#we are woodville

[wonder-worker]

Thinking about Elizabeth Woodville as a gothic heroine is making me go insane. She entered the story by overturning existing social structures, provoking both ire and fascination. She married into a dynasty doomed to eat itself alive. She was repeatedly associated with the supernatural, both in terms of love and death. Her life was shaped entirely by uncanny repetitions - two marriages, two widowhoods, two depositions, two flights to sanctuary, two ultimate reclamations, all paralleling and ricocheting off each other. Her plight after 1483 exposed the true rot at the heart of the monarchy - the trappings of royalty pulled away to reveal nothing, a never-ending cycle of betrayal and war, the price of power being the (literal) blood of children. She lived past the end of her family name, she lived past the end of her myth. She ended her life in a deeply anomalous position, half-in and half-out of royal society. She was both a haunting tragedy and the ultimate survivor who was finally free.

[heartofstanding]

How bad do you think John Ashdown Hill is? He seems to have a particular fondness for historical women's promiscuous stories

Oh, I think he's incredibly bad. I think his works are obviously and extremely misogynist unless you have Ricardian goggles welded onto your face. I do not take him seriously as a historian. I do not think he has written anything worth reading. I think he was a renowned Ricardian crank who made incredibly specious and misleading arguments about history.

Come on, am I supposed to take a man who subtitles his biography of Elizabeth Woodville "Edward IV's Chief Mistress and the Pink Queen" and accuses of her being a serial killer seriously as a historian? Or not think there's something incredibly weird about titling a chapter in a biography of Cecily Neville "Through The Menopause"? Should I take seriously a historian who cites a blog with the username [slur]magicspells in a publication? Am I not supposed to see the cognitive dissonance in arguing that Eleanor Talbot and Edward IV were absolutely, positively married and their marriage should be taken just as seriously as Catherine of Valois and Owen Tudor's marriage which by the way totally didn't happen and we need to rename the Tudor Dynasty because they were all secret Beauforts?

It's true Ashdown-Hill tracked Richard III's mitochondrial DNA down into the present and was very active in getting Richard's burial rediscovered. He was also a tenacious, if incredibly biased, researcher and had resources to throw at his pet projects. This is obviously impressive. It's also true that when he presented his genealogical research to the University of Leicester, he did not provide any evidence of his research so they had to redo his research to ensure they were DNA-testing the right people. There's also a blogpost he wrote where he accuses the Church of England of a conspiracy because they won't let him exhume any Plantagenets to DNA test them and basically admits to harassing a worker at Historic England after they refused to let him dig up the heritage-listed Clare Priory in Suffolk in order to locate and DNA test the remains of Lionel, Duke of Clarence. They refused him permission because, by his own admission, he didn't know where in the priory Lionel was buried and excavation would have disturbed countless other burials and there was a good chance they wouldn't even know they had found Lionel's remains if they found them.

Which is incredibly ironic given the demands he and the rest of Looking for Richard team made after Richard III's remains were identified. I don't have the energy or brainpower to get into that unholy mess but I recommend looking up Mike Pitts's blogposts about that. It is very much a case of "one standard for the sainted Richard, who is Special, and the rest are just muck beneath our feet and our quest to clear Richard's name".

[britneyshakespeare]

if i were george duke of clarence and you were my assassin you would really feel something while i'm pleading for my life right? if i were george duke of clarence imprisoned on my brother the king's suspicion and my other brother richard duke of gloucester sent you to murder me for rich reward, you would at least think of not killing me right? you'd hesitate forsooth? which of you if you were a prince's son being pent from liberty as i am now if two such murderers as yourselves came to you would not entreat for life? a begging prince what beggar pities not?

[persephones-journey]

No writing smut today. I am going to try and finish this book.

But not going to lie, I am angry reading it.

I love Elizabeth Woodville and the history of the War of the Roses. And I am all about reading books written by different historians to get different perspectives.

This guy though… He’s definitely Team Richard III thus making me roll my eyes.

Elizabeth and Edward were married. She was crowned queen.

Richard III killed his nephews for the throne. Period.

Calling Elizabeth Edward’s mistress is not going to rewrite history. Didn’t work out well for Dick the Third…

[fideidefenswhore]

How do we know that COA was offered her daughter made bona fides and kept princess? When was this?

It was an offer made by Henry alongside Campeggio when he was there before the trial, that her acceptance of the offer meant the trial could be foregone ....

We (Wolsey and Campeggio) are agreed in opinion to test the mind of the Queen, and to persuade her to consent to the separation, and to enter the profession of some religion. For this purpose his Lordship promised me the assistance of himself and all the prelates of the kingdom, and the favor of the King, and that the Queen shall have any honorable conditions which she demands, retain her station as Queen*, and not lose anything except "l'uso della persona del Re," which he (Wolsey) says she has lost for many years; allowing her her dowry, rents, ornaments, and assignments for her support, and many other things; especially that the succession of the kingdom for the present shall be established in her daughter, by the ordinance and consent of all the estates, in case there should never be any legitimate male heir. 

....(although, actually I don't exactly remember, that might have just been one stage of the offer...another might have been that her absence from the trial would ensure a result in Henry's favor; as we know she refused to attend after her speech and it did not, so whether or not that was true...Campeggio had a decretal comission to declare the marriage valid or invalid at Blackfriars and didn't, so in some sense they both got played, although Catherine only in hindsight...ironically, she would later vehemently complain about the severe injustice of the delay in any resolution, but she was the one that had interceded for that delay**, demanding the case only be tried in Rome). Even her counsel at the time, before becoming as contumacious as he did (Bishop Fisher), advised her to take this 'deal', as it were. Off the cuff, I don't remember every reference made to it, Chapuys some months later does also mention (very conditional) 'offers' made to her, but the dispatch is frustratingly vague:

Meanwhile the Queen is daily assailed by people making her all manner of offers, if she will only consent to the divorce; but she remains as firm as ever [...]

