#obviously all speculation but still :) | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

chirpsythismorning · 2 years ago

Note

Realistically do you still think Milvn will breakup in the first couple of episodes? I feel like the fabdom is focusing on fanon so much at this point that they are missing canon and actual narrative on the show. It seems very unlikely to me for Mvln's breakup taking place in first couple of episodes. But the fandom are still stuk in their previous thoughts and cannot seem to think differently at all and never even consider the possibility of mlvn breakup happening way later on in the next season. Most of the Byler's analyses about El's character has turned out to be wrong. El doesnt seem to be done with the relationship. She still loves Mike (or thinks she does) and she drew strength from his monologue. A mildvn breakup right into S5 does not make any sense canon narrative wise. We can argue that the show was different that the script, while i agree with it to an extent i reaaaly think people are trying way too hard to discredit the writers intention and the script here. El was not angry at Mike. She was sad about Max and Hawkins' situation. 🤷‍♀️

What i am saying is that i feel like most Bylers are misinterpetating what is happening with the narrative here and it leads to unrealistic and baseless expectations for the characters and S5 regarding how Mlvn vs Byler will take place. And i am greatly sorry but i dont think Mike lied in his monologue, like at all. And the situation reads like "Mike loved el romantically but they wont be together bc of incompitability". El is not even still over Mike. And people expect her to be like "i breakup with you bye" right into S5. Mike still has underlining feelings for El. Like... all i am saying is people shouldnt base their expectations on headcanons and fanon misinterpretations.

Lastly, while i really would like a more detailed gay coming of age and sexuality storyline for Mike, realistically going by canon i dont think its happening. Sorry. They will mostly focus on Will's sexuality and coming of age it seems like and Mike will mostly have a "realization" arc where he realizes El and him are not fit for each other and then he decides to be with Will.

Based on the show’s trend of doing break-ups (or at least implied break-ups) early in the season, yes I do think it’s likely that the audience will at least have the impression that Mike and El are broken up early in s5.

That’s based on a technique they have done repeatedly, whereas the assumption that they will break-up midseason is based on what exactly? The Duffers saying that s5 is jumping right back into the action?

I mean, if anything shouldn’t that be an indication that the arcs heavily built up in s4, that were left deliberately unresolved, are going to be dealt with in a timely manner, as opposed to being put on pause and then squished into mid s5, when we’re arguably going to have even more stuff the characters are dealing with? Like, them literally fighting for their lives?

When it comes to Mike’s monologue giving El strength according to the script, this is actually really easy to explain and so I will!

For starters, they did not disclose El's feelings about the monologue in the Piggyback script, bc they released it knowing it would go public, at least two years before s5 is set to actually come out. They would not just throw in a huge spoiler like that, seeing as it was intentionally left unaddressed in s4, with the intention to be addressed in early s5. That’s the whole thing about s4 kind of leaving things so shaky and uncertain, with s5 jumping us right back into that, bc there was just so much set up for all of those dominos to inevitably fall.

To understand Mike’s monologue and its impact on El better, it might help to recall the memory of El’s birth and how her mother’s love is what gave her the strength to defeat Henry the first time in 79’.

I mean look at the lighting of that scene, it’s probably the brightest fucking lighting we’ve ever seen in the entire series (you know what light means... pure, genuine, true love…). And it’s because strength from love is much more powerful than strength from anger. That’s something she is literally throwing back in Henry’s face that day of the massacre, going against what he told her to do and instead using the memory of her mother’s love to beat him.

During Mike’s monologue, we see El using anger to give her strength to finally break free and stop Vecna, all orchestrated by events that Henry has had a role in impacting, meaning he was actively going up against her this second time, all while knowing that in order to actually beat her, she needed to be vulnerable and unable to use love as strength, with her only option being anger. And so what we see is anger about Mike still woefully misunderstanding what she had tried to explain to him earlier in the season, along with watching her best friend be murdered in front of her. And look at the lighting of that scene, she's literally seeing red. The atmosphere is eerily uncertain at best.

