#v: Tudor prince

[rexheroum]

Tudor Prince AU — Pomegranates & Roses

What if…King Henry VIII & Catalina D’Aragon had a son who lived to adulthood? And what if his name was Alastair Arthur Tudor, named after Henry’s late older brother.

Born in 1517, conceived as soon as Catalina D’Aragon could get pregnant again after Mary’s birth in 1516, Alastair is the crown prince to England and Ireland as per his father. He adores his sister, and mourns his lost siblings — such as who would have been the future King Henry IX.

Despite Catalina D’Aragon giving King Henry VIII a son who was healthy and living, his affairs continued, including the one with Anne Boleyn that resulted in the…replacement…of Alastair’s mother as Queen Consort.

Being close to his sister, he advocated for her sake to their father and “wicked” step-mother. Little did he know Anne Boleyn was indeed abusing his beloved sister, verbally specifically, yet Mary was weaving her webs of rumors to dispose of the wicked queen. They were successful, replacing her with the demure Lady Jane Seymour. Despite this, Alastair loves his little half-sister Elizabeth and is very protective and paternal toward her.

When their mother passed in 1536, Mary and Alastair mourned her greatly, Alastair getting permission for Mary to be by her side in the end from their father. He stayed in England to represent his mother’s presence, so it could not be ignored or forgotten.

Both Alastair and Mary mourned Jane Seymour’s death, as they know the dangers of childbirth from the loss of their siblings by their mother. However, they adored their new younger brother and prayed for his health. He was second in line, after Alastair, which caused concern that the Seymours would try delegitimizing Alastair and Mary so that Edward would succeed their shared father.

When Anna of Cleves arrived in England, Alastair was admittedly jealous of his father getting to marry her, but never vocalized this despite the marriage being annulled. They were close in age, and became friends instead.

However, Alastair despises Kathryn Howard, seeing her as a naive idiot and worrying for her safety due to he stupid actions with men other than her husband — Henry VIII. He tried warning her, but obviously she did not listen as she lost her head and caused others to as well. He was also disgusted when she flirted with him, as he saw her as a child compared to him due to a ~ten year age gap.

Finally, Katharine Parr married Alastair and Mary’s father, stepping up as a step-mother to the siblings and their half-siblings. Alastair and Edward were both being raised to be kings, Edward being expected to marry a future Queen and rule her country while Alastair and his spouse would rule England and Ireland after King Henry VIII’s passing.

After King Henry VIII’s passing in 1547, Alastair was informed he would rule England and Ireland after the mourning period had passed.

Unfortunately, Mary and Alastair failed to protect their younger half-siblings — specifically Elizabeth — from the world’s predators. Alastair ended up, secretly, causing the deaths of both Kathryn Parr and her husband after Alastair’s father due to her not protecting Elizabeth from her husband’s advances. Mary knew this, and was proud of her brother for defending their little half-sister despite the mess their family was at this point with the meddling Seymour family.

To shut down the scheming Seymour family and claims that Lady Jane Grey was also a claimant to the throne, Alastair stepped up into his father’s shoes — except he was the opposite of tyrannical, sans his imprisonment of the Seymour uncles to Edward and forcing Lady Jane Grey to abdicate her claim to the throne unless all of the children of Henry the Eighth passed. In truth, Alastair wanted to protect the young Lady Jane Grey from the dangers of ruling an empire.

Unlike his successor, Elizabeth I or “Gloriana” who engaged in a great deal of colonization and exploration, Alastair restored England’s coffers with alternative and non-violent means. He also made both Protestantism and Catholicism were accepted in England and Ireland, at least during his reign — later successors changed it to make it how it is today.

Alastair is remembered and documented by historians as a just, compassionate, and clever king despite his reign only lasting about a decade before he abdicated the throne to his younger half-sister. He brought England into a short era of peace and prosperity, leaving it in a good spot for Elizabeth to become Queen. He remained close with both his sisters, and mourned the death of his younger brother deeply as he’d helped raise the younger male.

Alastair also happened to be the spitting image of his father in his youth prior to a jousting injury, adding to the kingdom’s respect for him as he was a more humane version of his father, being a powerful icon across Europe during his reign.

Open to shipping at any point in his time as crown prince or king.

[elizabethan-memes]

Except he wouldn't be telling just anyone: the theory is he told his son. Here's how MAYBE it went:

1) before 1515, possibly when he's dying, Miles Forrest tells his son Miles "I killed the kids"

2) Miles Forrest dies sometime before 1515. Very possible: 32 years is plenty of time to die.

3) Miles the son becomes courier to Thomas More

4) Miles the son tells More "my dad before he died said he killed the princes on the orders of James Tyrrell. Also a guy called John Dighton did it."

If Miles Forrest has already died, then he can't be executed for the murder. And Miles the son can't be executed for his father's actions, especially if he was a kid at the time. Yeah, Miles Senior could be posthumously punished and his property confiscated but given Miles Junior is a courier they're probably not that rich a family. Or maybe that's why More doesn't identify his source.

Obviously this is conjectucture. But as a theory it seems much less fanciful to me than the idea the princes survived

"Maybe they're different Miles Forrests" maybe. But "Miles Forrest" is a much less common name than say John Smith or Mary Baker in this time period. I can name dozens of Thomases and Marys but not many Mileses spring to mind.

IIRC, the guy who snitched on Anne Frank to the Nazis told his son that he did it. So it's possible that people hear about crimes from their parents: especially in an age of deathbed confessions.

[rambleonwithrosie]

The Lancastrian casting did NOT have to go this hard in the Hollow Crown... Like excuse me who said they could make ALL the Henrys hotties?

Like y'all I was already pro-Lancaster I didn't need this kinda propaganda to seduce- I mean induce me

[joyfulmagic]

@officerwaltons — Prince Arthur & Prince Alastair

“It’s an honor to meet you, Crown Prince Arthur of England and Ireland,” the redheaded prince said, bowing deeply out of respect for the fellow crown prince. They were technically equals, but he knew that a lack of a bow would be seen as very disrespectful in England.

“I’ve never met another of the same title as me, it is rather thrilling,” Alastair told Arthur with a beaming smile as he stood up. “I’m honored that my father sent me as ambassador to your lovely kingdom.”

Alastair offered his hand to Arthur to shake, his own hand rather slender yet long and elegant, like that of a musician. “I’ve always wanted to see England, and I feel blessed that your invitation is allowing me that,” he told the other prince with the same broad grin.

“I hope we find friends in each other, Your Highness,” he added as they shook hands.

[bforbetterthanyou]

Descendants of the Tudors

[horizon-verizon]

A) The Inevitably or High Probability that there'd Be Rebellion WITHOUT Green Intervention or Accusations

i'm not judging rhaenyra's choice to have children with harwin. but having bastards weakened her position - she was forced to leave court because of the rumors. her sons succession was challenged by vaemond - who, btw, genuinely believed that he was in the right and rhaenyra was an evil woman trying to usurp his home. did vaemond had a wife ? children? other velaryons that loved him & will want to avenge him & refuse to accept luke?

And who enables Vaemond (who was literally the only person who tried to go against Rhaenyra or call her son's bastards)? The greens. Vaemond seems to try by himself anyway, but how easy would he actually have found it to try to claim the Driftmark seat without the greens and meeting with Otto? He would have been killed or imprisoned a lot faster, or someone could have made an easier job of talking him out of it with such arguments that I'm making right now about him having no real means to go against Rhaenyra... basically he needed support to do so. Again, which he got from the greens who were essentially going to rule against Rhaenyra anyway, as was clear in the 8th episode.