In 1533 Chapuys reports Catherine as having said she was willing to take the 'offer' made to her by the King's council three years ago, that then she had thought it was a feint to induce her to accept demotion, but she would accept it now. He does not specify what this offer was, I remember I went back to the sources of when Henry's council visited and argued with her and it was not clear then, either, but I always wondered if that was what she was alluding to. If so it was too late at that point; Henry had decided that the issue of any union that contravened divine law was irrevocably illegitimate (although technically, he would not manage to garner Parliamentary assent for this notion until three years later, he only managed it by implication in 1534), and he believed that was what it was.

Often apologia of Catherine's stance in the late 1520s has been, why should she have even considered that inducement, how was it even presented as an 'offer', even if the papacy had annulled the marriage, Mary would be bona fides regardless, etc. It was presented as an offer, inducement, compromise of sorts because in England that was not the legal precedent (ie, an offer made on behalf of her daughter that was not guaranteed otherwise):

"[Henry VIII] now argued she would would be barred by illegitimacy. This contention puzzled continental contemporaries because elsewhere in western Europe those children born to couples who in good faith believed themselves validly married were treated as legitimate. Nevertheless, Henry was right. After a period of some uncertainty, by the late fourteenth century England had opted out of the bona fides principle. As Sir John Baker notes, 'succession problems were usually debated in legal terms and in accordance with the common law canons of inheritance.' A successful challenge to his marriage would thus automatically bastardise Mary and leave Henry no direct heir... [although] Mary could have been legitimated by statute." - JF Hadwin, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History

*One assumes this meant only a ceremonial title of some sort, ie Dowager Queen of England, as her sister-in-law was still referred to as Queen of France.

**Probably not anticipating resolution would not take place for another four years, but...still.

[une-sanz-pluis]

In episode five of Heroine City, Lynsey Shaw is joined by Dr Euan Roger, lead curator at The National Archives, to discuss the fascinating Eleanor Cobham, Duchess of Gloucester. A sad tale of love magic, witchcraft and treason, Eleanor was imprisoned for the rest of her life and her marriage to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester annulled after she was accused of using witchcraft 'in a treasonous way' and tricking him into marriage with 'love magic.'

[wonder-worker]

I got the same ask, so I just want to add what Kristen L. Geaman wrote, which sums it up:

"It is time to stop seeing queens as apolitical or politically active queens as exceptional: "The question is not whether women exercised power; it is how and why."

All three WotR queens were in such wildly different situations, it's frankly impossible to conduct a side-by-side examination to decide which one of them had "the most" power/influence/authority. Theoretically, however, they all had the same social & institutional power and scope of action and used it accordingly.

(To be clear, this includes Margaret of Anjou. We really cannot claim that she had "the greatest power and influence" by any reasonable parameter because her power and influence in itself was really no different from any other 15th or 14th century queen: what was different - or more importantly, was perceived as different - was the situation around her and the manner in which it forced her to use that power and influence (ie: "how" and "why"). This was in the later half of her queenship, not from the beginning. And even then, it's possible that the perception of her activities say more about her husband's position/authority than her own, or may say more about how her enemies wanted her to be perceived rather than an accurate reflection of her actual actions. We just don't know).

This logic applies to a very similar ask I received on the same topic: whether the perception of gender changed across the WotR and late 15th century. "Gender" by itself is too broad a concept (and for who? For women in general? For noblewomen? For queens?), but even if we narrow it down to the four queens in question, it's impossible to form a conclusion and unwise to even try. There are so many wildly different factors that influenced the four queens' activities and perception beyond their gender - their social status, nationality, length of queenship, political opposition and the propaganda it generated (etc) - that to compare them through a solely gendered wavelength feels very limited and rather dishonest. We can perhaps compare some aspects of their queenship (eg: Margaret and EW's roles in their sons' councils - see below) but those are individual elements and should be analyzed across a broader spectrum of late medieval English queens - it shouldn't just be merely limited to the WotR ones.

An example that comes to mind about the circumstantial differences of the three queens is their role in their children's marriages. Margaret was in a rare and unique position to negotiate her son’s dynastic marriage on her own due to the absence of the king, and did a great job; but this cannot by any means be used to judge how she would act in more “regular” circumstances. None of Elizabeth Woodville’s royal children married during her queenship except for her youngest son Richard, who didn't marry a foreign bride but an English heiress for monetary rather than dynastic purposes; she nonetheless played a significant role in his wedding, and her husband’s will specified that she was to "rule and govern" her daughters' marriages. Elizabeth of York’s eldest son and her eldest daughter made grand foreign marriages during her queenship under the most "regular" circumstances; she played an especially vital role in the latter, something that is regularly overlooked by historians. In any case, the situations of all three queens were wildly different: we can't use them to compare who did "the most" or how a WotR English queen's role "evolved". It wouldn't be a fair line of analysis.

