™' when the most interesting thing about him is how the inexperienced young king became a successful ruler, his policy making, the way he attempted to cement his dynasty in terms of the 'iconography' of English monarchy. The warrior king image is just boring tbh, and not really an accurate representation of him imo.

As for Richard, he is more interesting to be because of his personality (as much as we can glean), the coup and the murder of the princes; I laugh when people treat him like this innovative ruler who was centuries ahead of his time. Like, sure, he was a competent administrator and a successful duke, and it would have been fascinating to see how the policies he inaugurated would have turned out had he reigned longer. But he reigned for such a short time, unintentionally destroyed his own house - dear God, John was technically a better king than him. Basically all he has going for him in terms of fascination is being a schemer, and white washing him into a Byronic hero just makes him totally boring. Plus I'm always really uncomfortable with Ricardians pushing the 'young hot ruler' narrative, because whilst he died at an objectively young age and probably wasn't unattractive, they're almost always doing it to distract from his scoliosis, which is a) super abelist b) how he must have felt about his scoliosis at a time when disability was thought of a sin, how he dealt with it and became such a formidable warrior despite chronic pain - is the most interesting speculation to be had about him.

Can't stand how Yorkist fans treat George, Elizabeth Woodville, Warwick (the most interesting figure of the wotr, imo) and his daughters - and they are the ones in the Yorkist camp! The way they write about the Lancastrians, especially the women, is revolting - I'm a classicist and the way they treat Margaret of Anjou and Margaret Beaufort respectively is very similar to how Fulvia and Livia are portrayed, I guess misogyny is just endemic in history huh. Plus, how are there so many stories about Anne Neville mooning over Richard at a time when she would at most have felt friendship and maybe a childhood crush for him, and none on Margaret of Anjou, you know, being overjoyed to be reunited with the husband she hadn't seen in literal years. I feel like the HVI-MoA love story is do under explored because God forbid a non conforming woman and a disabled man love eachother I guess. (The way Yorkists/Ricardians Talk about HVI's disability is just disgustingly abelist tbh)

Idk how people can be so unobjective when studying history? Like, obviously people will have specific figures they find fascinating, but you can't study a period by treating it like a fandom.

Anyways, here's to Ricardians making me feel ashamed of being interested in Richard-the-Bitchard. Sorry for ranting in your inbox, it's only because I love your blog and you always have the best responses. Have a nice night xx

Adding the last message to this ask because I think it's the same anon who sent it. Truly, what else can I add to this message, I agree with so many of these points. I think that instead of highlighting Edward IV's awesome hotness over and over again it would be interesting to point out how incredibly traumatic his coming-of-age was. He was a teenager thrust into a civil war who was forced to carry the banner his father had raised and bear the heavy weight of his father's legacy in that process. He was barely on the threshold of taking command of his own earldom of March because he was still a minor at the time. He lost the brother who had grown up alongside him (Edmund of Rutland) and was forced to avenge his father in bloody battles where he had to command people to kill and die. He was barely allowed to be a young man before a crown was presented as a duty and avenging avenue for him. And that violent coming of age and sudden loss of carefree youth might inform so much of his kingship and personality. Truly, the discussions we could have about it all!

I think I've said my thoughts about Richard III before. I agree about his ambition being one of the most interesting things about him. I disagree about him being a good administrator—he made many crucial mistakes but I won't be talking about them here. There's this idea that he invented bail (he didn't), freedom of speech (William Collynbourne would like to have a word), and some other equally ludicrous claims. There was some degree of reformation laws that were passed during his reign but as Pollard (who has studied parliament in 15th century England) pointed out any laws debated in parliament were the result of decades of long discussions, and hardly the will of a single reigning monarch. I agree that Richard III's disability—when people are even conceding to call it that—should be discussed more instead of erased or summed up as: 'he could walk just fine without a limp'. I wish people would talk more about the debilitating aspects of mental illness when discussing Henry VI too.

The rest of the members of the house of York truly get the short end of the stick. It's incredible how much antagonism I've seen directed not only at George of Clarence and Richard Neville (incorrigible traitors in their eyes... as if the Duke of York had not been a traitor himself, the irony is lost on them apparently) but also, somehow, Anne Neville! Some people seem to think she simply wasn't good enough for her husband, be it either because she 'died on him' or simply because she didn't give him more children. Misogyny for the win! If someone made Richard III look bad, just like Elizabeth Woodville did, then they're little better than the scum of the earth. Misogyny truly is endemic to all areas of study (and society) unfortunately so it's not surprising to find it when discussing history but all the same, it's disappointing. Thank you for providing that parallel with Fulvia and Livia, I will look more into it.

