#henry vii killed Richard iii

[kindercelery]

[georgia-stanway]

I'm going to Leicester to see spurs women tomorrow which means I'm missing the reopening of the cathedral by a week. A singular week. Why is the world conspiring against a simple Richard iii girlie like that

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

Do you think Rhaenyra would have killed her siblings or it was mere paranoia on Alicent's side? The book doesn't provide a solid answer for this, and in the show it's clear that Rhaenyra would never harm her siblings.

Hi anon, I kind of went into it in this post, and although that ask was about Jace vs. Aegon III, I think the principle remains the same. In short, no, I don't think it was paranoia, but to understand why, we have to understand why Rhaenyra's brothers pose a particular threat to the stability of Rhaenyra (of Jace's) rule. Keep in mind, this isn't a moral failing specific to Rhaenyra, but simply a byproduct of the conditions of her inheritance.

I don't think Rhaenyra would have wanted to kill her siblings (or their kids), or even have planned to kill her siblings, but I also think that ultimately what she wanted wouldn't matter very much. All it would take would be someone wishing to rise in her esteem claiming that Aegon was fermenting rebellion, perhaps producing a forged letter as evidence, or an eyewitness who would swear that he had been secretly meeting with former greens. Could she risk it? Her brothers are weapons that can always be used against her. And at some point, it would be out of her control. Rhaenyra won't live forever, nor will Daemon, and when Jace attempts to take the throne, with no less than 7 legitimate male claimants alive who would have a claim ahead of him, there are bound to be challengers. The Blackfyre rebellion began with much flimsier pretexts.

We have real life examples of this. Henry VII intended to keep the remaining Plantagenets alive when he took the throne, as long as they stayed loyal. After all, they were his wife's family members, and killing them off would not be a good look. But the remaining Plantagenets would always be a threat to the Tudors. Ten year old Edward Plantagenet, the son of George of Clarence, was imprisoned in the Tower of London for 14 years before he was executed in 1499 for a supposed connection to Perkin Warbeck's scheme. Henry VII finally took action at least in part because he was negotiating a betrothal between his heir and the daughter of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. The Spanish monarchs did not want their daughter marrying a man whose succession could be challenged, and so Edward, the strongest claimant at that point, had to go. Henry VII's son, Henry VIII, increasingly worried about the stability of his own succession, became vulnerable to the whisperings of opportunists looking to rise in the king's esteem and eliminate their own political enemies. At this point, the remaining Plantagenet claimants became a source of paranoia, justified or not. The arrest and execution of Margaret Pole, the niece of Edward IV and Richard III, was based upon a tunic found in her home that supposedly represented her support for her son's claim to the throne and the restoration of the Catholic church in England. The tunic was almost certainly planted by Henry VIII's chief minister, the protestant Thomas Cromwell, the same man who orchestrated Henry's divorce from Catherine of Aragon (yes, the same princess whose hand Edward Plantagenet had died to secure). And Henry VIII liked Margaret, she'd been the governess to his daughter, and though they had their ups and downs, he certainly didn't hate her. Still, when her son was put forward as a rival claimant and she was accused of supporting him, she had to go too. And of course, going backwards a bit, there are famously the princes in the tower, Edward and Richard, sons of King Edward IV, who despite having been officially declared bastards (a law, you see, was not enough), were still enough of a threat to the throne that they were (most likely) murdered, whether by Richard III or one of his associates. Mere rumors that those boys still lived sparked rebellions during the reign of Henry VII.