For another example, take queenly dowers. We can't compare what Margaret of Anjou got with what Elizabeth Woodville & Elizabeth of York got on a "gendered" or even "queenly" lens (as historians tend to do, often for EoY and occasionally for EW) because Henry VII and Edward IV simply could not logistically endow their queens on the same capacity as Margaret was endowed. It was objectively a practical problem, not an ideological one. Even if they had been kings in regular circumstances, such a dower was financially unwise; as usurpers with a very limited supply of lands, it was completely unfeasible. This unfeasibility is especially true in EW's case because as an English gentlewoman with no dowry/political alliance/prestige of her own, she brought no advantage whatsoever to the king or to England, and marriage to her in fact made them lose an invaluable diplomatic card that could have potentially spelt disaster for their dynasty. It would have therefore been somewhat expected for her to receive a lesser dower in that circumstance - though of course, ultimately speaking, royal supply was limited and she might've probably been given the same high amount if more was available. That's not even getting into how Edward IV himself was running his own household on a significantly lesser budget than both Henry VI and Henry VII did, meaning that EW's dower had nothing to do with queenship and everything to do with royal policy as a whole. (I'm not getting into Henry VII and Elizabeth of York's situation because ik you've already talked about it a lot, but suffice to say, the idea that he was using her dower to somehow "control" her is nonsense. If anyone wants an example of a king of England who actually seized his wife's dower lands, look up Edward II and Isabella of France; if anyone wants an example of a queen consort whose ability to administrate and collect income from her dower lands was neglected and overlooked by her husband, look up Berengaria of Navarre. There are queens who this accusation actually applies to; Elizabeth of York isn't one of them.)

There's also the major problem of historical evidence. To claim that we can "compare" the influence and activities of the three queens is 1) to imply that we have surviving evidence for all their activities as queen, and 2) more importantly, to imply that we have equal surviving evidence for all their activities as queen. We really, really don't. More than *120 letters* have survived for Margaret of Anjou, meaning that we know infinitely more about her "daily" queenship than any other 15th century queen. It doesn't mean that she did more; it merely means that, because evidence has been lucky enough to survive for her, we know more about her activities as queen (patronage, intercession, diplomacy). I would kill to have the same amount of information for Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York: it would help flesh out their queenships so much. It would also go a long way in further establishing their personalities, their relationships with other nobles, their approaches to lordship, etc. But for now, information is very limited, and that needs to be kept in mind & specified when discussing both the Elizabeths, just like it needs to be kept in mind & specified when discussing Margaret (ie: she shouldn't be singularized). Similarly, there's also a very uneven level of contemporary evidence for late medieval English kings' reigns in general: for example, as Charles Ross has said, "The reign of Edward IV was singularly ill-served by contemporary writers of history". We possess very less strictly contemporary information about his reign, and this massive gap is "only very partially filled by the vernacular city chronicles". His entire chamber records don't survive: imagine how much royal activity has consequently been lost, and how little we know about him & EW compared to Henry VII & EoY as a result. Henry VI's reign also has this major problem when it comes to lack of surviving contemporary information, though like I mentioned, the survival of letters for Margaret of Anjou mean that the lack of information is relatively alleviated when it comes to her queenship and actions specifically. We also have more detailed extant information for Elizabeth of York's diplomatic role & activities compared to her predecessors, from what I understand, thanks to ambaassadorial letters. The point is simply that with such uneven evidence which directly affects the way we perceive their queenly activities, it doesn't really make sense to "compare" them. Rather, I think it would make more sense to analyze them individually and acknowledge their vastly different circumstances when doing so. On a broader theoretical level, like I mentioned, we know for a fact that they all had the same social & institutional power and scope of action. What was different was their circumstances (ie: "how" and "why").

One thing I do want to point out, though, is that Elizabeth Woodville did have unique political authority during her tenure as queen. Her official appointment in royal councils in her own right - for both the crown prince and Richard of Shrewsbury - was unusual & exceptional for late medieval queens, even though historians rarely emphasize it to the extent that they should. Margaret, whose activities with her son's council are often hailed as "extraordinary" and proof of her "superior" political power (I'm putting them in quotes because they're the words I come across), was in fact never actually a part of the council in her own right and never came close to possessing the position, authority or formally acknowledged importance that Elizabeth had. So, I would say that yes, Elizabeth Woodville was undoubtedly given unconventional political authority & formal appointments during her queenship, made even more surprising by the fact that these were not during the King's absence or incapacity but during his presence and the peak of his own power. Historians need to acknowledge and highlight this more than they do. However, any "comparison" (if it can be called that) of this unique and official position of Elizabeth's can't just be limited to her daughter or other WotR queens, and therefore can't be used to judge Elizabeth of York: it was unusual and unprecedented for all 15th century (from what I understand, also 14th century) queens in general and should be discussed accordingly.

What are the differences in the powers of the three queens in wars of the roses? Margaret of Anjou should be the greatest power and influence? Elizabeth Woodville has many formal authorities, and Elizabeth of York is very symbolic?

No because all medieval queens consort had both formal and symbolic authority. Please check my queenship tag to find out more.

[resident-dumb-fuck]

richard iii dashboard simulator. i thought it would be funny and here we are

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

what if i caused problems on purpose <3

0 notes

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

oh no... i cant believe the king is having my brother killed... oh noooo

#FUCK YOU GEORGE

3 notes

💥ladyanne Follow

man i miss my husband and father in law

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

hey

💥ladyanne

shut the fuck up you literally killed them??? get off my post

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

can i try rizzing you up

💥ladyanne

um. sure?

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

PLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASEPLEASE

💥ladyanne

i can't believe i'm saying this but this is kind of working.

🧍‍♂️gentleman-retainer

anyone else in this thread smoke weed

958 notes

🌹lancaster-official Follow

you all suck.

@/elizabeth-woodville your son will die and you will be deposed and youre gonna die SAD and ALONE.

@/river-severn @/dorset-sheep and @/billhastings you're gonna get executed

@/halfhearteddickjoke hm. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU. nobody hang out with this conniving bitch i hate him i hate him so much and i am three seconds away from killing him constantly.

🐦fuckinghim Follow

get off tumblr margaret we're in court

🌹lancaster-official

he's not gonna want you as his boytoy forever

🐦fuckinghim

WE'RE NOT EVEN IN A RELATIONSHIP??????

🌹lancaster-official

i've seen you talk to him. i know what you are

5000 notes

🗼mr-london-tower Follow

just heard george duke of clarence say "snork mimi" aloud i'm gonna [remembers that suicide jokes do nothing for my mental health] request to be moved away from guarding his cell

🗼mr-london-tower

update: so it turns out the malmsey wine is unusable, for related reasons to this man.

