#r*chard iii

[wonder-worker]

Here’s the thing I need people to understand:

Even if we believe that the (entirely unproven and far too politically convenient) pre-contract story between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot was true, it doesn’t actually matter. Even if it was hypothetically true, there was still no reason why Edward V – who was already King at that point and was referred to as such – couldn’t have been able to succeed his father regardless.

David Horspool (Richard's own historian) summarizes it better than I could, so I’m just quoting him here:

"[Richard also made] no allowance for any potential solution to the problem that might have re-legitimized Edward V and his siblings. These included securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, as happened to Henry VIII’s variously tainted offspring; or even ignoring the issue and proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed, and render allegations of his bastardy as newer versions of the old tittle-tattle about his father."

In short, even if Edward IV truly had a pre-contract with Eleanor Talbot, and even if all of his children with Elizabeth Woodville were supposedly illegitimate, it should by no means prevent Edward V from succeeding his father to the throne. If Richard truly wanted to support his nephew, he had a variety of useful and entirely workeable options to choose from. Instead, he officially declared his nieces and nephews (including a literal 3-year-old) illegitimate, kept Edward V and his even younger brother confined in the Tower of London, and declared himself King.

Why didn't Richard take these actions, all of which he would have been well aware of? As Horspool says simply: "that Richard took none of these courses was because he had no interest in doing so."

The ONLY conclusion we can come to based on Richard's actions is summarized most succinctly by A.J Pollard:

"The truth of the matter is that Richard III did not want Edward V to be legitimate because he did not want him to be king."

#r*chard iii #richard iii #my post #edward iv #princes in the tower #imo this is the main crux of the argument #it DOESN'T MATTER if the pre-contract story was actually true #even if it was true there was no actual reason why Edward V couldn't have been crowned regardless if Richard had truly wanted to support hi #sorry I saw something annoying on Twitter and wanted to rant #(I wasn't even searching for it lol it just popped up; it's very annoying) #I saw a bunch of people quoting John Ashdown-Hill (yeah that guy) on the fact that Eleanor chose to deed some of her property to her sister #Elizabeth Talbot during her lifetime rather than leave it to her in her will #and using this to argue that Eleanor considered herself married to Edward and as a married woman unfortunately could not bequeath real #property by will without her husband's consent #which is absolutely ridiculous considering the fact that #A MARRIED WOMAN ALSO COULD NOT DEED PROPERTY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF HER HUSBAND #Eleanor choosing to deed property to her sister during her life proves that *she did not consider herself married to anyone at the time* #Which ... should be extremely significant and indicative! #and should in fact settle the argument once and for all #I don't know how Ricardians have somehow twisted it and claim the opposite #anyway im done ranting. bye

[richmond-rex]

Such legitimation was cleverly explored to justify the title to the crown of England when it was necessary. In 1461 the proclamation which announced the title of the Yorkist king referred to the state of the realm in terms strikingly similar to those of the commons both inside and outside parliament in 1449–50, stressing ‘the lamentable state of this realm’, foreign policy, and the oppression of the people. These sorts of appeals had to stress commonly accepted principles to be effective—especially during the Wars of the Roses [...] Besides, xenophobia was seemingly part of these shared values. It would play a role with the emphasis on the Lancastrian French and Scottish support in 1461 and on the fact that Margaret of Anjou was ‘French-born’ and ‘daughter [sic] to the enemy’ in 1471; likewise, Henry Tudor’s French support was used as an attempt to undermine his sympathisers in 1484–85. The defamation of the enemy would also be based on other popular themes such as the ‘evil council’, avarice, and, once again, the decay of the ‘politique weal’—ideas used by Richard III against the Woodvilles in 1483, just as they were used in the 1450s and 1460s. Although it is taken for granted that both Edward and Richard drew on the themes of their father’s campaigns against the Lancastrian government, they did it because it had proved to be a successful strategy of dialogue with the commons.  

— Wesley Corrêa, “Political Dialogue, Exchange, and Propaganda: Or, How Yorkist and Early Tudor Governments Managed Public Opinion, c. 1461–1537″; Loyalty to the Monarchy in Late Medieval and Early Modern Britain, c.1400–1688 (2020)

#they were very clever! #and it is stunning how much of that stuck around #across the centuries #edward iv #r*chard iii #historian: wesley correa #loyalty to monarchy in late medieval and early modern britain #propaganda tag

[feuillesmortes]

Why has the Ricardian movement grown like it has? I do know there are some decent Ricardians who understand R3 wasn't a saint any more or any less than H7. But why have so many of them come to hate H7's guts and see R3 as a saint? I have heard some say it's rooted in xenophobia since the movement started in the Victorian era when anglo-centrism and identity started trending. So people started hating H7 for his Welsh and French heritage. Any truth to this?