And you can say well, there's a difference, surely, in that Rhaenyra is the rightful queen, and these other people were not? But "rightful" is not some inherent state of being, it's dependent upon who is in power. Every person who sits the throne believes themself to be the rightful king or queen. But Rhaenyra in particular gained her position because her father exercised his power and declared her heir in defiance of the expected order of inheritance, contradicting the very decision that made him king in the first place. After Viserys dies though, for all intents and purposes his wishes cease to matter. He is no longer king, and lacks any mechanism by which to enforce his wishes from beyond the grave. At that point, people will choose to support one claimant or another, based upon their own concerns (dragon math, precedent, oaths, promises made by one or the other, existing family bond) and to consider Rhaenyra or Aegon (or any other claimant down the road) the rightful king/queen. Rhaenyra's security upon the throne, like the position of Henry VII or Richard III, is inherently weaker because she comes to the throne through unconventional means. All it takes is a plague year, a famine, or a foreign invasion for any random group of lords to decide that the true king Aegon/Aemond/Jaehaerys/Maelor should be on the throne and that they should start a rebellion in his name. If Rhaenyra feels insecure in her rule, or in Jace's ability to peacefully inherit after her, it only makes sense to eliminate any potential rivals, and her brothers and their children will always be a threat, no matter her original intentions. Even if Rhaenyra keeps her word and does not harm her family, her brothers and their line pose a threat to Jace and his line as long as both lines exist.

So Alicent is not being paranoid at all, she's being realistic. If Viserys were to disinherit Rhaenyra, or were Rhaenyra to accept the peace terms and give up her claim, she would become simply another sister, but Aegon can never be just another brother to Queen Rhaenyra because in the eyes of some, he will always be a potential rallying point for dissenters, and if not him then his brothers, or his children, whether they want to be or not. That's the point Alicent is making. It's not a reflection on Rhaenyra's character, it's just that if it came down to a choice between securing her reign/Jace's succession, and the lives of her potential political rivals, it's not difficult to guess what Rhaenyra would choose.

[whencyclopedia]

Henry VIII of England

Henry VIII of England ruled as king from 1509 to 1547 CE. The second Tudor king after his father Henry VII of England (r. 1485-1509 CE), Henry had inherited a kingdom which enjoyed both unity and sound finances. Famous for his six wives as he searched for a male heir, the king was charismatic and domineering. In order to escape his first marriage, Henry set himself against the Pope and so began the Reformation of the Church in England whereby it broke away from Rome and the English monarch became its supreme head. A larger-than-life figure, Henry centralised government, further absorbed Wales into his kingdom, saw to the Dissolution of the Monasteries, formed the Royal Navy and built magnificent palaces such as St. James' in London. When Henry died, though, in 1547 CE, he was succeeded by his juvenile son Edward VI of England (r. 1547-1553 CE) and he left him an impoverished kingdom split over religious issues.

Henry Tudor

Henry Tudor had defeated and killed Richard III of England (r. 1483-1485 CE) at the Battle of Bosworth in August 1485 CE in the last major action of England's dynastic dispute known as the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487 CE). The House of Lancaster had finally defeated the House of York but Henry, crowned Henry VII of England in October 1485 CE, was intent on creating a brand new ruling house: the Tudors. Henry married Elizabeth of York (b. 1466 CE), daughter of Edward IV of England (r. 1461-70 & 1471-83 CE), on 18 January 1486 CE and he even combined the livery badges of York and Lancaster to create a new royal symbol: the Tudor Rose. England was about to enter the post-medieval era with a new look and a new type of monarchy.

Continue reading...

[horizon-verizon]

Aegon III and Jaehaera “healing together” would be like:

Jaehaera: I miss my father.

Aegon III, having a PTSD trigger: Well, I miss my mother! AND YOU KNOW WHO GRUESOMELY KILLED MY MOTHER WHILE I WAS WATCHING ?!

Jaehaera: And I miss my twin brother! AND YOU KNOW WHO SEND THE MEN WHO BEHEADED HIM IN FRONT OF ME & MY MOM ?!

Aegon III: Nothing would have happened if your grandmother didn’t usurped my mother and your uncle didn’t ruthlessly murdered my brother.

Their marriage would have been SOOO INCREDIBLY UGLY, BITTER, MISERABLE AND HOPELESS. That union never stood a chance. Aegon III spent about 3 years married to her and never made any attempt to befriend her and had more interactions with Unwin Peake’s daughter than her. They wouldn’t have any children, he’d abdicate in favor of Viserys if he didn’t marry Daenaera and then locked himself in a tower.

