#Edward V's deposition was richard and solely Richard's fault lol this should not be difficult to understand

[wonder-worker]

A.J Pollard’s biography on Edward IV was so cringe lol (generic; minor but frustrating inaccuracies; intensely judgmental at times and oddly dismissive at others while never considering the broader context; entirely diminished and trivialized Elizabeth Woodville as both queen and wife of his main subject in the name of "defending" her; created a false dichotomy between Edward and Henry VII’s styles of ruling and lauded the latter at the former’s expense even though Henry literally followed Edward’s example for the very things Pollard was criticizing Edward for; had a downright nonsensical and thoroughly misleading conclusion about Edward’s legacy & Richard’s usurpation that was based entirely on hindsight, Pollard's own assumptions, and the complete downplaying Richard’s agency and actions to emphasize what Pollard wrongly and misleadingly claimed were Edward's so-called 'failings', etc, etc)

I wanted to buy his book on Henry V but after reading this shitshow and the synopsis of that book, im guessing it's going to be 10x worse, so...no thanks

#history media #this was written months ago im posting it to get it out of my drafts #it wasn't necessarily BAD. it was generic and readable. but it was very disappointing and misleading and its conclusion was just nonsense #listen I have no patience for the dumbfuck idea that edward somehow had the ultimate responsibility for his own son's deposition because #of his 'policies' during his reign. like I said it's based fully on hindsight and entirely devoid of actual context. it's bafflingly stupid #literally everyone expected Edward V to succeed his father and 'both hoped for and expected' (Croyland's own words) a successful reign #Edward V's deposition was richard and solely Richard's fault lol this should not be difficult to understand #the reason Richard's usurpation was possible in the first place was bcause everyone expected E5 to succeed and didn't expect Richard #do to what he did. nothing would have happened without his initiative and decisions. it had nothing to do with Edward's 'policies' #Edward's policies were fine. henry vii - who pollard vaunts to no end - literally *followed* them #and claiming that he failed to unite England under the Yorkist dynasty is just plain stupid #buddy if he truly failed at that then neither Richard III nor Henry VII would have thrones lol. both emphasized continuity with #him when aiming for the throne. like the whole point of 1483-85 was that it was a conflict WITHIN the 'Yorkist' dynasty #it was not an external threat against it. #'his legacy failed' his legacy didn't fail his brother destroyed it (while also presenting himself as his heir because logic what's logic?) #henry's victory was very much the triumph of his legacy (a claimant chosen by his supporters as the husband of his daughter) #like this is really not my interpretation it is literally what happened #i'm not trying to glorify e4 but his son did inherit the throne in a more advantageous circumstances than any other minor king of england #and frankly than most other adult kings. dumping blame on Edward's literal corpse rather than acknowledge Richard's agency is so tasteless #the problem isn't that edward made a mistake in trusting his brother. many other kings including Henry V also trusted theirs. #the problem is that his brother was willing to break that trust in a way that was unprecedented and broke all political norms of that age #ie: Richard's usurpation occurred because of Richard who re-ignited conflict to make himself king. please drill this into your head #also btw this illogical 'interpretation' is based entirely on Charles Ross' hatred and derision towards Elizabeth Woodville and her family #if you agree with this inteterpretation you agree with his vilification of them 🤷🏻‍♀️ #anyway if you want a better interpretation that's actually analytical and looks a relevant rather than a flawed retrospective perspective #i would recommend rosemary horrox's 'richard iii: a study of service' and david horspool's 'richard iii: a ruler and his reputation' #anyway one last time: STOP downplaying Richard's agency and actions. historians who do this are stupid and embarrassing. bye. #(i should really post horspool's glorious takedown of ross and Pollard huh? it was very entertaining to read)