Hello, anon! I do think there is a truth to it since the Victorians were well famous for singling out some historical figures for special appreciation during their time. I’ll get back to this point in a moment, but suffice to say, I do think that Henry VII’s treatment over the years has everything to do with the fact that he was Welsh. More under the cut!

Going all the way back in history, it seems that the first actual person to want to rehabilitate Richard III and change his popular perception was Sir George Buck (1560-1622). In his The History of the Life and Reigne of Richard III (started in 1619, printed in 1649) he used the heading ‘King Richard not deformed’. Ironically, partially because of this claim the Richard III Society had always called it a fabrication born out of Tudor propaganda, disputing Richard’s crookbacked appearance until, you know, his bones were found and indeed there was no way of denying that the man suffered from severe scoliosis. 

Let’s go back to George Buck, a Cambridge-educated lawyer who ended his days by going insane, overwhelmed by debts. In 1588 he was appointed esquire of the body and on the occasion of James I’s accession, he became a gentleman of the privy chamber and was knighted. In 1603 he was appointed Master of the Revels and became responsible for censoring plays, including a number of Shakespeare’s plays. It’s not surprising that he may have wanted to undermine what he saw as Tudor propaganda when he was literally working for the Stuarts, a new dynasty that needed yet to build a name for itself. It’s a clear mark of transition of power when political parties succeed one another, and it’s something that also happened when Henry VIII succeeded his father, for example, when contemporary poets painted his new reign as the coming of spring and his father’s as a wintery, bare land (something that Thomas Penn ate right up).

Buck may have died before publishing his history of Richard III, but his great-nephew took up his work and published it in 1646. It may seem ludicrous, but the Buck family had a special fondness for the Yorkist cause, and their wish to sanctify Richard III/demonise Henry VII makes all the more sense when you know that Buck’s great-grandfather, Sir John Buck of Harthill, fought and died for Richard III at Bosworth. The family insisted that their ancestor was executed after the battle along with Catesby (when the latter tried to flee), though there are no contemporary accounts of the fact and most likely Sir John Buck simply died in the field.

In his history of Richard III, Buck discovered a copy of the Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius, in the Croyland Chronicle and he also claimed to have discovered a letter to John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, written by Elizabeth of York. Yes, anon, it is exactly the letter that you are thinking about. The infamous letter in which Elizabeth of York seemingly declares her love for her uncle and her hopes of becoming his queen. Buck wrote that the letter asks Norfolk ‘to be a mediator for her to the King, in behalf of the marriage propounded between them’, and that Elizabeth was ‘withall insinuating that the better part of February was past, and that she feared the Queen would never die’. Suffice to say, the original letter (if it really existed at all) is now lost. Can we please discard this romance story as a fabrication already?

If the new Stuart dynasty benefitted from the blackening of the previous dynasty, something similar happened during the establishment of the German Hanover dynasty on the English Throne. At the time, a certain Bishop William Stubbs became acknowledged as the head of all English historical scholars. He wrote his The Constitutional History of England in 1866, which ended up revolutionising the teaching of British history. It covered a period going from the time of the Romans up to, tellingly, 1485. Stubbs wrote the following piece, which Breverton emphatically calls pre-Hitlerian dogma. Stubbs says that the Welsh (i.e. the original British people) were a:

Do you noticed the rabid anti-Welsh rethoric? It makes sense that Stubbs chose to end his book in 1485. Henry VII was only a 1/4 Welsh and 1/2 English.

Brian Davies, a British philosopher, has commented that the understanding of British history is still subject to the prejudices of 19th-century ‘Saxon nationalism’. Even the Christian civilisation in Britain was presented as an achievement of the English when clearly the Christian British had existed well before they were forced to retreat westward into Wales, the West Country and Cumbria by the pagan Anglo-Saxons. Indeed, the Welsh ‘Age of Saints’ predates the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Davies says:

It is unfortunate that present day mediaevalists do not normally study nineteenth-century history. If they did they would realise that the basic framework of interpretation of early British history which they still innocently use is not the product of calm, objective collection and assessment of data. It is a politically motivated construct; a falsification of history for the purposes of English nationalism … We need to write post-Imperialist history free of this Victorian master race theory.

Breverton, in turn, wrote:

In Britain today our history glorifies Germanic and then Franco-Danish invaders at the expense of the native British people. As regards the Tudor dynasty, it was disparaged by those who have a preference for the previous Plantagenets and those who favour the succeeding Stuarts, and all of British history has been affected by pro-Germanic Hanoverian propaganda.

I could say a lot about how ironic this anti-Henry VII sentiment is when he was probably the monarch who worked hardest for the establishment of England’s national state, applying reforms that have been well underway in France since the 1300s. Not only did he set England in the international stage as a powerful trade partner, setting treaties with the Lower Countries, Spain, the Baltic states and France and joining the Holy League of Venice, prioritising the interest of English merchants (e.g., the alum affair), Henry VII’s reign saw the establishment of a standard English language nationwide. 