Yeah, I agree. I understand that the real English War of the Roses that war/sub-battles ended with a happier and successful marriage between the two warring houses of York and Lancaster so it seems that Aegon III and Jaehaera could have also had a great marriage--or at least a civil one with a lot of kids/heirs. However, though yes we had the structure of "one child of the two warring families marry for peace" of the War of Roses, the Dance was modeled and takes inspiration from the Anarchy, where Empress Matilda fought against her male cousin, Stephen of Blois, for the English throne. Where the conflict was strictly about who deserves the throne: the female declared heir or the eldest male relative? And who will obtain it, who fights for them, who suffers, etc.

Plus Henry VII of the Plantagenet branch of Tudor (through Jon of Gaunt) & Elizabeth of the house of York--the people who married each other while from the opposing houses after the Battle of Bosworth Field--were both relatively healthy adults AND Henry actually won the throne through his own leadership in battle after killing Richard II (her paternal uncle). The same uncle whose mainly held responsible for Elizabeth's younger brothers' disappearances. So Henry & Elizabeth had a way better beginning than Aegon III & Jaehaera.

Even with the Anarchy, GRRM doesn't transfer all of the events or major ones/results into his fiction. The conclusion of the anarchy was still a woman being passed over: Stephen won and got to rule but Empress Matilda's son--Henry Plantagenet-- was designated as the next to rule in the Treaty of Wallingford. But she wasn't brutally murdered in front of said son like Rhaenyra; yet despite Stephen's efforts his own sons never sat the throne like Aegon; yet the war ravaged England as the Dance did Westeros enough that in both the lords/barons sought peace above all AND Matilda lost the throne.

GRRM seemed to want to capture the sense of futility of the war's destruction (not its cause though, not absolutely) with how it should have never happened to begin with from a place of usurping a woman. There was no happy-dappy marriage or even an attempt at one in the real thing.

Jaehaera was made totally disadvantaged for a reason:

a) making her and Aegon both children in the aftermath of the war, controlled by ambitious adults still who do not have their best interests at heart makes to highlight theie vulnerability and the cause being misogyny and classism leading those in power to declare such wars

b) their parents fighting and destroying each other to the bitter end instead of what occurred in the actual Anarchy

c) the greens pushed for war under the principle of "men only" at the cost of its female members' mental and physical health or putting those in danger (mainly Helaena and Jaehaera) for the sake of power. Jaehaera could have grown up happier and for longer if her own father hadn't decided to calm down and not try to go after several of Rhaenyra's supporters in the way that he was planning to, nor should he have usurped his older sister. He shouldn't have celebrated Lucerys' murder at the feast he threw that was almost certainly part of the inspiration for Blood & Cheese whereby his oldest male heir was killed. His other male heir was put into danger when he, again, usurped Rhaenyra and led armies against her when she had been already declared and ACCEPTED as Viserys heir for years. All he had left was his daughter, but bc the whole point of his claim was "males only" AND he was himself an asshole, he decided to marry again to get another male heir. It was also Alicent who tried to intimidate or persuade her granddaughter to kill Aegon as if the child wasn't already scarred from war and mentally fragile from her disabilities so that she, Alicent, could get revenge against the already dead Rhaenyra. The greens, not the blacks or Rhaenyra, are the main ones at fault for Jaehaera's demise--her death is on their hands since every which way, they chose power over her.

[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.

[snowblack-charcoalwhite]

I'm really scared of Aegon's arc.

They changed the book events and I don't know what they gonna do but I trust Tom and he said that Aegon going to change from Richard II to Richard III.

If you don't know, Richard III is a cunning, ruthless man who is discontented with the current atmosphere of peace in his country. When his nation was at war, he had a clear role to play, and people appreciated him. Richard wants to become King no matter who he has to kill to get there; he kills everyone who stands in his way. Jealous and crippled, Richard of Gloucester wants to be King of England and uses manipulation and deceit to achieve his goal. He murders his brothers, nephews, and any opposition to become King Richard III. In the end, Henry of Richmond raises an army, kills Richard in battle, and becomes King Henry VII.

I'm scared that they gonna keep him a joke but Tom always been right so...

Hello!