Realistically, what chance did Vaemond have without Otto & Alicent? Truly? Even in the book/original lore, with Vaemond's nephews and others actually doing as you mentioned and trying to go against Rhaenyra (by going to Viserys himself, another dumb move), Viserys nevertheless had all of them immediately punished by cutting out their tongues. The challenge was handled. And the evident challenge only came from this group of people.

This reflects & mirrors the Green supporters that you mentioned. The ones that are with the greens are the Hightowers, Brackens, Lannisters, and some of those under their banners, etc. The Hightowers are Alicent's maiden house, so regardless of it being true they are bastards or not they would have backed her/the greens bc they have a direct stake and benefits in her and her sons. And the rest say opportunity. But where is the proof that they were planning to go against Rhaenyra independently? Would they have done anything WITHOUT the greens pushing for Rhaenyra to be removed through their specific accusations? Could they, or did they have the ability? Short answer, no (since I already listed why/how above in the first reblog).

Those supporters of the greens had no evident plans or preparations BEFORE they aligned themselves with the greens, why? Because they didn't have dragons and the greens did. They had a way in through the greens' actions of going against Rhaenyra, similar to how show!Vaemond's way was lubed by the greens and made a more of a real problem to Rhaenyra. The greens materially opened the way towards any possible rebellion against Rhaenyra that you are saying would be inevitable without those close to Rhaenyra doing something to invite such actions from external lords. This isn't a chicken-egg situation,o one thing clearly happened before the other and caused the other. There was no vague passive force pushing the greens to do what they did, and there was no vague passive force enabling the lords to make their moves or to choose the greens.

rhaenyra was also forced to marry the boys to baela and rhaena (again, referring only to hotd) instead of making matches with other houses and securing their alliance. and again, not judging rhaenyra or saying that she should've had children with laenor.

Even in peacetime, these betrothals would have likely happened or at least been at the top of the list of marriages because of how prestigious and blood-close the Velaryons are. Both of the Targ girls came from dragonriders, why wouldn't Rhaenyra marry her dragonriding sons to dragonriding girls? When the point of marriage was to produce children who would likely inherit specific privileges, etc.?

Does it benefit her own claim and her sons' or protect them by ensuring that their Velaryon allies were even more invested in them? Of course. Did the announcement of betrothal come after Vaemond's accusation & death? Yes. Does this necessarily mean that she only thought of marrying her kids to the girls after Vaemond? No, not necessarily. Because of all the reasons it is a good reason why she marry them to those girls even without her being the heir and a woman. Does this mean that she never would have betrothed them even without Vaemond at her neck? No, of course not.

To claim so, we need more specific scenes of Rhaenyra either never having thought of it before the "trial" or her, again, being reluctant as such a prospect. But there's no hard evidence in the show/season of such because we moved immediately to the small dinner after Viserys defends Rhaenyra. And to claim that the ONLY reason that she's marrying them to those girls is because of a fear of a threat thus comes into question under. Without proof of Rhaenyra having some sort of reluctance or without disapproving how she's really that different from most nobles by doing this, I don't think we can begin to argue that she had to be compelled to marry her sons off to the Targ girls. I think it's getting ahead of ourselves to argue that she ONLY sought a Velaryon-Targ marriage in her kids for her/her sons' claims. The show indeed seems to frame it in a way that Rhaenyra seems as if she were responding to external pressure by marrying her sons to those girls, but this reveals more that the writers wanted this dramatic moment for episode 8 when we consider that she had all that time (10 years) at Dragonstone living with Rhaena and her own kids for those mids to be very happy with the idea of marrying each other. Evidenced by their looks and smiles in episode 8. But even more so, where was the lack of surprise on those kids' faces? This supports the idea that such was discussed to them before the dinner AND that they had a while to process said information.

Nobles are always thinking of potential allies or accruing more wealth or access to certain lands for other purposes when they are considering who to marry or marry their children. It is already a custom in Westeros--HotD or not--that people marry their first cousins or cousins and nobles often try to marry relatives as close to them as possible to reduce the number of possible competitors to the children's claims or inherited resources/wealth. Rhaenyra would not be unique in doing what she did in betrothing her kids to those girls, even with the earlier attempt to marry Jace to Helaena, which reads as much more desperate than her marrying the Targ girls to her own boys.

In HotD & the original story, the Targaryen girls are both stepsisters and cousins of the Velaryon boys. In HotD, they went against one particular piece of lore (fosterage and who gets to actually marry some scions) to justify the idea that Corlys or Rhaenys had more say in who the girls married without Daemon's permission. Corlys, show or book, maintained that he didn't want Baela or Rhaena as his heirs above the boys and he didn't consider them a part fo his house even though they were his and Rhaenys' granddaughters by blood. They both "belong" to House Targaryen precisely because they are girls and are not heirs. Even so, why wouldn't Corlys desire or even seek out a marriage b/t his Targaryen granddaughters and the Velaryon boys when he was eager to marry Laenor to Rhaenyra in the show and the canon? And I mean why wouldn't Corlys be the one to ask Rhaenyra this before he left for that 6 yr war project? And if he didn't, again, wouldn't such a marriage only work more toward his long-held desires for power and prestige?

the fact that there are lords who believe that aegon should be king instead of rhaenyra is a danger in of itself - that's the point i was trying to make.

The greens' supporters are not the only nor had most of the most powerful lords of Westeros. Here is a list of those who supported Rhaenyra and kept fighting for her and her sons's claims after she and the V boys died. Plus, it is canon that Aegon III had his claim through his mother, not Daemon nor Aegon II being his uncle. As you mention ("like rhaenyra said, challenging luke is also challenging jace and her own claim to the throne. so even before viserys's death - her position was already challenged.") this means that those lords, who overwhelmed the greens, all supported both Rhaenyra and her V boy sons (as she even declared Joffrey her heir later) as those boys being the heirs to her was the condition that came with her being the next Queen. They were a package deal. Of course, there were defectors on both sides during the entirety of the war.

This society is definitely a sexist society since the core of Rhaenyra's claim and motivation to go to war is not that she was the oldest but that Viserys chose her (and that girls in Westeros already could & did technically inherit before younger brothers or cousins, it just wasn't preferred). However, that doesn't mean that what actually happened during the Dance doesn't inform us of how much support she actually did have & came to have because of this argument and her son Jace's efforts to gather people for their cause. Plus some of the Greens' dumber decisions before and during the war.

This is all important bc it contradicts both the idea that it was inevitable she'd rebelled against. When push came to shove, she had enough people fine with her ruling even with her having children that you'd or some in-world people'd consider bastards. The future that became the present contradicts your claim.

So, no, WITHOUT the greens' accusing Rhaenyra of infidelity and having bastards, there is little substantive reason or material for us to speculate that it'd be more likely that Rhaenyra would be forced to kill her own siblings.

Also, I ask for proof of the ideas because Westerosi society, as I already mentioned, though sexist has had female leaders or girls/women considered as heirs. Therefore, we must go off of more than "it was a sexist world" to claim that there was absolutely going to be a rebellion WITHOUT the greens coming in first with their accusations.