This monologue was SOOO necessary for the narrative in order to keep the public away from considering Byler. Because they already don’t want to consider it as it is, and that monologue gives them an excuse not to. You saw how they reacted to the piggyback script? Like it was this huge sigh of relief for them? Meaning that they were having doubts…

The thing is, I have considered the possibility of a mid-season Milkvan break-up. I’ve talked about how waiting until mid-season, something that would be unprecedented bc they’ve never done it before, would be odd considering we will be dealing with vastly different concerns and conflicts by that point.

For them to hold off settling a break-up, that was built up all of s4 (arguably since s3), until mid-s5, would fall flat. If anything jumping right into the action means all the major stuff built-up, but left unaddressed in s4, is what we’re jumping back into.

They need to address those things so that they can move on to the aftermath of all of that and then beyond that. 5 episodes of ignoring that, and then 4 episodes of it happening and processing all of it AND dealing with endgame right as the finale is coming to a close, would be hard to juggle and make satisfying.

The reason they like this approach so much, is because it allows the audience to root for the other option in the love triangle. And with Will getting home-wrecker allegations as it is, a milkvan break-up is extremely necessary this time around as well, especially with byler being endgame and them really wanting us to root for them finally.

How can we do that if the Duffer’s break their own trend of early break-ups and in turn make it difficult for us to root for byler, all while leading on milkvan’s unnecessarily even longer (with no intention of going that route), making it even more unlikely for viewers to accept Byler endgame?

They’ve been building up to this inevitable break-up since s3, with s4 ending in a way that made it sort of obvious El is not happy with Mike and with Mike clearly struggling with something.

Are we just going ignore the implications of the inevitable painting reveal or the fact that Mike called El ‘his’ superhero (the most insulting thing he could do honestly, least of all during a love confession) at the end of s4, and have that confrontation be stretched out? For what? El hasn’t even responded to it or told us her side at all? She told Mike she missed him and that’s it… That’s all we’ve got. Like, let her speak and actually say how she feels about their fight in her room and the events at Surfer Boy and everything leading up to this inevitable moment for them.

While Mike and El didn’t outright break up in s4, there was heavy implications of it, and that was for a reason. They wanted us to watch those Will and Mike scenes throughout the season and see something more. Even though it didn’t end with a kiss between them, nor them officially getting together, they still did it because they wanted us to interpret those scenes as romantic comfortably. That's also why they kept Mike and El seperate at the end of s4, because they wanted us to look at Mike and Will in a way that made us go 🫣🫣🫣 at the very least.

Now, if s5 is leading to Byler endgame, just imagine how much more important it is to make it really clear that Mike and El aren’t happening?

Another even more important reason to have break-ups early in a season in general, is to allow the overall season to have a vibe that is cohesive as it’s own entity. Major stuff happens at the beginning and major stuff happens at the end, with the middle making up the overall vibe and feeling they want us to subscribe to the whole time, with certain pairings being constant that time more than the end/beginning. It makes more sense for us to root for byler most of the season, the whole middle, and for the first time at the end now as well, while letting go of El and Mike early on, even if it’s ambiguous like it was in the previous season. Personally I think the prospects of a dump your ass parallel are high… (can we do something interesting and fun like speculate how the break up would go down? Will it be angsty? Will it be lighthearted? Like I want to see all of those hot takes bc that's actually something that is more fun to think about than the 'when').

I know some people are here because they love romances or love queer romances and just enjoy shipping in general, but I’m genuinely here bc Byler makes sense based on all that stuff you would probably consider to be reaching. That stuff is the best part to me. So, if you don’t like others doing that, then consider muting those that you deem as people ‘misinterpreting the narrative’, again, according to you.

At the end of the day you can believe whatever you want to believe.

This idea that it’s okay to tell other people they are wrong and have baseless claims, all while ignoring the actual evidence they are presenting… Like I mean this just comes off like Milkvan’s telling Bylers they’re delusional for considering Mike and Will as being a possibility at all. If you have to constantly use, it’s not that deep as your core argument after being presented with evidence, while only yourself giving maybe one or two reasons at most for why your interpretation makes the most sense, then you’re probably not actually open to considering things based on evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe and you're projecting onto others for not following along with it.