I am familiar with Richard III and the story of his life (and death) but thank you for the reminder anyway:)

Actually, I feel sort of uneasy about Aegon's future arc as well. I mentioned it in one of my posts which I am going to quote here if you don't mind (to avoid making you read all of it):

"As for Aegon, he's been the luckiest out of the Green characters storywise - but it doesn't mean that I'm satisfied with the show version of him. Dumbing him down, using him as a way to show how callous and cruel other Greens (specifically Aemond and Alicent) are - that's not the treatment I wanted for one of my favourite characters. I would even go as far as saying that if the Aegon we have seen in the show so far was the only Aegon I knew (without me having any knowledge of either source material or Tom's interviews or participating in fandom) he wouldn't be one of my favourite characters as I simply would have very little interest in him. Once again, in comparison with other Greens he's doing really well, but I can't help but feel that Aegon - and Tom - are also being used to create a character the audience can pity and to have a good shot at the Emmy campaign. And as soon as HBO guys get what they want (or if they don't get it), Aegon might be thrown under the bus just as easily as it already happened to Aemond after he attracted lots of attention to season 1".

You have a point as for Tom being mostly right about the way his character is going to be developed on screen (I say "mostly" instead of "always" because of 1) his words about brotherly love between Aegon and Aemond that the script did not allow us to witness and 2) him mentioning (quite a long time ago, back during season 1 promo, I believe) Aegon being good at reading people - we did not actually see it in the show either). But Richard III comparison is quite a major thing so, unless the writers go off the rails even more than they already did, the hope remains. Although I wouldn't describe my own attitude as optimistic, let's hope that at least the Green King gets some justice from this disaster of a show.

[richmond-rex]

Hi there

So I follow the Tudor Trio and Nicola Tallis, Matthew Lewis and Nathan Amin were doing a debate today on the Princes in the Tower with the quote on quote new evidence that has been revealed from Philippa Langley.

I still firmly believe Richard III killed the Princes and find many of Matthew Lewis' arguments bizarre. I'm not sure why he thinks the Princes weren't a threat to Richard but were to Henry VII. If the Princes weren't a threat to Richard then why would they have been a threat to Henry VII? I can't understand why Richard would ever let them escape England of his own free Will. There is almost no chance they could have escaped without him knowing about it.

Also he claimed that Henry VII sent Elizabeth Woodville to Bermondsey Abbey and that she was supporting the Lambert Simnel Rebellion. Is there any truth to that? Thanks!

Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply! Lewis' arguments are so incredibly ridiculous — they largely rest on accepting at face value people's signatures and on the claim that Maximilian and Margaret of York were too blue-blooded to ever lie for political ends: essentially, he claims lying was for peasants. And yes, the princes would absolutely be a threat to Richard III as he found out as soon as he left London after his coronation — there happened a rebellion made by former Edwardian servants that aimed to free the princes from the Tower, very possibly to restore them to the throne. The princes had been raised all their lives to regard the English throne as their birthright — you're telling me they would grow up abroad and would neve try a restoration aided by one of England's political enemies such as France?

The ricardian claim that Richard III sent them to Burgundy is incredibly ridiculous to me as well: even if they stayed with Richard's sister, she wasn't the one ruling Burgundy — Maximilian of Austria, the husband of Margaret's deceased daughter-in-law, was. How could Richard be sure Maximilian wouldn't take the princes the minute Richard did something that went against Maximilian's interests and use them to either blackmail him or depose him so Maximilian could have his own English king? Burgundy had displayed lancastrian loyalties not so long ago in the past and the political game in Europe changed constantly.

It would have been absolutely STUPID of Richard III to deliver the strongest weapon anyone could use against him to a foreign power. Let's also mention that Maximilian at the time was struggling with controlling his own children, the actual Burgundian heirs, because some Flemish cities had rebelled against him and had his heir (Philip of Burgundy) in their power and were up in arms against his regency. From June 1483 to July 1485 Maximilian couldn't have control of his own son. You're telling me Richard would have sent the biggest assets anyone could use against him to that unstable scenario?