B) Another Approach to the "My Kids Are in Danger"

So, HotD wise, Alicent's motivation is supposed to be that the lords will endanger or force themselves/their interests on her kids in a rebellion against Rhaenyra. We can argue that even bk!Alicent always believed that her sons would die if Rhaenyra became queen.

Bk!Alicent says, in the green council, that she thinks that Rhaenyra or Daemon would come to kill her kids if she succeeds in becoming queen ("The Blacks and the Greens"):

confidently "forgetting" that the Vhagar-claim incident and the fight was a literal fight b/t under 10s...except Aemond who was older than the rest, Joffrey having been 3. That Aemond was the one to push said 3-year-old and his brothers came to Joffrey's defense. Not that Aemond was necessarily evil for his pushing Joffrey, but he's not innocent nor NOT the provoker of the violence there. And still, in the show, he's the one to provoke the others or perform a "trick". Because after he pushes the group of younger children off of him, he proceeds to try to fight them again and would have bashed Jce's head in with a rock (because if you rewatch the episode, he re-raised said rock even as the others backed off). But as I already did in my last reblog, no, Alicent of nay version was wrong even if she felt that this was going to happen. Again, this is even if we argue that Bk!Alicent actually believed that Rhaenyra ore someone else would kill her kids...which she didn't she specifically says DAEMON would.

But here's the thing about her thinking Dameon would kill her kids: apart from his making fun of her after he came back from the Stepstones (and does mocking a person = beating them up, grabbing their shirt with a rock in the other hand, or actually planning to murder them? No.), do we have concrete, textual evidence from either the show or the book that Daemon would go after Alicent or her sons IF they do not try to make any moves against Rhaenyrs or Viserys? No. Daemon could have done a lot to Viserys when he forced him to abandon Mysaria and his first-ever child, but Daemon reluctantly and resentfully sends Mysaria away and that's the end of that. He would not kill Viserys' children even if he disliked them or thought them obstacles...until any of them did what Aemond did and kill Luke or seriously harmed Rhaenyra and the rest. Daemon had all the time in the world to harm his stepsons/the V boys, but didn't. And we see no time where he ever overruled Rhaenyra even when she later doesn't take his advice (delight spoiler but not rally, you'll maybe see). No, Daemon is not this stupid rabid dog who goes after people just because he doesn't like them AND he does place value on what may hurt his brother, niece-wife, stepsons, etc. Alicent and her sons simply never established any sort of bond with him, so he left them be until Luke. This all goes for the show!version of Daemon as well (not the overruling or trying to roughshod Rhaenyra part, that was purely a show invention/change). Even if he wanted, to he's not stupid enough to make any moves without provocation to the greens because he knows he'd be at the top of the list of being suspected, which in turn would harm his niece-wife and brother's needs.

In HotD, Otto from the jump says that he's making moves against Rhaenyra & that he's doing so because he believes the reason the lords will rebel against her or not accept her is bc of her gender alone. Doubly so, we understand that he's motivated not bc of bastards bc Rhaenyra is not even married at the point he says this.

Otto has much more influence and power than Alicent in the first episodes of the season. And over her. He's the one who gives Alicent the notion that her kids are even in any sort of danger. He's the one setting up that motivation that many say justifies Alicent's actions against Rhaenyra & her children. Without Otto, show!Alicent would not have really been so set against Rhaenyra, or at least have utterly destroyed their friendships by the numerous attacks. Without Ott, Alicent would not have perceived a threat to her kids bc she never conceived of such until he mentioned it.

We see instances of lords thinking Viserys will change his heir to Aegon in episode 3, absolutely, but if we're just going by HotD, I ask again where do we get the idea of there being either an absolute or very good chance that they will rebel against Rhaenyra for either her gender or, later, her bastards?

Going back to kinslaying, Alicent thinks it's a good idea to directly antagonize the woman who she says would have felt necessary to have her kids murdered...then proceeds to give her even more reason to do so?! In this scenario, it's different if she had approached Rhaenyra as a friend so that IF Rhaenyra were told or advised to execute her brothers, Rhaenyra would hesitate & thus there's more room for counter-advise or to prepare against hat. But, no show!Alicent decides to risk (since we're talking abt "risk" a lot) Rhaenyra being less hesitant towards the idea of killing her own siblings. Again, this is all in the case scenario that somehow Rhaenyra WAS as some for the she-could-kill-them arguers say she would or could be.

C) The Context, Nuance, & History of Bastardry; On Specifically Whether or Not the V Boys were Bastards or Proven to Be; Why Proving Matters in General and for Rhaenyra

In HotD, yes, Rhaenyra's sons are biologically Harwin's. (Me, I argue that even in the original story, at least Luke & Jace were likely Harwin's bc Laenor was not physically close to her for long periods until after things grew worse b/t the greens and blacks after Luke's birth.) I'd agree that considering that Rhaenyra's gender places her in the position that she follows contradictory rules about leadership, Rhaenyra's position would be troubled by having bastards in a way that it wouldn't for a man...however, the meaning or at least consequences that inform the meaning of bastard does not just mean or is defined by "not biologically" in a society that didn't have foolproof/good enough technology to prove the parentage of a child.

A reminder: HotD's Jaehaerys I's mother was a Velaryon & the Velaryons in HotD are black; yet Jaehaerys and all the Targs shown except Baela & Rhaena are Euro-Americana white bread white with no hint of Afro features that Euro-American racialization would designate as "Black". Or most other places in the world. Orig!Alysanne Targaryen's hair & eye color were not Targaryen-typical, being blond and blue respectively. We have Orig!Alyssa, with her having one green eye to her other purple eye, and "dirty blonde" hair. For these two women, we have yet to see proof that they didn't have the features I described in the HotD universe the writers constructed, so for now they have those features in the show as well. Orig!Rhaenys had dark hair. In later Targaryen families (& it's very doubtful that they will make biracial & Black or PoC main Targs in later period Targ stories if they adapt them), we have Baelor Breakspear & Rhaegar's Rhaenys. The first had dark hair and eyes, while the later had dark hair. Then there is Aegor Rivers and Shiera Seastar, Shiera had a blue and a green eye, while her mother (Serenei of Lys) very likely had the full-blown silver-gold hair & purple eyes of Targs (or had at least one typical Valyrian feature) because she was from Lys. Of course, Aegon IV was typically Targ-looking. Aegor had dark hair & purple eyes. The bastards I mentioned are all bastards not because it was materially proven that they were biologically not Naerys' (Aegon IV's only legal spouse), but because people observed that Naerys did not carry them respectively but that other women did. So, we see that regardless of who was the Targ parent (mom/dad), the undoubted parentage of various Targ children--trueborn or not--produced children with all sorts of looks. IF we stick to how real genetics work & try to apply it to ASoIaF and HotD, take also the cases of interracial marriages sometimes producing children that look like they are of a completely different ancestry or ethnicity than from one parent. Genetics can be wild. I mean, look at Alicent and all four of her children with Viserys come out having the silver-gold hair and the purple yes. Neither of which the Hightowers typically have (or it would be mentioned or shown, and what we do see in the show, the Hightowers are mainly brunettes).

Noblemen in Westeros, whether this is HotD or the canon--bc they are allowed to have affairs and cohabitating/non-cohabitating lovers even while married--wouldn't think of or really need to claim that their bio bastards are really their trueborn because they mostly have their mistresses or affairs publicly known and displayed. And they can't because they are not the ones birthing them. Whereas when noblewomen have bastards, it's usually kept very secret and the child is shipped off to another family to be raised while she's married off to prevent her from not being able to marry IF the news of her birthing said child reaches more people/out of the family, so that the family would also not lose reputation or opportunities for others to marry, build alliances, etc.