I don't think the problem is exactly the fandom approach to history—I mean, I think I understand what you mean, the partisan approach to history is counterproductive and creates abominable takes like the ones we've been discussing, though fandom, as a community for the creation of works of art, discussion, and general sharing of knowledge and love can be a powerful force for studying history. The problem is that some people still don't understand it's possible to have favourite subjects without pissing on everyone else's. Also, I would like people to discuss history from an enlightened 21st-century point of view and not as if they still believed in the divine right of kings or if they were medieval Englishmen talking traditionally nasty things about the Scots, the Welsh and the French because xenophobia is cool and acceptable to them.

Please, don't take anything I've said on this blog as a reason for you to be ashamed of being interested in Richard III. I don't think it makes anyone an inherently bad person to like him, and a single interest doesn't define anyone as a person. How people act towards that interest, though, that's what it's important. Unfortunately, I've had too many people come to yell at me about Henry VII's horribleness and Richard III's 'true kingliness' not to be a bit wary, though.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts again! And for letting me know you appreciate this blog (and my answers)! 🌹x

[richmond-rex]

What's your favourite Wars of the Roses antics asdfsdfghkjj wanna guess how many I'll get right

Oh, I'll be considering my favourite diva moments aka the most dramatic antics those funky little men pulled during the wars. Of course, a chunk of them was something Warwick did, whether it's him claiming the Queen of England tried to kill him with a poker, saying he would see the king until two o'clock or he would die, or slaying his horse before (during?) the battle to show to his soldiers he wouldn't flee, Warwick surely deserves the drama king crown. More under the cut!

send me “what’s your favorite..” asks 💫

I love other dramatic things people did because of Warwick such as Margaret of Anjou demanding he knelt before she pardoned him or Henry Beaufort (Somerset) colluding with Exeter and other orphans from St Albans to chase Warwick down the streets and kill him. I have to love Somerset as well, the man was so bent on avenging his father (though, to be fair, seeing your father slain in front of you only to be 'adopted' by his killer would probably do that to you).

Whether it's Somerset almost getting into a fistfight with York during a council session or getting into Conventry with a bunch of armed men to attack the Yorkists only to get into a fight with the mayor and his men instead...... that man had issues. What to say about the time Warwick, Salisbury and the future Edward IV captured Richard and Anthony Woodville and threw a handful of insults at them (and Anthony fought back with insults of his own?? KING).... the awkwardness of it all when they all became family lmao

Also the time Jasper Tudor invoked every cousin up to the 7th degree in Wales to avenge his father's death and kill the Herberts and the future Edward IV, only to be included in Edward's 'unpardonables' list a while later. Then when he managed to actually kill one of those men ten years later (Roger Vaughan) when Vaughan was sent to kill him instead — and he was aided by a priest no less! Which makes sense after I learnt Vaughan was a church desecrator! Goodness. Jasper said he would show him as much mercy as Vaughan showed his father....... iconique.

York entering London in all pomp blazing royal emblems left and right only to be met with silence at parliament when he laid his hand on the throne.... one has to laugh, no one really trusted the man who said he would never hurt 'his most Christian king' only to send an attack not long after. Also, bless Henry VI for his Loveday reconciliation - just the right amount of drama that those petty lords deserved.

What else? Oxford convincing his gaoler to set him free and flee with him to Henry Tudor... 10/10 Lancastrian advertising. Wasn't he the one who convinced Warwick to not turn his back on the Lancastrian cause in 1471 as well? That man had some persuasion skills, I'm sure! Also, I read somewhere that he tried to flee his prison before 1485 and broke a leg in the process.... tough guy (™).

Also the time Jasper Tudor fled a siege by dressing up as a peasant and carrying a pea basket on his back! That man truly was the James Bond of the Wars of the Roses, the sheer amount of times he managed to get in and out of sieges... probably all in that same way. I think he was the one who proposed to his nephew that Henry dressed as a commoner to flee from Brittany to France because that's just his style.