The truth is that Ricardians like Matthew Lewis benefit from the fact that people study/know about the Wars of the Roses from an impossibly anglocentric lens, ignoring that the conflict was also the outcome of the multiple iterations of power play between Western European powers: 'the Wars of the Roses were an extended episode in a European conflict, not just a murderous private dispute'. It really is inconceivable, when it comes down to logic, how Richard was one step ahead of everyone during the mounting off to his takeover of the throne (bamboozling and imprisoning the Woodvilles, executing and imprisoning Edward V's strongest supporters such as Hastings) but would commit such a basic political error as sending other claimants to his own crown to a foreign power.

As to Elizabeth Woodville going to Bermondsey Abbey as a way of punishment for her supporting a rebellion against Henry VII, it makes little sense as well. Henry VII carried on with the marriage negotiations with Scotland that involved Elizabeth and two of her daughters until James III's death in 1488. Again, it would make little sense for Henry VII to have found out Elizabeth was conspiring against him but keep wanting to send her north as an ally to Scotland, a country that could easily make war on him and create problems. Why would he deliver an enemy into the hands of another possible enemy, if Elizabeth truly conspired against him? Again, it's the lack of perspective into Europe and international politics that jump out in Lewis' logic.

Do my words make sense to you? I truly cannot comprehend how Lewis can say the stuff he says and no one really contradicts him in his logic.

[a-s-fischer]

Richard III: yay or nay?

I'm a "Plague on both your houses," kind of person with regards to the Wars of the Roses. Everybody involved sucked so much. And Richard III who almost certainly did kill his nephews, who were young children, still manages to come out as one of the least awful. I mean, look at his brothers. Edward IV and George Duke of Clarence were just vile.

And Henry VII was terrible, and his son was Henry VIII, who was vile in a very similar way to his grandfather, Edward IV. And Margret of Anjou gets demonzied in ways that had more to do with spinning a narrative than what she actually did, but given who she picked as her friends and advisors, she had to be pretty awful too. And Edmund Tudor? Child rapist. And Warwick? Fucking yikes.

So am I pro Richard III? No. Am I against everybody else involved at least as strongly? Yep.

[scotianostra]

On May 28th 1503 Papal Bull was signed by Pope Alexander VI confirming the marriage of King James IV and Margaret Tudor and the “Treaty of Perpetual Peace” between Scotland and England.Like most treaties it didn't last and just over 10 years.The treaty was a three party pact between Henry VII of England, James IV of Scots and Pope Alexander VI, Rodrigo Borgia. It was binding not only on the kings who signed it, but also on their successors in perpetuity. It provided that England would not make war on Scotland, Scotland would not attack England and that the Pope would take extreme action, including excommunication, on any king who broke the treaty. The treaty was to be solemnised by the marriage of James to Henry’s daughter, Margaret.It was hoped that years of war between the two countries would now cease. Henry, the first Tudor king, needed stability in his kingdom, as he feared an uprising by the Yorkist supporters. He had good reason to fear an invasion as he had gained the throne himself by launching an invasion and killing Richard III in battle.James too feared an uprising at home. He had gained the throne by supporting a group of dissident nobles, who had captured the king, James’ father James III of Scots, as an English army was invading and tried to force him to abdicate. In 1488, the rebels had fought the battle of Sauchiburn against James III, both sides flying the Scottish flag of the Lion Rampant, and defeated and killed him. James IV was then crowned at Scone but when he discovered that he had been used by the rebels to eradicate the king his father, he did penance by wearing an iron chain around his waist for the rest of his life.James took advantage of the peace between the kingdoms to stabilise his realm. He subdued the overbearing Lord of the Isles and gained full dominion over the Western Isles. He built a small but impressive navy, patronised literature, introduced compulsory education and founded King’s College, Aberdeen, now part of Aberdeen University, and the Edinburgh College of Surgeons.When Henry VIII succeeded to the throne of England, the treaty continued to work well. The relationship between the kings was not amicable but they ignored each other and peace was maintained. In 1513, Henry, fondly imagining that the treaty would protect him from invasion from the north, invaded France. James was tempted. He could win some territory, in particular Berwick-on-Tweed, which he considered to be his but was occupied by England. James crossed the Tweed and after some military success was met by the Earl of Surrey at Flodden Field. In the battle that followed, the Scots suffered their heaviest defeat ever. They lost twenty-eight Nobles, fifty Knights and ten thousand foot soldiers. Worst of all, James himself was killed in battle and his body carried away to London.James was excommunicated, under the terms of the treaty, and therefore could not be buried in consecrated ground. Henry had the body placed in a monastery at Sheen, Surrey, and thought to ask the pope for permission to have James properly buried in due course. Later, Henry fell out with the pope, dissolved the monasteries and James’ body was forgotten and vanished. The treaty too was forgotten.