In real life, what made one a "bastard" could also mean how "good" a lineage your mother or father had more than just if your parents were married or not, as was the case for William the Conqueror. And I specifically mean that even if they weren't married, you as a "bastard" could still be entitled or have more "claim" to something over to others, especially when the father names you his heir as William the C's father did with him. No, he never "legitimized" him nor ever got a higher authority to. And because HotD's universe both comes directly from the original lore and little about how nobles noble has been changed PLUS how canon mirrors a lot of real-life EU noble practices/social principles, these are relevant.

I'm sure we already know all this, but it is important to think of the implications of such conditions and how it applies to how "bastardry" is not a fixed condition that is 100% or even "75%" built on incontrovertible facts but relies a lot on timing, perception, and opportunity as well as how well can you use a precedent against current circumstances (Anstey case of 1100s).

So, what incontrovertible proof did Alicent & the greens have that Rhaenyra's sons were not Laenor's? That Rhaenyra or Viserys were lying? Where is the accusation really coming from, and were there actual dangers to her children if she/the greens stopped trying to put as much attention on Rhaenyra as they did? Even in HotD, where no one has actually seen Harwin & Rhaenyra have sex or Laenor NOT have sex with her? Who has monitored & recorded her movements behind closed doors day in day out second by second, etc.?

You can say you just need to look at them to know since all 3 had different features, but the issue is that even when this is true (that there is observable data of them ALL having different looks from their claimed father), Alicent, in the show (epi 6), wonders how they could have ever hatched dragon eggs from the cradle/when they were babies or toddlers (compared to her own kids, who at least 2 had to claim dragons when they were older). Why does she wonder this? Because, she's implying, that children inherit their most impressive or desirable traits of appearance or behavior or otherwise from their father, not their mother. And since Harwin is not a dragon rider nor has any known Valyrian background, it made no sense to her at all. Not only does this reveal how comparatively little they--court or larger Westeros society--actually relied on real material knowledge of genetics or otherwise to make their rules, but it is also a clear reference or pulls from this F&B/the original lore or story fact about said society/court ("A Question of Succession"):

which itself comes from the older legend of Rhaena the Black Bride giving Jaehaerys & Alysanne their dragons when she placed the eggs in their cradles and they both got their dragons to hatch without having to grow older and claim a dragon as Aegon I, Rhaena, Maegor, etc. all had to.

Point is that the show!Alicent is going off of book!lore's social and historical context directly. Which means the same feelings and ideas about physical inheritance have been directly transferred into the HotD Westeros/HotD's court. Directly.

I'd argue that since even if Rhaenyra's sons weren't Harwin's in the original story/the book (bc there is debate even on why they'd be described with the features they are in F&B when Harwin, for example, had a broken shoulder I think & thus would be out of commission for sex for months or us not knowing what he even looked like, etc.), the center at this consideration is that the truth of Rhaenyra's sons' patrimony does not supersede how it's very possible & likely that the greens merely used such an accusation against Rhaenyra or not.

I stress that without the original lore that HotD heavily relies on for context. Even as it sometimes contradicts & its logic in some places. This is one of those times that its world only makes sense if you know what's going on prior. Would we be discussing bastards and such without the original story that existed even before Fire and Blood?

D) The Real Life Comparisons

the fact that there are lords who believe that aegon should be king instead of rhaenyra is a danger in of itself - that's the point i was trying to make. that's why richard iii killed his little nephews, that's why henry 7 killed edward warick, that's why mary killed jane gray - who clearly had a much weaker claim then her to the throne.

Richard (III) got to Edward V & Richard (brother, the Duke) from Elizabeth, taking advantage of an already existing separation b/t mother & son and all those military protections that Edward could have had. By contrast, Rhaenyra and her kids and her husband were all on Dragonstone with their possible protections...which include dragons. Please, let me know how the lords could expect to catch her off guard as Aegon (II) try to do first with one debated assassination attempt (failed) and another through Arryk (and failed)? Thse lords would likely (Occam's razor) not have the confidence to trry to attack Rhaenyra openly; privately, they still would be deterred by how well protected she was and have to bank on a lesser chance of really gettign to her.

Rhaenyra was already the monarch-designated heir, she was not a usurper. Richard III was never the heir, he was the usurper. Richard III took the throne away from his own nephews...of course, he did away with them. The throne was the nephews' by their "natural" male and direct blood rights by being Edward IV's sons. Richard was a usurper & usurpers must legitimize their rule when they seek to use illegitimate or violent means to force power into their own hands. Edward IV never named his brother (Richard) his heir over his sons, & his elder living son was considered a king in his own right before his uncle did whatever he did. So this is a false equivalence.

Rhaenyra is the one having something taken away from her. Not the greens/Aegon, Aemond, Daeron. Because Viserys explicitly did not name them as his heirs. And Rhaenyra was heir for almost 20 years before she was usurped.

So really, it is all her sons--especially Aegon III & Viserys II way later--who can be told to be in similar conditions as Edward V & his brother Richard, Duke of York. Aegon II is more like Richard III; maybe this is a spoiler since idk if you read the bk, but Aegon II threatens to mutilate the 10-year-old Aegon III and Aegon III is in Aegon II's custody before Aegon the Elder dies. He's also their uncle.

Unlike Elizabeth who actually seemed reluctant to get rid of Jane from an emotional place, Henry VII had Edward Warwick killed during a time when there were

Meanwhile, Rhaenyra had a much better line of descent/claim than Elizabeth or Henry VII by being the firstborn daughter of a man who declared her his heir and kept it so for years, never having legally named her as a bastard nor her sons as bastards. Rhaenyra had no such "kinks". Elizabeth had been ruled at one point a bastard while Henry VII had only a real claim to the throne through his mother. His house was a minor one descended from a bastard-turned-legitimate (John Beaufort, first Earl of Somerset, son of Jon of Gaunt and Katherine Synford, who birthed the Earl before she eventually married Jon of Gaunt. She had been his mistress for years until then).

Also, I don't understand why dragons are being left out of this conversation when they have been the game changer and the reason why the Targs are unique in their place from those real-life people that you listed. Elizabeth I didn't have dragons to feel like she'd be able to tell the lords pushing her to kill Jane "no" (she was reluctant in many sources). Henry VII didn't have dragons to deter or remove Perkin Warbeck fast enough, though he won the war by killing Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

There's a reason why dragons exist in this narrative, they serve the purpose of giving much more advantage or being much more of a deterrent against competitors. We really shouldn't underestimate not just their actual firepower but the role of them being deterrents. Once again, how likely were any lord to try to "force" any green boy to go to war against Rhaenyra with this in mind?

E) Using GoT

we also have dany and jon snow for example - dany was threatened by him despite the fact that he publicly swore allegiance to her. as long as a "stronger" alternative exists, rulers can't truly secure their reign.

