#but i wouldn't blame him if he had

[writergirl2011]

It's been almost a week and I'm still chuckling about the fact that after the press crawled all over his ass for more than three weeks, trying to interpret his every move in terms of "when will he drop out," eagerly anticipating being the first to report the news...when Joe Biden officially dropped out of the presidential race, he announced it via tweet on a Sunday afternoon. No big announcement. No press conference. Just a tweet in the middle of the day, when most of the press was probably twiddling their thumbs.

I like to picture Biden laughing his ass off in the White House as one of his staff sent the tweet, mentally giving the finger to the press and saying, "Gotcha, you sons of bitches!!"

Well played, Mr. President.

[dykedvonte]

Can you talk about trans!Curly a little bit more? I'm curios if you have any headcanons and the like

-💀

It's just such a thing in my mind because it adds a truthful sadness and differing aspect to mouthwashing.

If Curly was trans it adds the horror of the horribly selfish thought he could have easily been in Anya's situation. It could've been him but it wasn't and he so conflicted on the pit it put in his stomach that brings and the shameful relief it wasn't. In this scenario he is friends with Jimmy for a long time still. Jimmy likely knew him pretransition. Maybe he gave Curly weird looks then, maybe they never stopped after, maybe they seemed meaner. They are guys now, bros, both of them are. He doesn't really have to worry what those looks mean anymore, Jimmy just has that face with him sometimes. It's recontextualizing a lot of things for him that he was in denial about or too ashamed to admit. How naive he was being and how he let that get another person hurt.

Specifically with Anya, it's he knows the dread and fear she's feeling. He can understand it because he had to live with it for a good portion of his life, he knows it cause he still does, just in a slightly different way. It makes him think of all the times he's been alone with Jimmy, all the times he's been way more drunk off his ass and not remember the night, Jimmy was always with him the next day. Makes him think of the comments he would laugh off both because that's what guys do but because that part of being a girl says to laugh so Jimmy doesn't do something. It's the selfish realization that he was never safe and he's uncertain now too. Mad at himself for forgeting that feeling, espcially since for a long time he would've been considered the only woman on a crew (with all that implies) for a long time.

He should've taken those blinders off, step back into that position for just a moment and it's so much more painful that Anya likely came to him because he should've gotten it. Those thoughts don't leave his mind after the crash when he's in an even more vulnerable position than she was...

[uncanny-tranny]

Hi! would you by any chance have tips on how to get a binder when your parents refuse to buy you one? ☹️

That's definitely a sensitive and complex answer, and while I might not know of the best option for your unique situation, there are some ways you can go about this.

If it's a foregone conclusion that you cannot convince them of this, what I used to do is DIY my binder. The ways I primarily did this were:

Option One: Wearing a camisole that was one size smaller than I actually was (so, wearing a small instead of a medium, for instance), then folding it up over my chest. As a disclaimer, this may only work well if you are smaller in the chest

Option Two: Layering two sports bras in my size over each other. Some of the DIY tips I found before I got a traditional binder advised to wear one sports bra in your size, then wear another sports bra backwards in a size smaller. I would advise against this for potential safety reasons, but also because (at least personally), it can be ineffective and a waste of resources.

Some people have also had friends or other family members order their binder for them, but this can be risky, depending on your situation. While I don't know the ins and outs of your specific circumstances, risk management is important to me, so I would recommend this if it is a risk that is acceptable to make.

I understand what it's like to not have access to this resource, so what I will do is advise you against:

Binding with ace bandages (I did this before (multiple times, in fact, because of dysphoria), and believe me, not only did it hurt like hell, but it constricted my body so heavily that I may have done long-term harm)

Wearing a DIY binder (or any kind, for that matter) for longer than your body can handle

Doing DIY in such a way that even mimics binding with ace bandages. This means that your binder shouldn't constrict your ribs, breathing, or range of movement

Here are some general good practices that you should use to guide you for any type of binding, whether traditional or DIY:

When you start binding, only do so in very short sessions to begin with. While binding shouldn't outright hurt, it can be a weird transition while your body is getting used to that new sensation

Minimize heavy lifting or exercise while binding. If it is unavoidable, drink plenty of water and take plenty of breaks