Speaking of Henry Tudor, what to say about the time he faked being ill and fled to a church as he was about to be taken back to England, and then was defended by a bunch of random locals in St Malo? Iconic behaviour. Same energy, I suppose, when Perkin Warbeck tried to invade England by landing in Kent only to have his soldiers massacred by the locals who simply did not want him lmao.

Well, that's all the antics I remember now! Thanks so much for sending this ask hashjh it was fun! 🌹x

send me “what’s your favorite..” asks 💫

[richmond-rex]

I think the Yorkist obsession probably stems from:

1) the sheer craziness of their reign. avenging fathers, secret marriages, brothers killing brothers, uncles killing nephews, being driven into exile and coming back with a bang, a courageous final ends in battle - they make for a very dramatic story, and the fact that their rise and fall occurred in lesser than three decades probably emphasizes the storyline-quality of it all. It's similar to the Tudors in the sense that there are a limited number of monarchs with singular and striking reigns, or the Borgias, whose story spanned a short period of time but was full of drama and disaster, which makes it both easier to follow and more thrilling.

2) the sheer devotion of Ricardians, who probably take up an extremely overrated 70% of Yorkist love, let's be real. but even apart from Richard, the other various members of the family do seem like fascinating individuals in their own right, and do seem to have very varied singular personalities.

3) fucked-up issues against their predecessors and successors - albeism against Henry VI, misogyny against Margaret of Anjou, nonsense about Henry VII's Welsh ancestry - which make people exaggerate and fabricate the Perfection of the Yorkists without a single shrewd of self awareness.

I do think the House of York is interesting, and I personally feel that the Tudors in general are far more overblown and overrated than the Yorkists are, but for fucks sake, they were all medieval monarchs and all just various factions of one big disaster English family, and it's ridiculous to study history as though it's a work of fiction or a fandom to take sides in.

just some of my thoughts, sorry for the rant

Hi, anon! I agree with you on all points, also that the House of York is less overblown than the Tudors (usually meaning Henry VIII-Elizabeth I), perhaps because the Tudors are more easily marketable/possible to be turned into merchandise—'six wives' packs of whatever people are trying to sell are just so common. Point 2 is also important to be taken into consideration! I've seen many self-described Yorkist fans who actually dislike Edward IV, who think Edward was a bastard and a debauched womaniser but who love his brother Richard III. I don't know why they simply don't call themselves Ricardians instead of Yorkists if they like one (1) specific man from that house (incidentally, the very man academics agree ended up unwittingly destroying said house). Point 3 is the most important and problematic in my eyes and I'm planning to talk more about it in another ask.

I agree with point 1 but I think it's important to point out there are plenty of other historical figures who faced and created the same amount of drama in their lives and don't get the same spotlight. People even from the same time period! Have you heard about Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset? That man had a crazy life bent on avenging his family, exile, dramatic escapes, had a love story with a socially inferior woman, poverty, had to eat his own horse at some point, had a dramatic death..... and you simply don't hear about him beyond novels where Margaret of Anjou commits adultery with him. So I think the amount of drama Edward IV and his brothers faced explains to some extent 'their' popularity (George of Clarence is not popular at all), but not all of it. That's where the other points come in, I suppose. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 🌹x

[marianadecarlos]

I agree 💯

This whole “see this character / historical figure that is renowned for being very pious, chaste and prudent? Scratch that, they’re a whore now and you should hate them for it” phenomenon in recent shows is surely disgusting. Using a character / historical figure sexuality (most of the time altered and exaggerated to the writer’s whim) to make them look hypocritical is quite misogynistic, because the vast majority of said character are females. Why this character that was always faithful to their spouses (even if their relationship was the most admirable) is so suddenly eager to be unfaithful to them? Why can’t an antagonistic character in a period show have sex after loosing their spouse without being criticised for being hypocritical? Why is them having pleasure (perhaps for the first time in their lives) aimed to make them look horrible? Why is it all so out of character?

Also, the whole thought of that “empowerment” seems to have been twisted into being intrinsically joined to having a toe-curling sex life is merely wrong. Having a healthy and totally consensual sex life IS truly empowering (even more in historical settings), but so is being celibate or in a platonic relationship by choice! CHOOSING THE PATH YOU PREFER is empowering!