I'm not sure using GoT Dany and the story they wrote for her to ascertain the realities and circumstances of Dany & Jon's eventual meeting in the actual story GRRM is creating, the politics, and how she'd react or think of them when they appear. Because Jon can be Rhaegar's son all we like, but polygamy was, for years, not accepted as legitimate after Maegor. Maegor got to be legitimately polygamous because he used his dragon & Visenya's support (Vhagar) plus the later army at his command to enforce it, as Aegon I did by winning his conquest (apart from him being already married to his sisters). Even we argue that Rhaegar could have restored its legitimacy, Rhaegar lost his chance to affirm his privilege to marry more than one woman by dying before he could announce Lyanna as his wife and for Aerys to maybe accomplish getting the rest & the Martells to accept such a union. This means his marriage to Lyanna in the show is not really that valid to make Jon Snow their legitimate son.

Who has/had the dragons between Dany and Jon, book or show? Who is the trueborn without any debate or "kink", hands down? Who had a fearsome army at their command and will definitely continue to do so when she meets Jon? Dany. Though she is a woman like Rhaenyra, she simply has too much on her side for her to be as nervous about the throne as D&D wrote her. It reminds me of when people tried to say that bk!Rhaenyra was legitimately or only resentful of Alicent bc she was pudgier than Alicent, when in fact it's far more likely she resented being compared to her as Aegon (II), Viserys, and Helasena were also pudgy people. No, Dany would not be that concerned about Jon. She'd more likely get a little frustrated with the sexism and scoff at the cheers for Jon, bc of what I mentioned.

Despite people (in-world and out) thinking that Jon was "stronger" bc he was a man & he rode one dragon, Dany was quite obviously the more powerful of the two with a stronger relationship with all three of those dragons she breastfed. Her dragons obeyed her, not Jon. If she did feel that threatened by him, that was an illogical writing thing on the part of D&D in their rush to end the show. Dany is more self-possessed than that ("Do you mean to make that [woman] as an insult?"), but they wrote her and several women more unnecessarily irrational, more like Dany consented to sex with a slave master, or more overtly and generally more sexual than their book counterparts without providing a bit of nuance in the sex we do see. We should then take their way of adapting with a grain of salt overall.

D&D made multiple consistency errors, multiple even sexist/classist/racist changes to characters and events, and forgot many things that they established in their version of ASoIaF, etc. So to use their writing to establish that things definitely would turn out the way they did is not useful.

One last thing that I don't know is a common point in the fandom: in HotD, Alicent & Otto both have many lords imprisoned, at least one killed, and they intimidated all of them at court to keep them from spreading the news of Aegon's coronation....if Alicent really were trying to protect her kids from rebellious lords...why is she giving them a far more tangible reason (than the already disproven "they don't want or can do something against Rhaenyra") to go directly against her, her sons, & the Hightowers?! One that has nothing to do with Rhaenyra herself and all to do with Otto & Alicent trying to clear the way for Aegon. And yes, Alicent imprisoned those people if not we remember Rhaenys she also explicitly says to the council that she endeavored to keep Rhaenyra out of the way and to crown Aegon. How to do that? Imprisoning those people is one way.

ok, so i've been getting a lot of "rhaenyra would never kill her siblings" asks recently.

first of all, no one is saying that rhaenyra WANTS to kill her brothers. but there's just no way that a woman & a bastard can inherit peacefully when 3 legitimate sons (with legitimate sons of their own) exist. this is not how westerosi politics work. the men in power wants to keep the men in power, this is the definition of patriarchy. and i'm not saying that's a good thing - because obvs it's not - but that's the truth. westeros is a patriarchal society.

the lords of westeros - the men in power - wants to preserve the existing order. legitimate sons inherit over daughters, bastards can't inherit. it's important to them because their own power is dependent on this very system. let's say rhaenyra becomes queen, and all of the sudden other firstborn daughters start to stand up and demand to be named heirs to their houses . let's say jace becomes the prince of dragonstone, and suddenly bastards that are older then their legitimate siblings start to demand their rights as well. from our modern pov - that's a great thing, but for the lords of westeros that's literally their worst nightmare.

"but a lot of houses supported rhaenyra". true! i'm not saying every lord in westeros will not accept her, i'm saying some of them def won't, and as long as aegon\aemond\daeron lives, there will always be someone advocating for their rights - and that's dangerous for rhaenyra and her family. so yeah, to protect herself and her children she will 100% kill her brothers. i'm not holding it against her - she's obvs going to care more about her children & herself then her brothers.

"but dorne ..." i feel like GRRM has made it abundantly clear that westeros does not want to become like dorne. dornish people are stereotyped and discriminated against - especially dornish women, that are viewed as promiscuous and are constantly oversexualized. westeros becoming like dorne is def not something westerosi men want.

ironically, jace will have to face the exact same situation with his own brothers aegon and viserys, but i digress.

also, did we forget how easily rhaenyra offered to have her 10yo brother tortured when she felt like her children were in danger? do you guys really believe that she's above murdering to protect them?

[english-history-trip]

Professor Tim Thornton, Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of Huddersfield, is the person to have discovered new evidence in the case. Thornton has found documentation that a chain, once a treasured possession of Edward V, was later owned by the half sister of Sir James Tyrell's wife, Anne.

Sir James Tyrell was very loyal to Richard III, and nobody can be sure how his wife's half sister, Lady Margaret Capell, came to be in possession of the chain. However, her will states: "I bequeath to my sonne Sir Giles his fadres Cheyne which was Yonge kynge Edward the Vth." The wealthy widow wrote her will 33 years after the Princes disappeared.

The piece is a royal chain of office, a priceless artefact that would've been not only irreplaceable, but always linked with its owner - there would've never been any doubt about to whom it belonged. Although Richard lll has always been a frontrunner in theories relating to the Princes' possible murder, Sir James Tyrell's name was at one time added to the mix when Sir Thomas More alleged he'd hired two men to kill the boys. However, historians have always largely dismissed this theory as Tudor propaganda until now.

[whencyclopedia]

Battle of Bosworth

At the Battle of Bosworth (aka Bosworth Field) in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485 CE, the Yorkist king Richard III of England (r. 1483-1485 CE) faced an invading army led by Henry Tudor, the figurehead of the Lancastrians. It was to be a decisive engagement in the long-running dynastic dispute known to history as the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487 CE). Henry won the day, largely because some of Richard's allies either switched sides or remained inactive during the battle. The king was unseated from his horse and butchered as he made a last-ditch attempt to personally strike down his direct opponent for the throne. The victorious Henry Tudor then became King Henry VII of England (r. 1485-1509 CE). The Battle of Bosworth used to be considered the end of the Middle Ages in England but, even if modern historians tremble at such picturesque and arbitrary cut-off points, the battle remains a pivotal event in English history. Bosworth has gripped the popular imagination ever since, largely thanks to William Shakespeares' play Richard III, which has immortalised that day in August when the last English king to be killed on the battlefield fell.

The Wars of the Roses

When Edward IV of England (r. 1461-1470 CE & 1471-1483 CE) died unexpectedly on 9 April 1483 CE, his young son became king. Edward V of England (r. Apr-Jun 1483 CE) was only 12 years of age and so he had a regent, his uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The duke, given the title Lord High Protector of the Realm, imprisoned Edward and his younger brother Richard in the Tower of London where they became known as the 'Princes in the Tower'. The boys were never seen again and Duke Richard made himself king in July 1483 CE. The king was widely accused of having killed his nephews in the most despicable act of the Wars of the Roses, even if the exact causes of their deaths remain a mystery.