#fuckin. dead body in the malmsey. cant have nice things around here #i hate my job so bad

94 notes

eddie-baby-deactivated

yayyy everybody is friends now :)

🐗halfhearted-dick-joke

dude you literally killed clarence??? you cant be having other people making friends youre a murderer

eddie-baby-deactivated

WHAT THE FUCK I THOUGHT I CANCELED THAT ORDER???

🐗halfhearted-dick-joke

you killed that guy man what the fuck. you cant be doing that

764 notes

👗elizabeth-woodville Follow

I regret to inform you all that the king has died.

5 notes

✨cecily-not-sicily Follow

dude my sons GOTTA stop dying. this is so fucked.

3 notes

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

i do so love to cause problems on purpose :)

#sorry to any family members of lords rivers, vaughan, and grey. um. you will not be seeing them anymore! <3

1285 notes

🐦fuckinghim Follow

preteens are so scary for no reason??? had to interact with two for work and like. they suck so bad. "i fear no uncles dead" shut the fuck up you smartass little shit. also had to explain to them the history of the tower of london which. i don't fucking know that shit! i don't know who built the tower of london! it sure as fuck wasn't julius caesar!

7 notes

#️⃣billhastings Follow

SOMEONE has got to stop waking me up in the middle of the night to hear their dreams

#️⃣billhastings

oh what the fuck.

607 notes

🍓bishop-ely Follow

crazy day at work today

#never go outside to get strawberries worst mistake of my life #came back in the room and they were accusing hastings of witchcraft. like sure yeah i guess

20 notes

🐦fuckinghim Follow

richard duke of gloucester should be king because not only are edward v and richard duke of york illegitimate but also so was edward iv. also richard duke of gloucester is just. kind of an all around good guy! as opposed to edward iv who ah. how do i put this in a manner that isn't horribly offensive. yeah okay figured it out. not a great person! unpleasant to be around!

also if you wanna know what was up with hastings he was a traitor don't worry about it.

954 notes

💥ladyanne Follow

RICHARD. RICHARD WHEN I CATCH YOU RICHARD. WHAT DO YOU MEAN KING OF ENGLAND

2 notes

🐦fuckinghim Follow

shit dude that one vine wasn't lying. what the fuck richard

#i have to leave immediately. jesus fucking christ man.

500 notes

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

yay king of england :) i will be very good at this i feel

#everybody's always like "what the fuck richard you can't kill two kids" or "why would you do that" and never like "was it fun having those preteens killed. it looked fun"

0 notes

🌹lancaster-official Follow

@/halfhearteddickjoke FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

submitted by @/elizabeth-woodville

90 notes

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

wow everything is going so bad. what the entire shit @/fuckinghim

2 notes

🐦fuckinghim Follow

ughhh margaret was right. NOT ABOUT THE BOYTOY THING

307 notes

®️henry-twoder-or-something Follow

hi ive been here the whole time. ive done the math and i do technically have a claim to the throne :)

83 notes

🐗halfhearteddickjoke

i cant believe im saying this but i did just have an ebenezer scrooge moment. god i hate it here.

#maybe i am a bad person

54 notes

®️henry-twoder-or-something Follow

wow richard has died :) i cant believe i am the king now! yayyyy

2 notes

🚣‍♂️resident-dumb-fuck Follow

final message from op! sorry everyone. im so annoying about this forever

[allwaswell16]

A One Direction fic rec of fics in which one of the main pairing is their brother's/sister's best friend as requested in this ask. If you enjoy the fics, please leave kudos and comments for the writers! You can find my other fic recs here. Happy reading!

- Louis / Harry -

💋 Bloodline by banana_louis

(E, 177k, fluff) Louis doesn't know how to feel when his best friend, Liam, finds out about a brother that he never knew, who was placed for adoption before he was born and is bursting into his life at twenty-four years old.

💋 Want You More Than A by TheCellarDoor / @donotdialnine

(M, 77k, high school) Falling in love with your step-brother’s best friend is a disaster enough. When he happens to be the boy everyone loves and you’re a nerd who wears sweater vests and cries during rom-coms, it takes it to a whole new level.

💋 late nights and good intentions by princelouisau

(E, 71k, historical) a Victorian era au where Louis pines for his overprotective older brother’s very charming best friend.

💋 teenage dreams in a teenage circus by orphan_account

(E, 50k, high school) The last few months of sixth form bring about a lot of changes, however. Gemma refuses to let anything stop her from getting into her top-pick uni, Perrie second-guesses what makes her special, and Louis breaks the most common of friend codes: he falls for his best mate's little brother.

💋 We Got The World Shaking by FutureMrsHaroldStyles

(M, 39k, omegaverse) the one where Harry goes into heat at his best friend Lottie's birthday party and her big brother helps him out.

💋 Lies & Liability by 4ureyesonly28 / @evilovesyou

(M, 34k, historical) Harry Styles has only three wishes when he leaves River Dane Manor to go to Town for his first season

💋 Baby, What a Big Surprise by kiwikero / @icanhazzalou

(E, 33k, high school) the one where shy, quiet Harry has no idea he's a carrier, and a one night stand with the most popular boy in school shows him just how wrong he was.

💋 With the Rising Sun by Tomlinsontoes / @pianolouis

(M, 33k, NYC) Somehow he got roped into his sister's brilliant idea of getting her college best friend to help him branch out and meet people.

💋 It's Been So Long by elsi_bee / @elsi-bee

(T, 31k, friends to lovers) Harry Styles' first crush was one of his sister's best friends, a certain someone named Louis Tomlinson. And Louis? He just vaguely remembers Gemma's younger brother from back in the day. A lot can change in ten years.