Stretch after binding

Don't bind while sick or have inflammation in your lungs or chest

If you DIY, treat your binder like it is a traditional binder. Don't make the mistake of assuming you don't need to listen to your body because you aren't using a "traditional" binding method

Ultimately, listen to your body. If it is telling you that it needs a break, honour that. Your body isn't punishing you, it is trying to keep you (and it) safe, even if it doesn't feel like it

In the end, this isn't perfect. Sometimes, parents do come around, even in their own ways, even if little by little, they come around. When I first came out officially around 2016, I was convinced that my transition would be completely forbade by my family; I concealed a lot of it in the worst instances of this. However, now, I think most of my family has come through their own journey with the understanding of the reality of what and who I am. I tell you this, anon, because I want you to know that this, too , shall pass. You can make it. I know this might be devastating to you, and believe me, I know what that's like. But it won't be forever. These bridges aren't burnt forever, and I hope you can find your happiness and contentment wherever it may be.

[doueverwonder]

Indiana became a state in 1816 aka the Year Without Summer; and while it didn't become a state until December of that year I will be using this for 2 wttt Indiana hc;

A. Indy is always cold, main reason he's the premier hoodie thief in the statehouse.

B. because it was such a horrid year for crops Indiana, who I think was about ten physically when he *popped* into existence, spent their first while on the planet rationing food & regularly going to bed hungry. This developed his lovely habit of hoarding food, and being the worst offender when it comes to the "you're not leaving the table til you've cleaned your plate". None of these habits were helped by the fact that (according to me) he was raised by Virginia who is the same way because of the Starving Time.

[claitea]

just one of those nights again (thought about n so hard i started Physically feeling sad like theres a weight on my chest)

[krytus]

like you don't even GET it.... the iron man armor as a separate identity, as a gender, as a weapon, as a shield, as a hiding place, as a coping mechanism, as life support, as an extension, as safety, as a second skin, as a person, as a tomb, as a threat, as a hobby, as an obsession, as a mirror, as a black hole, as a tool, as an ideal, as the future, as the past, as a symbol, as protection, as a parasite, as a grave. like do you even GET it.

[bloodsalted]

// feelin' a bit better today but these antibiotics/painkillers are kicking my ass a lil bit. i hate getting strep throat. usually once a freaking year. this round is a doozie so far. doozy? doozie? idk. it sucks. how bout that? :D

here off and on while i sleep in between. thanks for putting up with meeee! love you peeps sm!

[charles-leclerc-official]

It's baku all over again. miscalculated, mismanaged. get too comfortable thinking they are on the lead. something out of their control happens and they are pressured by a mclaren and end up losing position

I feel like Baku involving an illegal Mclaren rear wing that was specifically very strong there made it a little bit different

[brokencolressmchn]

This is a genuine opinion piece but I think that:

Koujaku and Aoba were made for each other, they deserve each other and probably have the best, most healthiest relationship in the entire game

Koujaku almost worships Aoba and Aoba looks out for Koujaku in the ways he can. Their relationship starts out strong, and the game ends it in a place even stronger than before.

Also, while Clear's route might be my favourite one narratively... I think:

He can probably do better than Aoba

Aoba gets pretty short tempered with him at times (though it's pretty understandable since he starts out as a stranger... he does get more patient near the end of the route)

But a lot of Clear's time in his route is spent taking care of Aoba and Aoba not really knowing how to act about that. They don't have the small bonding moments that Koujaku and Noiz's route have- most of their relationship is moved forward by big emotional moments

Which is fine, but for my aroace ass it makes me feel like the relationship doesn't have as much as a foundation for me to "justify" it with

Clear's life revolves around Aoba because of his programming + eventually because of his feelings, but Aoba just isn't the same way

Even if they do fall in love and Aoba ends up getting pretty depressed when he's gone

Somehow it still feels "one sided" to me y'know? Can't really describe it much beyond that

[girlwiththegreenhat]

having just made it to KITT vs KARR i stand by my point that KARR has done nothing wrong ever in his life

[sysig]

You could stay forever, if you wanted (Patreon)

[phantastragoria]

The tragedy that is the majority of viewers not catching onto the fact that Gamora had tons of internal cybernetics and an entirely replaced skeletal system when those are the only things that will remain long after she's gone.