Even Yorkists supporters were shocked at this turn of events, and the old foe the Lancastrians had not gone away completely. The latter group, still eager to claim the throne for themselves, were now led by their best hope, the exiled Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond (b. 1457 CE). Henry was, through the illegitimate Beaufort line, a descendant of John of Gaunt, a son of Edward III of England (r. 1327-1377 CE). It was not much of a royal connection but the best the Lancastrians could produce after years of purges by the Yorkist king Edward IV. Taking advantage of the discontent at Richard's court, Henry gathered around him some impressive support: the Woodvilles (family of Edward IV's queen, Elizabeth Woodville), nobles not happy with Richard's distribution of estates or favours, and Charles VIII of France (r. 1483-1498 CE), eager to cause any disruption that limited England's power abroad, particularly in Brittany. After an invasion fell apart due to bad planning in November 1483 CE, news of the death of Richard's son and heir Edward in April 1484 CE boosted the Lancastrian cause. It was now a case of toppling Richard, and the throne could be theirs.

Continue reading...

[scotianostra]

James V King of Scots was born on 10th April 1512.

James was son of King James IV and his queen Margaret Tudor, a daughter of Henry VII of England, and was the only legitimate child of James IV to survive infancy, it was through this line that Mary Queen of Scots based her claim to the throne of England, and indeed her son, who took the throne after Elizabeth died.

James was born at Linlithgow Palace and baptised on April 11th, receiving the titles Duke of Rothesay and Prince and Grand Steward of Scotland. He became king at just seventeen months old when his father was killed at the Battle of Flodden Field on 9th September 1513. James was “crowned” in the Chapel Royal at Stirling Castle on 21st September 1513.

During his childhood, like so many of the Stewart monarchs, the country was ruled by regents, first by his mother, until she remarried the following year, and then by John Stewart, 2nd Duke of Albany, who was next in line to the throne after James and his younger brother, the posthumously-born Alexander Stewart, Duke of Ross.

Other regents included Robert Maxwell, 5th Lord Maxwell, a member of the Council of Regency who was also bestowed as Regent of Arran. Queen Margaret´s tempestuous private life complicated her son´s childhood, and after she divorced her second husband, Archibald Douglas 6th Earl of Angus, the Earl kidnapped young James. For over two years he held him as a virtual prisoner, showering him with gifts and introducing him to a round of unsuitable pleasures. James loathed him and finally managed to escape in 1528 and assumed the reins of government himself.

James´ personal rule began by savagely pursuing his opponents and he hounded the Earl of Angus out of Scotland. James combined suspicion of nobles with a popular touch, travelling anonymously among Scottish people as the ´Gudeman o´Ballengeich´. John Knox described him thus: ´he was called of some, a good poor man´s king; of others he was termed a murderer of the nobility, and one that had decreed their whole destruction´.

A highly strung, intelligent man who alternated between black depression and bouts of feverish energy, James had already fathered at least nine illegitimate children by a series of mistresses by the time a marriage was arranged for him.

He married Madeleine, daughter of Francois I of France, and the young couple returned to Scotland in May 1537. The Princess was a fragile woman, and the Scottish climate did not agree with her she died in her husband’s arms on 7th July 1537, seven weeks after her arrival in Edinburgh.

In governing, James increased his income by tightening control over royal estates and from the profits of justice, customs and feudal rights. He also gave his illegitimate sons lucrative benefices, diverting substantial church wealth into his coffers. James spent a large amount of his wealth on building work at Stirling Castle, Falkland Palace, Linlithgow Palace and Holyrood and built up a collection of tapestries from those inherited from his father.

In 1538 he married another French lady, the widowed Mary of Guise, tall, well-built and already the mother of two sons. She had two more sons by James but they both died in infancy within hours of each other in 1541. The death of the Kings’ mother in 1541 removed any incentive for peace with England, and war broke out.

Initially the Scots won a victory at the Battle of Haddon Rig in August 1542. The Imperial ambassador in London, Eustace Chapuys, wrote on 2nd October that the Scottish ambassadors ruled out a conciliatory meeting between James and Henry VIII in England until the pregnant Mary of Guise delivered her child. Henry would not accept this condition and mobilised his army north.

James was with his army at Lauder on 31 October 1542. Although he hoped to invade England, his nobles were reluctant. He returned to Edinburgh on the way writing a letter in French to his wife from Falahill mentioning he had three days of illness.

Next month his army suffered a serious defeat at the Battle of Solway Moss, a loss caused by infighting within the nobles on who was in command.

He took ill shortly after this, on 6th December; by some accounts this was a nervous collapse caused by the defeat, although some historians consider that it may just have been an ordinary fever. Whatever the cause of his illness, he was on his deathbed at Falkland Palace when his only surviving legitimate child, a girl, was born.

Sir George Douglas of Pittendreich brought the news of the king´s death to Berwick. He said James died at midnight on Thursday 15 December; the king was talking but delirious and spoke no "wise words." Having said that, history reports he uttered the following; 'It cam' wi' a lass, and it will gang wi' a lass,' meaning that whilst the Stewarts came to power through marrying a princess, the Stewart line would end with his daughter as queen. Of course this wasn’t true so I wonder to myself at times why such importance seems to have been placed on his words through the centuries.

He was buried at Holyrood Abbey alongside his first wife Madeleine and his two sons. The tomb was probably destroyed during the Rough Wooing in 1544, they were again “violated” at the end of James VII reign when the people of Edinburgh rioted. Queen Victoria arranged for the vault to be repaired.

There was another story regarding the grave of James V that happened in 1683, read about that on the great web pages of Dr Mark Jardine here

https://drmarkjardine.wordpress.com/.../the-tomb-of.../

[rexheroum]

Prince Alastair was unsure as to why he hadn’t been introduced to the intelligent, witty, and beautiful lady of the court…unless the king had his eyes on her? Perhaps he should stay away, but until the lady herself rejected him, he would not write off even a friendship. He’d also never…liked…the idea of a mistress, even though he’d be expected to have a few himself once married.

“An honor to meet you, as well, Lady Boleyn. I’ve heard remarkable things about you. Is it true you studied in the French Court? I’ve always wished to visit it, so I’m admittedly curious about your tales about it,” Alastair explained to her, his smile kind and inviting but not predatory or lustful.

@vieinvisible // Lady (Queen?) Anne Boleyn && Crown Prince Alastair

The Crown Prince of Lunaruz looked at the woman who had captured the English King’s attention this time. He’d been sent to the English court as an observer and ambassador by his eldest half-sister, Queen Relta of Lunaruz. Initially, it’d been for a marriage between one of King Henry’s children and one of his siblings, but soon King Henry’s attention turned to Lady Anne Boleyn.

Something in Prince Alastair made him feel protective of Lady Anne, her cunning and beauty mixed reminding him of the traits his mother imbued in his sisters. He wanted to save her from that monstrous glutton of a king. Part of him wished duels were to the death, but jousting was relatively safe if you prepared properly.

“Lady Anne Boleyn, may I have this dance?” The Prince stepped in, Interrupting some old, practically senile courtier who was boring Anne but giving her brownie points with the king. It was curious, however, for the King had yet to see the younger lion as a threat to him. Alastair had yet to give him a reason, and didn’t wish to, but he had to step in for Lady Anne’s sake.

[realcatalina]

Tudor Week 2024:Day 3

Best Tudor What If? Here are some of my favourite What If scenarios:

-What if Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon had a son, who lived to adulthood.