💋 Pillow Talk by @fallinglikethis

(E, 25k, sexuality crisis) When Harry starts having confusing feelings for a male classmate, his sister's best friend, Louis, helps him figure himself out. Cue lots of kissing, sex, and falling in love.

💋 and i don't care it's obvious by @alwaysxlarrie

(T, 20k, uni) However, his issue was that no one had ever created a guide that one could follow in regards to what to do or how to feel when your crush was your sister's best friend.

💋 i don't wanna be your friend, i wanna kiss your neck by pinkgelpen

(E, 19k, omegaverse) Harry is a hopelessly romantic omega and Louis is his sister's best friend

💋 I'll Be Your Light by mightaswellll

(M, 17k, roommates) Harry Styles always had a crush on his sister's best friend Louis Tomlinson. Moving in with them should be a good way to get over it, right?

💋 Won’t Let You Down by noellehenry / @noellehenry-original

(M, 15k, small town) Suddenly he’s the owner of a farm and B&B, gets involved in illegal trading of unlabeled bottles and has to deal with his everlasting crush on his sister Gemma’s best friend, who has returned to Woodville…

💋 What do you mean he's coming? by MediaWhore / @mediawhorefics

(G, 15k, famous/not famous) Now, not only does he have less than two weeks left to find something moving and inspirational to say, but Gemma just confided in him that her old childhood best friend is going to be in attendance.

💋 show you the stars in the daylight by bruisedhoney

(E, 13k, size kink) the one where Louis has a type and at sixteen and scrawy, it's definitely not his best friend's little brother Harry...ten years later, he changes his mind.

💋 Dirty Little Secret by therogueskimo / @bravetemptation

(M, 10k, secret relationship) the one where Harry and Louis fall in love, but can’t figure out how to tell Gemma. That is, until Harry gets pregnant, and they don’t have much of a choice.

💋 Here We Come A-Wassailing by @lululawrence

(NR, 8k, Christmas) It was cold, they would be outside in said cold, and he only wanted to stay warm and comfortable in the house. At least his best friend Gemma and her family are part of the caroling crew.

💋 Giving Me Excitations by @juliusschmidt

(M, 6k, vacation) Gemma's BFF Louis joins the family on a beach weekend. Harry likes him so much.

💋 harder to hide than i thought by dangerbears

(NR, 6k, high school) louis's best friend's little brother suddenly got very attractive.

💋 now i'm tracin' all my steps to you by @alwaysxlarrie

(T, 5k, omegaverse) Of all the things Harry was prepared for this summer, Louis Tomlinson and his wonderful, wonderful scent isn't one of them. It probably shouldn't be as shocking as it is that it makes Harry want to nest. 

💋 Tell Me That You've Got Me by @lululawrence

(NR, 2k, neighbors)  the one where Harry was always Louis' best friend's younger brother...until they grow up and once innocent forms of affection come to mean a little bit more.

💋 All This Time by @allwaswell16

(T, 1k, omegaverse) Louis Tomlinson had been best friends with flower shop owner Gemma Styles for years. It wasn't until she suggested he date her alpha brother that he ever thought of Harry that way.

- Rare Pairs -

💋 That Dimpled Smile by Phillipa19

(E, 47k, Zayn/Harry & Marcel/Louis) When Harry's best mate Louis shows an interest in his nerdy little brother, Harry isn't prepared to let him near. But it's hard for Harry to keep track of those two when he has enough trouble trying to figure out what the hell is going on with him and Zayn and their secretive relationship.

[wonder-worker]

I've been thinking about the tragedy of Elizabeth Woodville living to see the end of her family name.

I don't mean her family with her husband, which lived on through her daughter and grandson. I mean her own.

Her sisters died, one by one, many of them after 1485. When Elizabeth died, only Katherine was left, and she would die before the turn of the century as well.

All her brothers died, too. Lewis died in childhood. John was executed. Anthony was murdered. Lionel died suddenly in the peak of Richard's reign, unable to see his niece become queen. Edward perished at war. Richard died in grieving peace. For all the violence and judgement the family endured, it was "an accident of biology" that ended their line: none of the brothers left heirs, and the Woodville name was extinguished. We know the family was aware of this. We know they mourned it, too:

“Buy a bell to be a tenor at Grafton to the bells now there, for a remembrance of the last of my blood.��

Elizabeth lived through the deposition and death of her young sons, and lived to see the end of her own family name. It must have been such a haunting loss, on both sides.

[wonder-worker]

(I hope it's okay if I add on!)

Some reports from contemporaries also indicate that their relationship before they got married was longer than it's often assumed to be:

Hearne's Fragment: "After resorting at diverse times, seeing the constant and stable mind of the said Dame Elizabeth, early in a morning the said King Edward wedded the foresaid Dame Elizabeth".

Caspar Weinrich of Danzig: “The king fell in love with (Elizabeth Woodville) when he dined with her frequently…the King took this one against the will of all his lords.”

Account of Venetian merchants who arrived from London: "Thus has he (Edward IV) determined to take the daughter of my Lord de Rivers, a widow with two children, having long loved her, it appears.”

It definitely seems more like a secret courtship/relationship which eventually led to marriage rather than a sudden infatuation and equally hasty wedding, imo.

There are two versions of the marriage dates between Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodwell?

1st of May 1464 is the commonly used date, though since the marriage was a secret one we can’t say for sure when they were married, there is no documented date. Based on Edwards wheabouts in April and May of 1464 he was in/around Grafton so it is possible he either visited Elizabeth or indeed they got married. It is also quite possible they were married later in 1464 (late August) so close to September 1464 when Edward formally announced his marriage to Elizabeth at Reading. Mainly because Elizabeth asked William Hastings to help her with her inheritance for her sons and in August 1464 there was a proposition/arrangement for Thomas Grey to become William Hastings ward. So if Elizabeth was already married to Edward it is strange that she would be thinking of giving William Hastings her son as a ward since she would be married to the king and could oversee her sons inheritance herself.