[hauntingblue]

I THINK!! usopp and nami (and maybe others too) need to learn haki. They said you can't be in the new world without it because everyone is just so incredibly strong and here we are. They are getting headbutted to death and can't do anything about it (their abilities are being nerfed for the plot I know) but they could be SO GOOD if they could do something more idk.... we saw how strong nami was with zeus.... but she has fought with her bostaff before and that just disappeared... nami haki bostaff you will live in my dreams I guess

[vellichorom]

You absolutely don't deserve it with the mischaracterization. :(

All the ocs you make are so wonderful and full of personality. I'm so sorry they get reduced down to single traits or made fun of.

I personally love checking in with your blog seeing your ocs.

They may not be my absolutely favorite ocs of all time. But I can still tell the thought you put into them!!

Keep drawing them if they make you happy!

huuu hweeb..... thank youou........ that genuinely means a lot to hear,

i feel very bashful referring to thierry AS an OC ( although let's face it, he's Pretty Much my OC by this point or very easily could be ) but GOD. it's like...

as i began to rise in popularity, i noticed a very Significant escalation in my narrator being used as the butt of numerous jokes; painted as this slobbish pig, horrible person nobody can stand to be around be it for attitude or " smell " & just get treated TERRIBLY. numerous asks getting sent to me asking if he bathes or describing him as someone who doesn't, numerous other jokes painting him as this homely bum or incompetent-

fucking sad-ist themselves referring to thierry as homeless-lookinh at least twice to my face,

getting kicked around by people & characters in roleplay alike & just! so disrespected & reduced to jokes, mischaracterized to hell & back & having this be assumed as his canon. it's genuinely upsetting.

& it's like, yeah- this is the fandom that sees the narrator as ONLY a twink sexyman, i GUESS anything else that breaches the norm wouldn't be nearly as respected, but my god !!!!!! i seriously wonder if some people think i created thierry's design as a joke, to LOOK homely or unrespectable, to BE the punching bag for everyone else.

when in reality, i'm just sharing my perspective, made with love & dedication, with other people & it's getting shit on for reasons i'm not even sure about, & it makes ME feel terrible as a creator & feel bad about my interpretation. THANKFULLY, this isn't everyone & this perspective IS very well loved & i do appreciate that from everyone who's ever made that known - INCLUDING YOU ANON, it means SO much more than i can say & especially in these harder periods.

but it seems like now thierry's gotten this reputation AS a joke, AS lesser than the character he's supposed to be, so stuck to him as a character that it's hard for ME, the creator, to chase? even if it's been awhile since anyone's directly made a " huehue stinky " joke at me.

& it sounds so STUPID being mad about that when i type this out, but the reality is that people are taking unfunny stupid jokes & using that to characterize MY character rendition & impression of him & to see that is EXTREMELY DISCOURAGING.

this isn't even the first i've had to address the disrespect i face, this is just the first i've made it public on tumblr. i've had to say how much i hate this treatment at LEAST 3 times in private discord servers & continue to scream over people when they insist upon it otherwise. it's REALLY made me unhappy to be apart of this fandom in the latter half of my being here,

but. i'm not going to let that get me down forever, i know i won't.

just, you know? if there's anything to take from this? be nice about people's characters & make your jokes ( if so the creator allows ) but don't act like that's all the character is reduced to, & listen when a creator tells you stuff about them & don't reduce them down to whatever trait you think is funniest for the meme ???? just be respectful ?????

[ninjagirlstar5]

Star, stop changing Tamami's design challenge (impossible).

No, for real, I think this is the fifth redesign I've done of her character. I don't know why but the past designs I've made for her just weren't satisfying to me for some reason. Some of the designs I decided were just bad or didn't suit her while the others were similar but I just didn't like how it looked (tank top, large sweater, scarf, the rainbow bracelet and a long skirt). But I...think I've finally landed on a design that I liked the most out of all the ones I've made so far. (Please let it be the last. Please, my brain and heart. I would like to settle on a design and move on!)