Henry VII encouraged the printing press in England, being a patron of Caxton and then of his apprentice, Wynkyn de Worde and many others who started working around that time. Henry established a royal library that led to the founding of a school of Flemish illuminators at court and was the patron of several painters. Henry encouraged the building of ships and dockyards, introducing in his first year as king a Navigation act that demanded that all imported goods had to to be carried on English-owned ships, manned by English and Welsh crews. Richard III had left behind a impoverished treasury which Henry VII cleverly and minutiously sought to enrich during his reign.

I could say this and much more, but this ask is already freakishly long, isn’t it? I hope I answered your question! 🌹x

#tumblr messed up this post.. wah #henry vii #r*chard iii #ricardians for ts #anon

[isangboses-luma]

The Comment Thread for the previous post

Nash Tysmans Tight tight hugs for you and your family. 1

Yami Pagaran-Dy Condolence Rem1

Jaime Yabut Hernandez Jr Amen. They, too, will be waiting in anticipation of that great day of the Lord. 

ActiveR E de Leon*Hugs Kuya Jaims

Ecca BiMy condolences, Sir.1

Jean MigrasoThank you for sharing Rem..our hearts goes with you and your whole family.1

Lynette Carpio-SerranoHugs from us, Rem.1

Kathrina Lara NavalCondolences to you Sir and to your family 1

Jabez FloresAmen! Thank you for your life, Ninong Lani! 2

Vincent SilardePakikiramay.1

Jose D. VictoleroTrue, indeed, Rem. He had lived his life with much impact in the lives of others2

ActiveR E de LeonThanks Kuya. Miss you very much.

Elaine Quimio VillalinoCondolence1

Maggie AlmoroSending you love and prayers R E de Leon. 1

Honey de PeraltaMy condolences, Rem. Prayers for you and your family.1

Brinks AloCondolences and prayers 1

Cleofe TorresWe praise God for your father's faithful walk with Christ. Condolence,Remi.We wont forget his warm accommodation of us when we visited and slept in your home years ago in La Union.1

Emy GinonLast night Ninong Omar and me, watched Jesus's story based on the gospel of John.So familiar with that gospel, but I better appreciated when the role of Jesus and each artist give life to God's words.Yes, It is finished! Jesus died in obedience to th… See More1

Luz GhernandezAmen... God used your Dad and made an impact in the lives of many...All glory to Him.... They raised you well n your siblings too..2

Erica Gonzales(more hugs)1

ActiveR E de LeonThanks for always being around Doc EK1

Edmund CentenoCondolences, Rem.1

Kitchen KatNakikiramay ako, Rem...1

James Bryner ChuThis is a beautiful hope-filled tribute, Rem. Thank you for sharing. I look forward to meeting your dad in the Morning. May Christ our Lord comfort you and your family through this time of sadness and longing.1

Myrna FloresAMEN AMEN!1

Jaime Manalo IVThis is beautiful. Thanks for sharing this, Sir Rem.

Jonathan Nambu sending our love, prayers, and virtual hugs to you, R E de Leon and the whole family, from me and Thelma Galvez Nambu1

Mark Vincent Nuñez Nakikiramay ako.

Che Medrano Mahigpit na yakap, Sir Rem.1

Eula Garzon Thank you for sharing this. Praying for the family, Rem.1

Eric Ramos Amen Rems. We will miss Sanko Lani very much 1

Adrian Arcega Nakikiramay, Rem.1

Natasha Bondoc Condolences, Sir Rem 1

Chris Linag Pakikiramay sa inyong pamilya, Rem.1

Indirah Dee MacIver Nakikiramay po, Sir Rem.1

Marianne Sopena Condolence Sir. Prayers for his soul1

Gen Viva Prayers, sir Rem. 1

Rainier Cantre My condolences Sir Rem.1

Eustace Karlo Escalante Condolence kuya rem1

Marian Vielle Patience Condolence po, Sir. 1

Ailyn Zabala Cuesta Condolences to the bereaved family.1

Eufemio Agbayani III Nakikiramay po. The Lord be with you always as He has been with your dad1

ActiveR E de LeonThe last church he spoke regularly in was UCCP Tubao, La Union. He taught the sunday school classes before the service.2

Henry VillanuevaAmen. Well done good and faithful servant Ninong Lani. We love you so much.1

Gerard IanCondolence sir1

Celia Dela VinaA touching lovely tribute to your dad, the kuya Lani of the Navs...hugssss to you Rem, your mom and the whole.fam 1

Aleks TanCondolences, Rem The Lord comfort you and your family.1

Geralyn Rigor-HagströmCondolences Sir Rem1

Michi Arcangel-NombradoCondolences, Sir Rem.1

Danny MedinaTwo thumbs up to Kuya Lani.1

Bea DoloresNakikiramay po..1

Danny MedinaHi Rem musta ka na bro. God bless you and accept or sympathy. Condolences to your family1

Jannette PinzonAmen, Rem! Praise God for this Truth! Looking forward to that Grand Reunion in God's unfailing love, grace and faithfulness. Our prayers are with you-- may God's comfort embrace you in this time of grief. 1

Socorro CruzAmen!1

ActiveR E de LeonTe Elsa ingat kayo diyan palagi. Praying.