I’ll post an excerpt here from “The Woodvilles” by Susan Higginbotham:

“Those chronicles that give a date for Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage each specify the same one: 1 May. This date is compatible with the known movements of Edward, who was at Stony Stratford the night of 30 April 1464 and could have made an excursion to and from Grafton that morning, as claimed by Fabyan in the sixteenth century:

«[I]n most secret manner, upon the first day of May, King Edward spoused Elizabeth […] which spousals were solemnised early in the morning at a town called Grafton, near Stony Stratford; at  which marriage were no persons present but the spouse, the spousess, the Duchess of Bedford her mother, the priest, two gentlewomen, and a young man to help the priest sing. After which spousals ended, he went to bed, and so tarried there three or four hours, and after departed and rode again to Stony Stratford, and came as though he had been hunting, and there went to bed again. And within a day or two after, he sent to Grafton to the Lord Rivers, father unto his wife, showing to him he would come and lodge with him a certain season, where he was received with all honour, and so tarried there by the space of four days. In which season, she nightly to his bed was brought, in so secret manner, that almost none but her mother was of counsel.»

Whether the couple were married on May Day or later, the scant record does bear out Hall’s claim that a priest was present at the wedding. A Master John Eborall, whose church of Paulspury was close to Grafton and Stony Stratford, is said to have offered in 1471 to intercede in a land dispute involving the queen ‘supposing that he might have done good in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King Edward and Queen Elizabeth together’. A chronicle known as Hearne’s Fragment adds that the priest who married the couple was buried at the high altar of the Minories in London, but leaves a blank space for the man’s name.”

I do personally think Edward and Elizabeth married around late August or early September and kept it a secret for only a handful of weeks, not months. And Edwards frequent movements in and about Grafton in spring and summer 1464 means they were courting and their marriage might not have been in such a haste as some might think.

[liviasdrusillas]

" tell me, how shall we find the strength to bear the wrongs people do us? "

elizabeth woodville in every episode // 1.07 - poison and malmsey

[medievalandfantasymelee]

My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are now preparing for the second round of contest in the Queen of Love and Beauty mini-tournament.

This round will consist of 6 polls of 6 contestants each, with the three contestants with the most votes on each poll advancing to the next Round. Two polls will be posted per day beginning on Sunday October 27, with each poll lasting one week.

In this round we will be accepting and circulating propaganda for the candidates. Propaganda will not be posted on the polls themselves but will be circulated prior to and during the competition.

The following is a list of our remaining candidates:

Æthelflæd of Mercia [Millie Brady], The Last Kingdom (2015-2022)

Aliena [Hayley Atwell], The Pillars of the Earth (2010)

Anne Boleyn [Genevieve Bujold], Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)

Arwen Undomiel [Liv Tyler], The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)

Aykız Hatun [Hande Subaşı], Diriliş: Ertuğrul (2014-2019)

Princess Buttercup [Robin Wright], The Princess Bride (1987)

Brienne of Tarth [Gwendoline Christie], Game of Thrones (2011-2019)

Danielle de Barbarac [Drew Barrymore], Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Eleanore of Aquitaine [Katharine Hepburn], The Lion in Winter (1968)

Elizabeth Woodville [Rebecca Ferguson], The White Queen (2013)

Éowyn of Rohan [Miranda Otto], The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)

Galadriel of Lothlórien [Cate Blanchett], The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)

Giulia Farnese [Lotte Verbeek], The Borgias (2011-2013)

Guinevere [Angel Coulby], BBC’s Merlin (2008-2012)

Princess Gwendolyn [Angela Lansbury], The Court Jester (1955)

Isabeau of Anjou [Michelle Pfeiffer], Ladyhawke (1985)

Princess Isabella Maria Lucia Elizabetta of Valencia [Karen David], Galavant (2015-2016)

Jade Claymore [Erin Kellyman], Willow (2022)

Maid Jean [Glynis Johns], The Court Jester (1955)

Jiang Yanli [Xuan Lu], The Untamed (2019)

Kate [Laura Fraser], A Knight’s Tale (2001)

Lagertha [Katheryn Winnick], Vikings (2013-2020)

Princess Lili [Mia Sara], Legend (1985)

Lucrezia Borgia [Holliday Grainger], The Borgias (2011-2013)

Queen Lucy the Valiant [Rachael Henley], The Chronicles of Narnia (2005-2010)

Queen Madelena [Mallory Jansen], Galavant (2015-2016)

Margaery Tyrell [Natalie Dormer], Game of Thrones (2011-2019)

Margaret of Anjou [Sophie Okonedo], The Hollow Crown (2012-2016)

Lady Marian Fitzwalter [Olivia de Havilland], The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

Lady Marion of Leaford [Judi Trott], Robin of Sherwood (1984-1986)

Morgana Pendragon [Katie McGrath], BBC’s Merlin (2008-2012)

Mu Nihuang [Liu Tao], Nirvana in Fire (2015-2018)

Padmavati [Deepika Padukone], Padmaavat (2018)

Rebecca of York [Olivia Hussey], Ivanhoe (1982)

Sansa Stark [Sophie Turner], Game of Thrones (2011-2019)

Sibylla of Jerusalem [Eva Green], Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

[georgescitadel]

Historical figures that have served as inspiration for the women in ASOIAF - George R.R. Martin interview

Interviewer: What women through history have inspired and helped you on your way to creating these female characters that we love?