ANYWAYS, I used Teruya's DRA sprite as a base for Tamami since, well, she is his mom and she's about as short as DRA!Teruya (or maybe shorter, I don't know, the wiki gave me two heights for his DRA self. I decided she's about 4'8'' to 5''). So it made sense to use this sprite for her, even when I made slight adjustments to her eyes and nose by making the eyes a little wider and bigger and the nose a bit more pronounced as DRA!Teruya's nose is very small. Out of three of the five designs I've made, I kept this short hairstyle of hers with a large ahoge as I loved this style the most and didn't want to change it. I based her bangs off of SDRA2!Teruya's length and style and the back of her hair like DRA!Teruya's, but I changed the way the strands looked so that it'd look more like her own hairstyle but you can still see the resemblance between the two of them. The ahoge, though, is very much real, unlike Kojiro's and Teruya's (they canonically style their hair like that on purpose), and she cannot fix it no matter how hard she tries. So she just gave up and let it be. Tamami got stuck with the protagonist trait, even though she died before the events of Danganronpa, lol. I've never been a fan of fictional kids looking like carbon copies of their parents. Like, you have the meta-power to design these kids anyway you like and you just make them look exactly like one of their parents? Unless their look-alike appearance is plot relevant, it's just weird for them to look so much like one parent that they can easily be mistaken as siblings and has zero resemblance to the other. And that's saying a lot coming from me who looks a lot more like my Irish dad from skin tone alone, but even then people can tell that I'm at least Asian because of my facial structure and even asked as such, tying my appearance to my Filipino mom. I don't know, I just like seeing a mix of traits for the kids to have inherited from their parents, you know? So, since Kojiro already has a design with green hair and green eyes, I decided to have Tamami have a different hair color, gray and green, but she also has green eyes, just a different shade. Teruya inherited his mother's eyes while getting his father's hair. Since I headcanon Teruya to have freckles, Tamami has freckles as well and as I mentioned before in this post, I adjusted her skin tone to be more obviously tanned instead of dusty from my older drawings of her. And then there's the outfit, which is a dark gray tank top, a long denim(?) skirt, dark reddish-brown boots, a blue handkerchief scarf to match with Kojiro, and a big fluffy yellow sweater with a checkerboard pattern that is tucked into her skirt, and long puffy sleeves that hangs off of her shoulders. The rainbow stripes on her skirt and the rainbow bracelet ties her design to Teruya's as he wears a rainbow as well, and I thought it'd be a neat idea for them to have a similar love for rainbows even though they've never met (cause she died via childbirth). The thought of Teruya still inheriting some of his mom's mannerisms and traits even though they never officially met scratches my brain in a good, angsty way. I wonder what Kojiro thinks whenever he recognizes parts of Tamami in Teruya...And that's it for Tamami's design! Hopefully it'll stay this way.

Tiny characters that can beat the shit out of an enemy that's much taller than them will always be peak character design, you can't change my mind on that.

[wonder-worker]

Queen Margaret (of Anjou) had written to the Common Council in November when the news of the Duke of York's coup was proclaimed. The letter from the queen was published in modernised English by M.A.E. Wood in 1846, and she dated it to February 1461 because of its opening sentence: ‘And whereas the late Duke of N [York]...." However the rest of the letter, and that of the prince, is in the present tense and clearly indicates that the Duke of York is still alive. The reference to the ‘late duke’ is not to his demise but to the attainder of 1459 when he was stripped of his titles as well as of his lands. If the queen’s letter dates to November 1460, and not February 1461, it make perfect sense. Margaret declared the Duke of York had ‘upon an untrue pretense, feigned a title to my lord’s crown’ and in so doing had broken his oath of fealty. She thanked the Londoners for their loyalty in rejecting his claim. She knew of the rumours, that we and my lords sayd sone and owrs shuld newly drawe toward yow with an vnsome [uncounted] powere of strangars, disposed to robbe and to dispoyle yow of yowr goods and havours, we will that ye knowe for certeyne that . . . . [y]e, nor none of yow, shalbe robbed, dispoyled nor wronged by any parson that at that tyme we or owr sayd sone shalbe accompanied with She entrusted the king's person to the care of the citizens ‘so that thrwghe malice of his sayde enemye he be no more trowbled vexed ne jeoparded.’ In other words the queen was well informed in November 1460 of the propaganda in London concerning the threat posed by a Lancastrian military challenge to the illegal Yorkist proceedings. Margaret assured the Common Council that no harm would come to the citizenry or to their property. Because the letter was initially misdated, it has been assumed that the queen wrote it after she realised the harm her marauding troops were doing to her cause, and to lull London into a false sense of security. This is not the case, and it is a typical example of historians accepting without question Margaret’s character as depicted in Yorkist propaganda. Margaret’s letter was a true statement of her intentions but it made no impact at the time and has made none since. How many people heard of it? The Yorkist council under the Earl of Warwick, in collusion with the Common Council of the city, was in an ideal position to suppress any wide dissemination of the letter, or of its content.