[natequarter]

richard iii's quick and easy plan to take over england (1483 edition):

capture nephews

kill all their allies

get rid of them

don't elaborate

profit

henry vii's quick and easy plan to take over england (1483 edition):

escape brittany alive

???

profit

[margridarnauds]

A baffling take I've seen, regardless of whether or not Richard III did it (imo, as someone who is thoroughly not involved in English medieval studies? He Did It, or someone did it thinking it would make him happy) is that the REAL reason why Richard III's innocence has never been established is because it'd be inconvenient to the UK government to admit that Henry VII was a prick.

Now, debates on whether Henry VII was a prick aside:

(1) Whether or not Richard killed the princes, it doesn't really mean anything about Henry VII's legitimacy. He was accepted by the Pope. The pretenders never were. Doesn't mean the Pope couldn't have changed his mind, but that's the highest possible medieval confirmation you can have.

(2) It isn't like there haven't been plenty of other kings of England who are, generally, admitted to be pricks, even when they're the ancestors of the current government.

(3) Right of conquest is a thing, lads.

(4) Henry VII married Edward IV's daughter, anyway. Had dispensations for it and everything. (Also from the Pope.) All the English monarchs are ALSO Edward IV's descendants and therefore ALSO distant relatives of the princes.

(5) Whether or not Richard killed the princes does not have any bearing on whether Henry was a prick -- theoretically, the pretenders could have been them, in a world where all "evidence" is on the same level, but like. Having someone executed who is trying to kill you, after you've been confirmed in the role, is not on the same moral level as having two children murdered. (Though for what it's worth, on the other end...I might be numb at this point of studying things because I don't think that Richard's morality begins and ends with the princes anyway. He killed his nephews, so what? It isn't like he'd be the first.) By most of the evidence I've seen, he was a shit king, and that's even more inexcusable, imo.

[malkaleh]

So @boleynecklace asked what Elizabeth (1998) and The White Princess might look like in the Tudors OT3 universe and okay, THOUGHTS (please bear in mind I haven’t actually seen The White Princess or read it but I have vibes from gifs)

So the White Princess is kind of completely flipped on it’s head because I don’t know if this universes PGreggs can hate The Tudors so much here (although I don’t know, she might manage it! I think her Anne Boleyn hate might be transferred to Bessie Blount?) just because uh, yeah.

But also women in Philippa Gregory novels cannot be friends ever so unfortunately the Ultimate Evil is still Margaret Beaufort :sighs: because she manipulated and murdered when EOY/Henry VII/Richard III were in a very happy triad and she actually murdered her grandchildren! And also got Richard killed because she wanted to be the Power Behind The Throne. But it’s okay because it turns out Elizabeth Woodville and EOY saved Richard with their magic powers and so actually, Henry was a pure beautiful York Child and unfortunately Arthur died because Cursed Tudor Blood or something.

(Also Anne Neville is obviously an evil bitch as well).

Elizabeth (1998) is such a different movie though. I think it might start with Elizabeth being appointed as her brothers advisor (official) after her fathers unofficial abdication in 1556 - at this point she and Robert are married and have a four year old daughter Anne (Nanette).

Francis Walsingham, determined to make England Protestant and Mary of Guise who is determined to make sure her daughter marries Prince Thomas both agree that assassinating Princess Mihrimah is the best idea and Walsingham persuades Robert of this. (This did not happen in universe historically Robert Dudley is screaming from the afterlife at this movie).