Especially when it comes to the whole Mike having a coming of age story or whatever, where some fans have tried to make the argument that there is nothing to support that, when that actually couldn’t be further from the truth. Bylers have provided heaps of evidence. If all of that is not enough for you, that’s something that you have to contend with at this time. Just like us believing what we believe based on evidence we’ve gathered is our concern and something we have to deal with, not you. No need to apologize! Just try to worry about your own interpretation of things and feeling confident in that, but without having to tear down others' because they don’t subscribe to yours interpretation of things.

Because I feel like it would honestly be a lot more humiliating to insist other peoples theories are wrong and they’re only going to embarrass themselves in the end, only for that person saying that to end up being wrong… Everyone is making theories and everyone is bound to be wrong about some or even most. That's okay. That's natural. That's sort of an unwritten part in the agreement we all agree to by participating in this theorizing in fandom experience.

When it comes to Mike again and his arc, I always say this, but it really comes down to this more than anything.

Finn is 2nd top billed among the kids. He used to be THE top billed among the kids for s1-3, but then he got bumped down behind Millie in s4. There is a major possibility, that Noah is going to be ranked up, with him going from being paired up with Sadie, under Gaten and Caleb, to be bumped up under Finn with them sharing a title card. Though it’s unlikely they would rank Finn down under Noah, who was not even in the opening credits of s1, while he was the first name that season and the following two, meaning Finn's character Mike needs to live up to that top billed spot right behind Millie. He needs to have an arc on his own that is equally as substantial as Will and El's arcs, and separate from them just like theirs will have aspects that are separate from Mike as well.

Because Mike was the protagonist of the first season, he HAS to be important again in a similar vein in the end for the show to work as an overall five part story. When people go back to rewatch after s5, they are going to be met with Mike front and center. That will only be satisfying if we get genuine insight into his character in the final season, beyond the surface level.

Quite honestly, ALL of the kids deserve something deeper than what you are implying for Mike, and so applying that to him, the og protagonist, is just so absurd to me. If anyone is going to come out with a surprising arc we’re not expecting, it’s Mike. The audience is already not expecting Will to actually get the boy, that's the aspect that they aren't prepared for for Will, and so what about Mike's unexpected reveal?

Literally most of the audience doesn’t even think there is the slightest possibility Mike could be queer. You don’t think that warrants some addressing and unpacking…? You know… because he never really unpacked…?

I feel like people hear me say Mike is going to be important in s5 and go oh so you don’t think Will is the main character?? And it’s like?? Honestly my answer is yes and no. I think Will is literally the spine, the heart, or whatever you want to call it. In Finn's own words, he is the reason that everything happens and he is the most important character arguably, because of how important he is in terms of all of these events taking place throughout the series.

However, Mike is at the forefront from the very beginning and we arguably see everything from his eyes in s1 and 2 more than anyone else. But that goes away in s3-4. And that felt extremely intentional based on what is about to go down (byler endgame). You can tell that by doing this, they are trying to lead up to a reveal that brings him back to his original place in the story for the audience to see him as his most authentic self again, and with answers for why we lost that insight in between.

I could count up at least 20 Easter eggs hinting at Mike being in danger/targeted, which goes all the way back to the first episode of the series.

This isn't even considering, that another trend they’re likely to bring back in s5, bc if they don’t they’d be breaking a series long trend, is Mike being late. He starts every season late. And so, what is Mike going to be late for this time? Could it have something to do with all of the unknowns about him that are yet to be addressed?

I think that sometimes we say that something isn’t going to happen because we don’t want it to. A lot of this stuff I’m saying happening isn’t based on feelings, it’s based on actual evidence.

If you don’t want certain things to happen because of x, y, z, you can just say that is the case instead of making arguments that there is nothing supporting it, when that’s not actually true?

Like nothing? Nothing at all? Baseless? Like, be serious rn.