... When Margaret joined the Lancastrian lords it is unlikely that she had Scottish troops with her. It is possible that Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, sent men from Wales but there was no compelling reason why he should, he needed all the forces at his disposal to face Edward Earl of March, now Duke of York following his father’s death at Wakefield, who, in fact, defeated Pembroke at Mortimer’s Cross on 2 February just as the Lancastrian army was marching south. The oft repeated statement that the Lancastrian army was composed of a motley array of Scots, Welsh, other foreigners (French by implication, for it had not been forgotten that René of Anjou, Queen Margaret’s father, had served with the French forces in Nomandy when the English were expelled from the duchy, nor that King Charles VII was her uncle) as well as northern men is based on a single chronicle, the Brief Notes written mainly in Latin in the monastery of Ely, and ending in 1470. It is a compilation of gossip and rumour, some of it wildly inaccurate, but including information not found in any other contemporary source, which accounts for the credence accorded to it. The Dukes of Somerset and Exeter and the Earl of Devon brought men from the south and west. The Earl of Northumberland was not solely reliant on his northern estates; as Lord Poynings he had extensive holdings in the south. The northerners were tenants and retainers of Northumberland, Clifford, Dacre, the Westmorland Nevilles, and Fitzhugh, and accustomed to the discipline of border defence. The continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, probably our best witness, is emphatic that the second battle of St Albans was won by the ‘howseholde men and feyd men.” Camp followers and auxiliaries of undesirables there undoubtedly were, as there are on the fringes of any army, but the motley rabble the queen is supposed to have loosed on peaceful England owes more to the imagination of Yorkist propagandists than to the actual composition of the Lancastrian army.

... Two differing accounts of the Lancastrian march on London are generally accepted. One is that a large army, moving down the Great North Road, was made up of such disparate and unruly elements that the queen and her commanders were powerless to control it.” Alternatively, Queen Margaret did not wish to curb her army, but encouraged it to ravage all lands south of the Trent, either from sheet spite or because it was the only way she could pay her troops.” Many epithets have been applied to the queen, few of them complimentary, but no one has as yet called her stupid. It would have been an act of crass stupidity wilfully to encourage her forces to loot the very land she was trying to restore to an acceptance of Lancastrian rule, with her son as heir to the throne. On reaching St Albans, so the story goes, the Lancastrian army suddenly became a disciplined force which, by a series of complicated manoeuvres, including a night march and a flank attack, won the second battle of St Albans, even though the Yorkists were commanded by the redoubtable Earl of Warwick. The explanation offered is that the rabble element, loaded down with plunder, had descended before the battle and only the household men remained. Then the rabble reappeared, and London was threatened. To avert a sack of the city the queen decided to withdraw the army, either on her own initiative or urged by the peace-loving King Henry; as it departed it pillaged the Abbey of St Albans, with the king and queen in residence, and retired north, plundering as it went. Nevertheless, it was sufficiently intact a month later to meet and nearly defeat the Yorkist forces at Towton, the bloodiest and hardest fought battle of the civil war thus far. The ‘facts’ as stated make little sense, because they are seen through the distorting glass of Yorkist propaganda.