This attempt does not work. Robert, frustrated at not having a son and feeling as though he should have more power, throws himself into an attempt to undermine Elizabeth and get her removed from the privy council (this is also wrong because Robert was also on the privy council and also I AM SUPPORTING MY WIFE he yells). It does not work and the movie ends with Elizabeth telling Robert that he will never see their children or her again when she presents him with their twin sons (we will ignore that they have two more children)

The general consensus is that the chemistry is incredible/the performances are amazing but we are ignoring the second half of the movie.

Send me a piece of Tudor Era Media (or Period Drama in general) (TV show/book/movie)) and I’ll talk about what I think it might be like in The Tudors OT3 verse

[blackboar]

How was Woodville's life during the Tudor dynasty?

Not bad, but not great. The family definitely took a blow with Richard III's ascent. Richard Woodville gained his earldom back but as he made his peace with Richard III in 1485, Henry VII didn't trust him much and he didn't wield much power until his death in 1491. Edward Woodville was way more promising as a competent lord and fighter. He was clearly loyal to the new regime and fought for Henry at Stoke Field. He received some responsibilities (lord of the isle of Wight, governor of Porchester and Carisbooke castle). With his good reputation and his martial capabilities, he could have become an important figure but he was killed by the French in 1488.

Ultimately, the Woodvilles faded during Henry VII's early with the death of Elizabeth Woodville and her siblings. They were restored, but they didn't receive much royal favors, and the family gradually went extinct.

[whencyclopedia]

Henry VII of England

Henry VII of England ruled as king from 1485 to 1509 CE. Henry, representing the Lancaster cause during the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487 CE), defeated and killed his predecessor the Yorkist king Richard III of England (r. 1483-1485 CE) at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485 CE. Known as Henry of Richmond or Henry Tudor before he was crowned, Henry VII was the first Tudor king. Despite having to deal with three pretenders to his throne and two minor rebellions, Henry's reign was largely peaceful and prosperous as, like a master auditor, he steadily increased the health of the state's finances. The king died of ill health in April 1509 CE and was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, Henry VIII of England (r. 1509-1547 CE).

The Lancastrian Claim

Richard III was one of England's most unpopular kings, and he was accused of being involved in the murder of the two sons of his brother Edward IV of England (r. 1461-70 & 1471-83 CE) who disappeared from the Tower of London. Richard, having eliminated his nephews, made himself king in 1483 CE. His reign would be short and troubled; it was brought to an end by the rise of Henry Tudor, at the time better known as Henry, Earl of Richmond.

Henry was born on 28 January 1457 CE in Pembroke Castle, the son of Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond (l. 1430-1456 CE). Henry was the grandson of the Welsh courtier Owen Tudor (c. 1400-1461 CE) and Catherine of Valois (l. 1401 - c. 1437 CE), the daughter of Charles VI of France (r. 1380-1422 CE), former wife of Henry V of England (r. 1413-1422 CE) and mother of Henry VI of England (r. 1422-61 & 1470-71 CE). Henry Tudor's mother was Margaret Beaufort (l. c. 1441-1509 CE), the great-granddaughter of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward III of England (r. 1312-1377 CE). It was not much of a royal connection, especially as some regarded the Beaufort's as illegitimate, but it was the best the Lancastrians could hope for as their dynastic dispute with the House of York, the Wars of the Roses, rumbled on. Thus, Henry Tudor, returning from exile in Brittany, became the figurehead of the Lancastrians who aimed to topple the Yorkist king Richard III.

Henry Tudor wisely allied himself with the alienated Woodvilles, family of Elizabeth Woodville (l. c. 1437-1492 CE), the wife of Edward IV. Other allies included such powerful lords as the Duke of Buckingham who were not happy with King Richard's distribution of estates, and anyone else keen to see Richard III receive his just deserts. These allies even included the new king across the Channel, Charles VIII of France (r. 1483-1498 CE). The first move by the rebels proved premature and poorly planned so that Henry's invasion fleet was put off by bad weather and Buckingham was captured and executed in November 1483 CE.

Continue reading...

[horizon-verizon]

The fact that absolutely no one ships Aegon III and Jaehaera besides TG tells you everything you need to know. This is such an unnatural relationship, you know that everytime Aegon III looked at Jaehaera, he just saw her father.