Very likely despite the marriage crisis of the mid-1510s, the couple would find a way back together and there would be no reason to seek an annulment. No split from the catholic church, nor dissolving the monasteries. Princess Mary would likely end up marrying some prince or King and would have a much happier childhood.

-What if one of Henry VIII's brothers lived?

-If Arthur lived, he obviously would one day become king, with Catherine by his side. They would have several more years to have kids(I am working with perimenopause theory for Catherine and her mum's lack of pregnancies after age 33/4). Catherine would not suffer through her dowager years, however, her dowry not being paid in full would likely still occur, because drought and other circumstances put financial strain on her parents' coffers.

Prince Henry would most likely not pursue priesthood, but would instead live as duke and brother to the King. It would be possible he would be sent to rule over Ireland, away from the English court.

-If Prince Edmund lived?

The prince would be originally in the shadow of his older brother the heir(later his king). But eventually, as there would be no male heir from the royal couple, Prince Edmund's importance would arise tenfold.

But the question is, how would having a living brother affect Henry's mentality? Would it make him feel more secure, and would they get along and he would simply consider him heir? Or would he see him as a threat and still cling to the hope of having his own children(Great Matter scenario).

Aside from the civil war(Matilda vs Stephen), the royals could also try to solve the succession crisis through marriage.

And that might be gross. Because potentially Mary could wed Edmund. Yes, it is incest(uncle and niece). However, in 1496 King Ferdinand II of Naples married his aunt Joanna. (He was the son of her half-brother.) With full approval of the church. He died about a month later, so no kids there.

Another possible scenario is that they would try to Mary to marry Edmund's son(like Claude and Francis). Since Edmund would be 17 years older than Mary, he could be married and have a child of similar age to her. If it was son, the crisis would be over and Mary would get to be Queen Consort. Of course, Catherine of Aragon would not like it. But English would certainly prefer it over a woman on the throne.

-What if the sisters of Henry VIII chose duty?

Mary and Margaret both made stupid decisions regarding their second marriages. Which in the end cost their family and England.

Margaret's decision to remarry to Douglas was a disaster.

She lost custody of her sons and right to be regent due to this. She had to flee country, one of her sons died while she was away, she had to leave her daughter behind to return to Scotland. And her son never seem to truly forgave her(for leaving him) and she failed in making Scotland and England into allies or at least countries living peacefully next to each other.

Had she not remarried, her position as regent would be unshakable. She lost so much, because of stupidly falling for Douglas.

You might have more sympathy for Mary after being married to the old French king, to wish to have a younger husband instead.

-But had she returned as an unwed widow to England, she would very likely have a young husband too. Very likely Catherine of Aragon would be lobbying for her to wed Charles V after all, and it wouldn't be so bad for Mary. Charles though not looker was a good husband. Although a bit too much into his step-grandmother in real life, if he and Mary would get married before he left for Spain, young beautiful Mary would certainly be all he would have eyes for.

The scenario was greatly disappointing for all fans of Isabella and Charles- however beneficial for England, and disadvantageous for France. Would be interesting to see what side would Charles take during great matter if his wife was Henry's sister.

-If Mary Rose was wed to Charles without ever being sent to France, it would be an even better scenario, although she would not have jointure nor some jewels she acquired there.

But she would have a chance to meet Margaret of Austria in the Netherlands.

-What if Catherine of Aragon's ladies called for midwives?

Atypical labor pains resulted in a dead child in 1511 and shock caused ladies to not call upon midwives and hush it up instead. Catherine's stomach then grew, possibly with a huge infection-real cause of the reproduction issues later on.

However, had experienced midwives been called upon Catherine's child might have been revived, or at least she would have received better medical care. Thus potentially she wouldn't later have lost her babies and at least some of them would live.

-What if Mary I's pregnancy was real? And child lived.

Boy or girl, if they lived they would be heir to England. But should Mary indeed die just a few years later, the question is who would be regent and raise the child?

Would it be shipped off abroad for its safety, only for others to put Elizabeth on the throne? And then that child would try to reclaim the throne later?

Or would Elizabeth be imprisoned or even killed by regent, to keep the infant safe?

Or would Elizabeth get to power, but her heart would waver and she would rather raise the child as her own? (Either as its regent or as its Queen). Or would she imprison it simply, and the child would spend decades in the Tower or some other residence, locked away.

-What if Elizabeth of York and/or her daughters lived?

Well, I hope she would talk some sense to her second son, and her daughters too. Her other daughter surviving would affect dynastic relationships in Europe, with far-reaching consequences. Although I am not sure who they would end up marrying, since they would be likely good-looking, they would certainly be highly desirable brides.

[une-sanz-pluis]

I often see people believe that one of the reasons why Margaret Beaufort is suspected of killing the prince is that medieval women also participated in politics, had great influence and ambition, and believed that she could not be discriminating against women... Well... it's strange that no one thinks medieval women have no influence, but they are not as influential as men as a whole. Noble women in England were unable to inherit titles for a long time, had no independent land, could not work in parliament, and could not join the battlefield. So, they cannot bear the same crimes as men. Not admitting that these are hypocritical.

I'm not that comfortable with talking about the late-stage Wars of the Roses because it's a subject I've not done a lot of research on, nor have I read much about Margaret Beaufort because early modern/early Tudor England is just not of interest to me.

On one hand, yes, noblewomen were politically active, able to command loyalty and influence, and had their own ambitions. Their power was largely "soft power" (i.e. influence) that meant that they couldn't exercise power in the direct way that a nobleman could. Someone like Isabeau of Bavaria, for instance, couldn't reinforce her position as regent for her husband, Charles VI of France, with military might and her positions often depended on who was well-disposed to her or even to who had custody of the king and herself. Nor could women participate in the same kind of chivalric culture that men could - Gwen Seabourne argued this was why women tended to be imprisoned, rather than executed, even when their treason was beyond doubt, such in the case of Constance of York, Lady Despenser.

On the other hand, the medieval mind could conceive of a murderous noblewoman quite easily. Elizabeth Woodville, Eleanor Cobham and Joan of Navarre were all accused of "imagining" the deaths of Richard III, Henry VI and Henry V respectively through witchcraft. Jacqueline of Hainault and her mother, Margaret of Burgundy, were rumoured to have been involved in a conspiracy to murder Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy, and Jacqueline was also alleged to have had her uncle poisoned. Valentina Visconti was also rumoured to have attempted to kill the Dauphin with a poisoned apple only for her only child to eat the apple instead. Obviously, these examples are mostly allegations and slander and whether these noblewomen were really were guilty is unknowable.* But the truth of these allegations is beside the point. The point is that the medieval individual certainly believed that noblewomen - or at least, a certain kind of noblewoman - could plot the death of a political rival. Even, in Valentina's case, a child.

So it is not Margaret Beaufort's gender that prevents her from similarly plotting the Princes in the Tower's deaths. What makes it doubtful, imo, is a total lack of evidence and the frequently contradictory claims of Ricardian histories.

We lack any evidence that it was contemporaneously believed or rumoured that Margaret was involved in the deaths of the Princes or that she was viewed as an ambitious, ruthless noblewoman who could, would or did murder her enemies. These are 20th and 21st century inventions that originated in Ricardian discourses and often are rooted in misogyny It's frequently pointed out that it is incredibly doubtful that Margaret or her agents had access to the Tower, much less access to such politically sensitive prisoners as the Princes.