ST5 is very likely going to give off s1-2 vibes. While Mike is going to be less in the background compared to s3-4, Will AND El are still going to have equal, if not more attention than him, bc I do believe that their bond is what is going to also be a part of saving Hawkins.

The ending is going to be surprising bc those primary color-coded bitches are the answer to it all. If me saying that upsets anyone because it goes against their interpretation of things, I'm sorry too I guess!

#byler #stranger things #st5 speculation #pls go make theories of your own and have fun #if people don't subscribe to your theories #maybe don't assume everyone else is wrong #like is that really the only possibility here #i mean we all technically agree bylers are right about byler being endgame..#so they have a record for at least being close to being right because they're paying close attention to the details #i feel like using 'all bylers think this' as like a dig or some sort of attempt at discrediting a theory is sort of weak #a lot of people probably like something because it makes sense...#is that always the case?#no obviously not #still calling bylers delusional is so triggering like come on now why are we using milkvan methods #stop even implying bylers delusional #even if it's out of love #embrace the delusion #and let people be responsible for their own emotions if they're right/wrong in s5 #this is a tv show #we'll all be okay either way #but along the way lets not make play it off like we care for other people's feelings all while basically telling them they're stupid...#be confident in your interpretation and leave it at that

56 notes · View notes

wonder-worker · 1 year ago

Text

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"

#*The best propaganda narratives always contain an element of truth but it's important to remember that it's never the WHOLE truth #margaret of anjou #15th century #english history #my post #(please ignore my rambling tags below lmao)#imo the bottom line is: they were fighting a war and war is a scourge that is inevitably complicated and messy and unfortunate #arguing that NOTHING happened (on either side but especially the Lancastrians considering they were cut off from London's supplies)#is not a sustainable claim. However: Yorkist propaganda was blatantly propaganda and I wish that it's recognized more than it currently is #also I had *no idea* that her letter seems to have been actually written in 1460! I wish that was discussed more #& I wish Cron's speculation that Margaret may have feared being trapped in a hostile city with an approaching army was discussed more too #tho I don't 100% agree with article's concluding paragraph. 'Edward IV did not ultimately save England from further civil war' he...did???#the Yorkist-Lancastrian civil war that began in the 1450s ended in 1471 and his 12-year reign after that was by and large peaceful #(tho Cron may he talking about the period in between 61-71? but the civil war was still ongoing; the Lancasters were still at large #and the opposing king and prince were still alive. Edward by himself can hardly be blamed for the civil war continuing lol)#but in any case after 1471 the war WAS believed to have ended for good and he WAS believed to have established a new dynasty #the conflict of 1483 was really not connected to the events of the 1450s-1471. it was an entirely new thing altogether #obviously he shouldn't be viewed as the grand undoubted rightful savior of England the way Yorkist propaganda sought to portray him #(and this goes for ALL other monarchs in English history and history in general) but I don't want to diminish his achievements either #However I definitely agree that the prevalent idea that the Lancasters wouldn't have been able to restore royal authority if they'd won #is very strange. its an alternate future that we can't possibly know the answer to so it's frustrating that people seem to assume the worst #I guess the reasons are probably 1) the Lancasters ultimately lost and it's the winners who write history #(the Ricardians are somehow the exception but they're evidently interested in romantic revisionism rather than actual history so 🤷🏻‍♀️)#and 2) their complicated former reign even before 1454. Ig put together I can see where the skepticism comes from tho I don't really agree #but then again the Yorkists themselves played a huge role in the chaos of the 1450s. if a faction like that was finally out of the way #(which they WOULD be if the Lancasters won in 1461) the Lancastrian dynasty would have been firmly restored and #Henry and Margaret would've probably had more space and time to restore royal authority without direct rival challenges #I'd argue that the Lancasters stood a significantly better chance at restoring & securing their dynasty if they won here rather than 1471 #also once again: the analyses written on Margaret's queenship; her role in the WotR; and the propaganda against her are all phenomenal #and far far superior than the analyses on any other historical woman of that time - so props to her absolutely fantastic historians

21 notes · View notes