I couldn’t care less about reconciling and uniting the two fighting branches House Targaryen; traditionalist misogynists deserve to be punished. Aegon III getting a second chance at life, having a a bold and vivacious daughter who worship him despite his quietness and allowing his other daughter to keep a dragon egg despite his trauma and hatred for dragons is infinitely more compelling than him constantly distancing himself from the living reminder of his mother’s death.

Aegon III and Jaehaera were married for three years but they never became close. Why “it seemed like the king was fonder of Myrielle than he ever was of Jaehaera” ? Why did he spend his time with Gaemon Palehair instead of her ? Why did GRRM emphasizes how much Daenaera make Aegon happier and more alive ? Why did Aegon gave Jaehaera’s doll to another girl as soon as she died ? He literally cared more about Larys Strong and Tyland Lannister than he ever did about Jaehaera.

I should hope Daenaera is not either metaphorically nor literally "worshipping" Aegon; I'm assuming you meant that Aegon was given necessary personal attentive care. And Larys Strong? why?

Yeah though, agreed. Problem is that fans expect Jaehaera and Aegon to eventually "get over what's happened to them" bc their supposed inspirations (Elizabeth York and Henry VII Tudor) had a seemingly harmonious marriage despite Henry having been, technically, on the Lancastrian side. However, as I noted in this post, Henry actually got rid of one of Elizabeth's family's biggest opps: ther own uncle, Richard III, who people suspected/suspect either killed or somehow rid of her her two younger brothers. And the Yorks are responsible for Henry Tudor's father's early demise when while he was in Wales, the Henry VI deposed Richard York. In retaliation, Richard sent 2,000 men under a William Herbert to take South Wales. When they arrived at its castle, they took the stronghold and captured Edmund Tudor. As those troops moved on, Edmund was left behind & imprisoned in a Castle, where he eventually got infected with the bubonic plague and died.

However, that was also 3 months before Henry Tudor/Henry VII was born and we don't really know how close Elizabeth ever was with richard III, whereas Aegon personally witnessed his own mother get eaten by a dragon at the too-understanding-and-vulnerable age of 10 & Jaehaera very likely witnessed her own brother get murdered by Blood & Cheese. These things would definitely help in both of these two accepting each other aside form just wanting the war to end; they had much more room to. (I cite a few more reasons in that linked post above.) Though there is an aspect coming from this marriage in how that marriage--like Aegon/Jaehaera's--was supposed to "heal" the rivalry/prevent more wars.

More in Aegon's case he was directly, nearly mutilated by Alicent's suggestion and further threatened by her very hostile presence before and after their marriage. Esp after she tried to get Jaehaera to kill him. The likelihood of Aegon ever being close to Jaehaera and vice versa is so low there's no point in contemplating it.

Really, after Jaehaera's death the greens were no longer a true issue and their supporters no longer could use them for their own ends. Unwin Peake notably does what Otto did, but he didn't use Jaehaera or any green when he pushed his daughter Myrielle forward. even though Jaehaera was a girl and it'd be self-contradictory for a supposed green supporter to try to use a marriage with her against Aegon, we also saw Rogar Baratheon try to use not only a female child-Targ against Jaehaerys but a female child who already took her religious vows. Or, they could decide to do as Unwin did: plot to bring Aegon/the crown more under his power through replacing/killing Jaehaera for their own female relative. Or marry Jaehaera herself. There's the potential that even if she didn't marry Aegon, Jaehaera wouldn't be left alone. Or if kept to the Red Keep, she's be taken and kept elsewhere until she's forcibly married. But even still this is speaking to the potential for futile chaos; I still think that bc the greens' whole thing was that the succession can't come from the female line, if anyone were to try to use Jaehaera in these ways, they wouldn't get very far. At the same time, they were all just weary of any more bloodshed, so marriage to Aegon it was.

So this idea that for there to be true peace Jaehaera had to marry Aegon for political "peace" is partly salient; but otherwise, was she all that "necessary" for Aegon's long term and short term, personal or political peace of mind and safety? Eh. He certainly wasn't for hers by the end.