The ravages allegedly committed by the Lancastrian army are extensively documented in the chronicles, written after the event and under a Yorkist king. They are strong on rhetoric but short on detail. The two accounts most often quoted are by the Croyland Chronicle and Abbott Whethamstede. There is no doubting the note of genuine hysterical fear in both. The inhabitants of the abbey of Crowland were thoroughly frightened by what they believed would happen as the Lancastrians swept south. ‘What do you suppose must have been our fears . . . [w]hen every day rumours of this sad nature were reaching our ears.’ Especially alarming was the threat to church property. The northern men ‘irreverently rushed, in their unbridled and frantic rage into churches . . . [a]nd most nefariously plundered them.’ If anyone resisted ‘they cruelly slaughtered them in the very churches or churchyards.’ People sought shelter for themselves and their goods in the abbey,“ but there is not a single report of refugees seeking succour in the wake of the passage of the army after their homes had been burned and their possessions stolen. The Lancastrians were looting, according to the Crowland Chronicle, on a front thirty miles wide ‘like so many locusts.“ Why, then, did they come within six miles but bypass Crowland? The account as a whole makes it obvious that it was written considerably later than the events it so graphically describes.

The claim that Stamford was subject to a sack from which it did not recover is based on the Tudor antiquary John Leland. His attribution of the damage is speculation; by the time he wrote stories of Lancastrian ravages were well established, but outside living memory. His statement was embellished by the romantic historian Francis Peck in the early eighteenth century. Peck gives a spirited account of Wakefield and the Lancastrian march, influenced by Tudor as well as Yorkist historiography. … As late as 12 February when Warwick moved his troops to St Albans it is claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of the Lancastrians, an odd lack of military intelligence about an army that was supposed to be leaving havoc in its wake. The Lancastrians apparently swerved to the west after passing Royston which has puzzled military historians because they accept that it came down the Great North Road, but on the evidence we have it is impossible to affirm this. If it came from York via Grantham, Leicester, Market Harborough, Northampton and Stony Stratford to Dunstable, where the first engagement took place, there was no necessity to make an inexplicable swerve westwards because its line of march brought it to Dunstable and then to St Albans. The Lancastrians defeated Warwick’s army on 17 February 1461 and Warwick fled the field. In an echo of Wakefield there is a suggestion of treachery. An English Chronicle tells the story of one Thomas Lovelace, a captain of Kent in the Yorkist ranks, who also appears in Waurin. Lovelace, it is claimed, was captured at Wakefield and promised Queen Margaret that he would join Warwick and then betray and desert him, in return for his freedom.

Lt. Colonel Bume, in a rare spirit of chivalry, credits Margaret with the tactical plan that won the victory, although only because it was so unorthodox that it must have been devised by a woman. But there is no evidence that Margaret had any military flair, let alone experience. A more likely candidate is the veteran captain Andrew Trolloppe who served with Warwick when the latter was Captain of Calais, but he refused to fight under the Yorkist banner against his king at Ludford in 1459 when Warwick brought over a contingent of Calais men to defy King Henry in the field. It was Trolloppe’s ‘desertion’ at Ludford, it is claimed, that forced the Yorkists to flee. The most objective and detailed account of the battle of St Albans is by the unknown continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle. The chronicle ends in 1469 and by that time it was safe to criticise Warwick, who was then out of favour. The continuator was a London citizen who may have fought in the Yorkist ranks. He had an interest in military matters and recorded the gathering of the Lancastrian army at Hull, before Wakefield, and the detail that the troops wore the Prince of Wales’ colours and ostrich feathers on their livery together with the insignia of their lords. He had heard the rumours of a large ill-disciplined army, but because he saw only the household men he concluded that the northerners ran away before the battle. Abbot Whethamstede wrote a longer though far less circumstantial account, in which he carefully made no mention of the Earl of Warwick. … Margaret of Anjou had won the battle but she proceeded to lose the war. London lay open to her and she made a fatal political blunder in retreating from St Albans instead of taking possession of the capital.' Although mistaken, her reasons for doing so were cogent. The focus of contemporary accounts is the threat to London from the Lancastrian army. This is repeated in all the standard histories, and even those who credit Margaret with deliberately turning away from London do so for the wrong reasons.