George: There are some very interesting queens in both English and French history who have, at least partially, inspired the characters in Game of Thrones. Many people have observed that Game of Thrones is based, in part, on the Wars of the Roses and that is certainly true, although I don't do a one-for-one translation. If you go and say “This character is based on that character” you're gonna be partly right, but also partly wrong, because I like to mix and match and throw a few twists, making the characters my own. Certainly, the wife of Edward IV, Elizabeth Woodville, was one of the most interesting queens in English history. She was the mother of the princes in the tower and married secretly. She was a Lancastrian, but she married the Yorkist claimant secretly and that produced all sorts of trouble, and she was in the middle of all that stuff with Richard III. She was fascinating! On the other side, the Lancastrian queen, Margaret of Anjou: she was pretty amazing and definitely hardcore! She was married to the idiot king, Henry VI, and she basically had to command her side after some of the leading Lancastrian supporters were killed in the early parts of the war. If you go back a hundred years before, Isabella, the wife of king Edward II, the She-Wolf of France, she was a pretty amazing one too. She basically got rid of her husband, imprisoned him, and allegedly had him killed by having a hot poker thrust up his ass while he was in captivity and then she and her lover took over and ran the kingdom until her son Edward III rose up against his own mother and imprisoned her. All of this stuff, I play with it, but I can't claim to really have invented any of it. There are some things in history that are just as violent and twisted and bizarre and amazing as anything in my books.

- George R.R. Martin, Supanova Expo

[wonder-worker]

I should clarify that we don't know if Thomas More actually met Elizabeth Shore! While he claimed that he did, David Santiuste has pointed out that More's description of Elizabeth in her later years, "where a 'fallen woman' loses her beauty, echoes familiar tropes in moral literature" at the time. It was very common to find such narratives in Tudor England, such as Robert Henryson's popular poem, Testament of Cresseid. So, while most historians have (unfortunately) taken More's claim at face-value based on that description, it can and should be questioned more than it has been till date.

Also, More's knowledge about Elizabeth's life was distinctly lacking and unreliable* in a way that makes it hard to believe he was getting his information from her. For example, he claimed that she was still married to William Shore in 1483 even though we know she had divorced Shore years ago; he didn't know that Richard III had accused her of having an affair with Thomas Gray despite the very public nature of that accusation; and he either didn't know or deliberately erased the fact that she married Thomas Lynom (and had a child with him) shortly after her penance walk. Instead, More seems to have created a tragic afterlife for her, claiming that she ended her life destitute and friendless, which was...almost definitely untrue (her reality would have been far, far happier). His claim that Richard III accused Elizabeth Shore of witchcraft was also most probably false and invented by More himself: the Great Chronicle never mentions any such thing, Richard's own proclamations against her suggest against the idea, and a textual comparison to Vergil's account (which More directly used as a source for that specific scene) indicates that More seems to have inserted Elizabeth Shore into the accusation that was, historically, only levelled at Elizabeth Woodville**.

In short: We don't know if More truly met Elizabeth Shore; at the very least, his claim should be taken with a grain of salt. But even if More did meet her, or at the very least came across her (which is plausible, as her second husband had a flourishing career under the Tudors and died in the 1510s), his haphazard knowledge of her makes it very unlikely that he could have questioned her about events of her life. Alternatively, if he did question her, he seems to have had no problem massively editing, rewriting or outright inventing several crucial and defining aspects of her life to suit his own narrative convenience. Whatever the case, it's clear that More was not using Elizabeth Shore as a source of information. It's also clear that he demonstrably did not care about historical accuracy where she was concerned*** (his descriptions of her are incredibly self-indulgent and generic) and should not be taken at face-value when talking about her life.

*We don't know if she and Edward IV truly had an affair, or if it was actually long-term & public (both of which are different things, and both of which have no verifiable evidence as of now). But even if they did have some kind of relationship, evidence strongly contradicts the idea that she was a visible figure during his reign - which may explain More's haphazard knowledge of her. Indeed, the author of the Great Chronicle could not even remember her name, merely calling her "a woman named Shore", with a blank space left before her surname. Similarly, the Elizabethans - who derived their knowledge of her entirely from More's account being printed and circulated from the 1540s - seem to have been so unfamiliar with her that they invented a fake name, fake husband (a goldsmith named Matthew) and fake backstory for her. More himself, in addition to his various inaccuracies about her, claims that she had a memorable role at court while simultaneously taking it for granted that his audience will not know who she is (which...does not make sense). He also literally never bothers to mention her name throughout his account; we don't know if he even knew what it was. Compare this to the consistent and matter-of-fact way contemporary and post-contemporary chroniclers spoke of Alice Perrers and Katherine Swynford, or how Rosamund Clifford's name was organically remembered across the centuries. In contrast, the absence of Elizabeth Shore in post-contemporary chronicles, and the ignorance that both More and the Great Chronicle displayed for the most basic elements of her life, cast immense doubt on the idea of her so-called visibility. If she had an affair with Edward IV, we can also conclude other things about their relationship based on current evidence, which may explain why chroniclers had such lacking knowledge of her. For one, she never received any official grants or rewards from Edward throughout his reign, a striking contrast to Alice Perrers and Katherine Swynford who received plenty from their royal lovers during Queen Philippa and Constance of Castile's lives. With the variety of 14th century English and 15th century French & Breton precedents that Edward had at his disposal when it came to rewarding royal mistresses in such a way, we can only conclude that if they were in a relationship, he simply did not want to honour Elizabeth Shore in such a public manner (ie: through patent and Parliament rolls, etc). Nor did Edward ever favor her parents, despite his patronage of so many other London merchants. It's very hard to understand how someone who had so little influence that she was incapable of obtaining grants for herself or her family would somehow have been able to intercede on behalf of others as Thomas More (very generically and romantically) claimed she did. Indeed, Elizabeth is absent from all known cases of intercession during Edward's second reign, and specific examples dispel the idea that she was viewed as a figure of visible influence like Alice and Katherine had been (see: the Merchant Adventurers Company sending desperate appeals to influential figures at court in 1480; Elizabeth Lambert is conspicuously absent from the list). In my opinion, if historians claim that Edward III and John of Gaunt's affairs with Alice and Katherine were "discreet" during Philippa and Constance's lives despite having actual contemporary evidence of their affairs via records and chronicles, then we must necessarily view the (potential, unverified, unknown) relationship between Edward IV and Elizabeth Shore as 10x more discreet considering we have no evidence for it at all. Based on what we know so far, given that post-contemporary chroniclers could not even remember her name, I think this interpretation is only fair.