The argument, if I recall correctly, usually goes that Margaret was connected to the Constables of England during Richard III's reign (Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, who conspired with Margaret in the lead up the first rebellion Richard faced, or her husband, Thomas Stanley), who had access to the Tower and thus the Princes. However, Helen Maurer, who first posited Margaret could have been involved in the Princes' death, pointed out a double standard at work:

Most historians nowadays, including those who do not care for Richard, agree that Richard as Constable would not have had the authority on his own to order the murder of Henry VI. We cannot have it both ways. On balance, it seems unlikely that any Constable would have had the power, without the king's consent, to order political murders of this magnitude. (my emphasis)

There is another double standard at work too. Philippa Gregory - who popularised the idea that Margaret killed the Princes - depicts Richard III as an entirely passive figure, who has to be talked into seizing the throne by his wife and mother for his own survival. It is Margaret Beaufort and Anne Neville who urge on the deaths of the Princes while Richard remains constitutionally incapable of even considering their deaths and is horrified by their deaths. Gregory would defend herself as taking a feminist approach to telling these stories but I do not think repackaging age-old misogynistic tropes of women relying on "seduction, manipulation, lies, and secret murder" to gain power while reducing the king - who wielded vast amounts of power and possessed far more agency than even the high-ranking women - to a passive, henpecked character who is manipulated and pushed into action by scheming women is a particularly feminist move. Indeed, the powerful, highborn man who is made suddenly passive as he is manipulated by ambitious, scheming seductresses is another ancient misogynistic trope. Indeed, these tropes are a stalwart of Ricardian histories and fiction.

* What I mean by "unknowable" is the fact that we cannot prove, beyond a shred of doubt, whether these noblewomen and queens were guilty or innocent. I have opinions on most these women's guilt or innocence - sometimes quite strong ones! - but I cannot prove them.

[wonder-worker]

the two skeletons may reveal the death of the Princes? 👀

I'm not super familiar with this topic, tbh. From what I can understand, it's possible, but it's equally possible that DNA testing may not actually prove or reveal anything regarding the Princes.

Context: In 1674, workmen found two skeletons in a wooden box in the Tower of London, where they had been buried 10 feet under the staircase leading to the chapel of the White Tower. Charles II ordered the bones to be reinterred in Westminster Abbey in 1678, and a Latin inscription written at that time translates to: "Here lie the relics of Edward V, King of England, and Richard, Duke of York". 

In 1933, the bones were examined by Lawrence Tanner, William Wright and George Northcroft, who concluded that they belonged to two children around the correct ages for the Princes, and that one skull showed evidence of death by suffocation. No further scientific examination was conducted, although many believe that re-examination with improved techniques and DNA sampling could provide a more accurate analysis. However, to disinter a body from the Abbey, permission has to be granted from the reigning monarch (ew), which has not been granted as of yet.

Many members of the R3 Society hope that the bones will be proved not to be the Princes, because they feel like it will vindicate Richard due to the absence of explicit, tangible evidence of their deaths. Those who believe Richard III was guilty (he was) believe that if the bodies were the Princes, it would prove they were murdered. If examinations reveal that were the Princes, and reveal manner of death was violent, then yes, the latter seems reasonable. But we don’t know what will will show up in the results - if they are ever allowed - and it's entirely possible it won't matter to the current case.

To quote @seethemflying from this post:

“Most scholars agree it will not actually prove anything at all. If the bones are the princes, it just proves that they died in the Tower, not who murdered them. If the bones are not the princes, it just means these bones belong to someone else. The Tower of London is old, and was built on part of Londinium's Roman wall. Pre-medieval and even Roman human remains have been found on the site before, it wouldn't be a surprise if these bones dated to any point before the 17th century […] Whether the bones are or are not the princes can therefore do little to answer the central questions about who killed these little boys.”

For example, there are a few sources - both contemporary and post-contemporary - that suggest water may be involved in the Princes' "disappearance" (murder). We don't know the exact circumstances, but if the Princes were disposed off in such a manner, we cannot expect to ever find their bodies.

Ultimately, regardless of the identity of the two skeletons, the Princes were almost definitely were murdered, and Richard III was almost definitely the one who murdered them. We do not know it "for sure", the same way we do not know "for sure" if Arthur of Brittany, Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI were murdered (and how), but all of them almost definitely were and it’s simply disingenuous to pretend otherwise. It’s equally disingenuous to act as though all the above-mentioned cases were clear-cut examples of murder while the case of the Princes is somehow a more Complex and Confusing one which you have to choose your words more carefully over when it's....really, really not (see: the matter-of-fact way they talk about John and Arthur VS Richard and the Princes). Either you should analyze all these cases with the same level of assertion/uncertainty, or don't analyze them at all.

Also, contrary to the claims of Ricardians, who believe that nobody accused Richard III until the Tudors, there are a range of independent contemporary sources who firmly believed he killed his nephews. It also makes zero sense for Elizabeth Woodville, Elizabeth of York and Edward IV's supporters, who were the ones to raise Henry Tudor as an active claimant to challenge Richard III in the first place, to endorse Henry in any way if they thought that Edward V or Richwrd of Shrewsbury might still be alive. The fact that they did can only mean that they knew/believed that the Princes were dead (though I think there was considerable ambiguity on the exact circumstances behind those deaths). It's simply illogical to pretend otherwise.

[joyfulmagic]

Prince Alastairs feet cunningly matched the musicians’ tempo, following the merriment of the crescendo with ease. “Not safety, but certainty,” he argued, “I think knowing that you’d be my equal in my reign appeals to you, somewhere deep down.” His emerald eyes flashed at Anne’s cat-like ones

“Does a courtly kind of love appeal to you? One where you’d be wooed properly and publicly, rather than having Her Majesty rubbed in your face during events such as this?” Prince Alastair dared to age.

The Prince just watched the woman dance, following her easily, his own gait certain and confident in the dance. His entire energy was one of certainty and confidence.

He’d duel the older man, if need be, for Lady Anne Boleyn’s attention. Alastair was confident enough in his skills that he’d win a joust, especially with the weight Henry had been putting on.

“Do you really prefer him to what I can offer?” Alastair asked in a hushed tone when he was closer to Anne. His tone had changed, genuinely questioning and wanting to know how Anne truly felt, as he’d back off if she was fully set on the King of England and Ireland.

@sweetbitterbitten // unplotted starter for Lady Anne Boleyn & Prince Alastair

May 1526 — Competing against Henry’s Affections

Prince Alastair looked down at the woman he’d been dancing with, finding her extraordinarily beautiful and interesting. They’d found each other sharing knowing the French language, along with English, but picking the first language as for privacy. “Ignore that old man, please Lady Anne,” he pleaded, despite barely knowing the auburn haired woman.

“It’d be safer if you came to the court of Lunaruz with me when I’m done on my diplomatic mission here,” he explained to her in a whispered tone as he searched her eyes. “He is married and cannot promise you anything because of that. I am the prince of a massive kingdom, my eldest sister’s heir, and can offer you fidelity and loyalty,” he swore.

To say Prince Alastair was a romantic would be a vast understatement. The two were close in age, he’d discovered, both being in their early-to-mid twenties at this point. He was a dashing young man, resembling a young Henry if anyone were to be honest, but was certainly not related to the King of England and Ireland, fortunately.

[bforbetterthanyou]

Descendants of the Tudors

[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.