... The uncertainties and delays, as well as the hostility of some citizens, served to reinforce Margaret’s belief that entry to London could be dangerous. It was not what London had to fear from her but what she had to fear from London that made her hesitate. Had she made a show of riding in state into the city with her husband and son in a colourful procession she might have accomplished a Lancastrian restoration, but Margaret had never courted popularity with the Londoners, as Warwick had, and she had kept the court away from the capital for several years in the late 1450s, a move that was naturally resented. Warwick’s propaganda had tarnished her image, associating her irrevocably with the dreaded northern men. There was also the danger that if Warwick and Edward of March reached London with a substantial force she could be trapped inside a hostile city, and she cannot have doubted that once she and Prince Edward were taken prisoner the Lancastrian dynasty would come to an end. Understandably, at the critical moment, Margaret lost her nerve. ... Queen Margaret did not march south in 1461 in order to take possession of London, but to recover the person of the king. She underestimated the importance of the capital to her cause." Although she had attempted to establish the court away from London, the Yorkist lords did not oppose her for taking the government out of the capital, but for excluding them from participation in it. Nevertheless London became the natural and lucrative base for the Yorkists, of which they took full advantage. The author of the Annales was in no doubt that it was Margaret’s failure to enter London that ensured the doom of the Lancastrian dynasty. A view shared, of course, by the continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, a devoted Londoner:

He that had Londyn for sake Wolde no more to hem take The king, queen and prince had been in residence at the Abbey of St Albans since the Lancastrian victory. Abbot Whethamstede, at his most obscure, conveys a strong impression that St Albans was devastated because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, encouraged plundering south of the Trent in lieu of wages. There must have been some pillaging by an army which had been kept in a state of uncertainty for a week, but whether it was as widespread or as devastating as the good abbot, and later chroniclers, assert is by no means certain. Whethamstede is so admirably obtuse that his rhetoric confuses both the chronology and the facts. So convoluted and uncircumstantial is his account that the eighteenth century historian of the abbey, the Reverend Peter Newcome, was trapped into saying: ‘These followers of the Earl of March were looked on as monsters in barbarity.’ He is echoed by Antonia Gransden who has ‘the conflict between the southemers of Henry’s army and the nonherners of Edward’s. The abbey was not pillaged, but Whethamstede blackened Queen Margaret’s reputation by a vague accusation that she appropriated one of the abbey’s valuable possessions before leaving for the north. This is quite likely, not in a spirit of plunder or avarice, but as a contribution to the Lancastrian war effort, just as she had extorted, or so he later claimed, a loan from the prior of Durham earlier in the year. The majority of the chroniclers content themselves with the laconic statement that the queen and her army withdrew to the north, they are more concerned to record in rapturous detail the reception of Edward IV by ‘his’ people. An English Chronicle, hostile to the last, reports that the Lancastrian army plundered its way north as remorselessly as it had on its journey south. One can only assume that it took a different route. The Lancastrian march ended where it began, in the city of York. Edward of March had himself proclaimed King Edward IV in the capital the queen had abandoned, and advanced north to win the battle of Towton on 29 March. The bid to unseat the government of the Yorkist lords had failed, and that failure brought a new dynasty into being. The Duke of York was dead, but his son was King of England whilst King Henry, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward sought shelter at the Scottish court. The Lancastrian march on London had vindicated its stated purpose, to recover the person of the king so that the crown would not continue to be a pawn in the hands of rebels and traitors, but ultimately it had failed because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, simply did not envisage that Edward of March would have the courage or the capacity to declare himself king. Edward IV had all the attributes that King Henry (and Queen Margaret) lacked: he was young, ruthless, charming, and the best general of his day; and in the end he out-thought as well as out-manoeuvred them.

It cannot be argued that no damage was done by the Lancastrian army. It was mid-winter, when supplies of any kind would have been short, so pillaging, petty theft, and unpaid foraging were inevitable. It kept the field for over a month and, and, as it stayed longest at Dunstable and in the environs of St Albans, both towns suffered from its presence. But the army did not indulge in systematic devastation of the countryside, either on its own account or at the behest of the queen. Nor did it contain contingents of England’s enemies, the Scots and the French, as claimed by Yorkist propaganda. Other armies were on the march that winter: a large Yorkist force moved from London to Towton and back again. There are no records of damage done by it, but equally, it cannot be claimed that there was none.

-B.M Cron, "Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian March on London, 1461"