**Re Elizabeth's role in 1483: another thing I want to clarify is that her arrest and penance walk doesn't seem to have had anything to do with Edward IV - as is commonly assumed - but with William Hastings. Simon Stallworth's contemporary letter, written on 21st June, makes it clear that Elizabeth was imprisoned shortly after Hastings' execution. The Great Chronicle likewise emphasizes that she was punished for her affair with Hastings (which mirrors how Richard used her to disparage Thomas Gray, and suggests that he was using the same tactic here to vilify Hastings) without ever linking her to Edward IV. Also, the idea of her being a messenger between Elizabeth Woodville and Hastings is simply not true: it is a modern fantasy theory that has been irresponsibly accepted by historians as a fact. It has no basis in history (it's highly improbable that Elizabeth Woodville and Hastings were in an alliance) and no chronicle, including More, claimed Richard accused her of this.

***In general, Thomas More is very unreliable when it comes to Edward IV's life - specifically his love life - as well. Apart from his false claim that he died at the age of 53 (???), More seems to have invented a page-long fictional story about Edward's alleged pre-contract, claiming that it was actually with Elizabeth Lucy who had once been summoned by his mother to court to try and deter him from marrying Elizabeth Woodville (we know that the pre-contract was with Eleanor Talbot, there is no record of a woman named "Elizabeth Lucy" even existing at the time, and there is no evidence of Edward's council or his mother doing any such thing). Additionally, More claimed that Edward IV discussed his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville with his courtiers before he married her, which is obviously not true. He also claimed that Edward had three long-term mistresses, which is explicitly contradicted by other chroniclers like Dominic Mancini, who arrived in England at the end of Edward's life and clearly states that he was known for having very short-term sexual affairs; it's very hard to understand how Mancini could have gotten such a radically different impression from courtiers and local Londoners if a long-term public mistress like Elizabeth Shore existed at that time. For that matter, the claim is also contradicted by Thomas More himself, who implies that Edward's affairs stopped in his last years ("in his youth given to fleshy wantonness...in his latter days, it lessened and well left"). I'm really not sure how we can reconcile that with what More claims about Elizabeth Lambert. Interestingly enough, More's claim that Edward may have eventually stopped having affairs is actually supported another independent chronicler, Habington, who wrote that "Even from [lust] which was reputed his bofome finn, toward the later end of his life, he was [somewhat] cleare: either [conscience] reforming him, or by continuall faciete growne to a loathing of it". Of course, we don't know if this is true or not, but whatever the case, the point is that More's claims re Edward's love life are ... really not reliable. On the contrary, he has displayed a pretty stellar record of invention, exaggeration and general inconsistency. His claims re Ellizabeth Shore cannot be taken at face-value and should be questioned & doubted far more than they are.

(Of course, this isn't to argue that everything More claimed about Elizabeth was an outright invention. This isn't true at all: he clearly did know some pretty important things about her. But when it comes to the existence and nature of her alleged affair with Edward IV...we just don't know. More could have been making it up; he could have been telling the truth; he could have been narrating what he believed was the truth; he could have been basing his account on a grain of truth while exaggerating/constructing the rest (in my opinion, the last one makes the most sense and fits best with what we know so far). What I'm trying to say is that More's claims regarding their alleged affair are not verifiable and reliable, and his claims regarding the nature of that affair can be contradicted by actual evidence and other sources, including More's own account. All in all - like you said, he can't be used uncritically as a source when it comes to her.

What is your opinion on Elizabeth Lambert? Does she have any unknown related knowledge?

I find her very interesting, particularly with the way her story parallels Alice Perrers and Eleanor Cobham, and I find her a very sympathetic figure. I don't know too much about her since the end of the Wars of the Roses isn't one of "my" periods and the thought of sorting through the Ricardians from the Ricardian-influenced to the Tudorites to find decent information about them just makes me go "no" and give up.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second question. We don't know a lot about her since the lives of mistresses aren't very well documented, particularly ones not of aristocratic birth. In addition, a lot of what we know about Elizabeth comes from Thomas More. He did claim to have met her but More can't be used uncritically as a source. The best coverage of Elizabeth's life, afaik, N. Barker's article, 'The real Jane Shore’ in Etoniana, 125 (1972) and 126 (1972). I've not read them myself but I believe Barker was the scholar who discovered "Jane Shore" was in fact Elizabeth Lambert.

[lady-corrine]

…And therewithall she said unto the child: ‘Farewell, my own sweet son, God send you good keeping, let me kiss you once yet ere you go, for God knoweth when we shall kiss together again. And therewith she kissed him, and blessed him, turned her back and wept and went her way, leaving the child weeping as fast.

Elizabeth: England’s slandered Queen, Arlene Okerlund // Fire and Blood, George R.R. Martin

...the king made answer, as his men tore Rhaenyra from her son’s arms. Some accounts say it was Ser Alfred Broome who had hold of her arm, others name the two Toms, Tanglebeard the father and Tangletongue the son. Ser Marston Waters stood witness as well, clad in a white cloak, for King Aegon had named him to his Kingsguard for his valor.

*Elizabeth Woodville and Rhaenyra Targaryen being parted from their last sons, inspired by this post.