Danny MedinaHi Rem I miss those days a ACLC long time ago sa LA union noong teeners PA lang kayo Nina Joshua Lee De Leon. Hahaha those were the days.1

Marjan Nur Salonga SalandananNakikiramay sa inyo, Rem!2

Joy Cañas RebulananPraise God for His faithfulness in your father's life, Sir Rem. May God's comfort and peace be with your family at this time.1

Matell LiamsonMy condolences, R E de Leon.1

Gloria SaguitAmen!!!1

Beejay BautistaCondolences to your family1

Fjel MarananWhat a beautiful tribute. Hugs and prayers, best.1

Pamela RodelasMy Condences po..1

Jena Victoria Baril-PiñonCondolences. 1

Krista GarciaCondolences Rem1

Roma Villareal-SantiagoCondolence Rem. *hugs*1

Chinky Lagon MoraldeCondolence, Kuya Rem.1

Geremie M. NobleGlory to God for your father’s life sir R E! Eyes on eternity!1

Mel Mahigpit na yakap, Remi.1

Heidi Colom I am so sorry for your loss. RIP.1

Roo Estrellanes Virtual hugs bro to you and fam.1

Roselle Lijauco-Ibuna Our prayers and condolences1

Arman Capili My condolences to you and your family, Sir Rem R E de Leon...1

Florence Ann De Castro Condolences po... Praying with you.1

Tracy Ortiz Beautiful Rem.1

Yvette Geroleo Condolences Sir Rem and to your family po.

Triccie Cantero condolence to you and your family, Rem.

ActiveR E de Leon Thanks Triccie! I miss hanging out at your shop!1Triccie Cantero R E de Leon those were the days talaga.

Belen Aquino I am thankful because the life he lived is a manifestation of God's love for us. Hugs Rem, Ate Yollie, Joshua, Jonathan and Ate Lita

Belen Aquino R E de Leon miss na namin kayo lalo na si Ate Yollie virtual hugs for her Rem. Oh how we love you with the love of the Lord

Digna Mac Paner Condolences Rem....1

Joel Imbing Ortiz Hugs, Rem! Love & prayers.1

Chard De Vera Condolence and .1

Inez Ponce de Leon condolences and prayers to you and your family1

Jerome Lodevico My deepest condolences insan. Take care and God Bless.1

Irene JoWe will miss Tito Lani so much, para na rin namin siyang naging tatay. Praying for you and your family, Kuya.2

MrsHazel BrunoCondolences 1

Cherry Rose Piñon Condolences, sir.

Dearyll Gonzales Our deepest sympathies

Paolo Garces My sincerest condolences.

Lady Ga Condolence Rem

Regina Layug Rosero Oh, I'm so sorry Rem

Dennis Garcia Thank your Rem for sharing your Dads life to us.

Tatcee Dava Macabuag My condolences

Kharren Palacios Condolences, Sir Rem.

Sunshine Munar Condolence kuya rem ...

Gneel Palines Magno Condolence Bro!

Jean Francis Ayo Barcena nakikiramay, rem. praying for you and your family.

Len Cee When I hear the song "Find Us Faithful", isa si Tito Lani sa naalala ko talaga. He will be missed.1

Jenniliz I. Olarte He lived out Christ, and now will gain greatly in the arms of our Lord—the same One who will comfort and sustain you and your family. Thanks for sharing his legacy of faithfulness. To God be the glory!

Hope Trinidad Condolence Rem and the whole family...take care of Ate Yolly

Duday de Villa-Custodio Condolences, Rem. Sending hugs and prayers to you and your family...

Anna Skat Rau Amazingly said Rem.

Angela Camille Azaña Labiano Prayers and condolences Sir Rem

MindyMax Gironella Padura My sincerest condolences.. Sending prayer Sir Rem1

Ma. Ciejay J. Calara Condolences Rem1

Mila Chu Moving remembering of your Dad. Thanks Rem for sharing. Our prayers are with you and Yolly and the entire family.1

Lanie Suguitan 1

Jaykee Jaykes Our sincerest sympathy to the whole family, Remi...Jk&deo1

Sheena Lozada Balite Condolences po Sir Rem! 1

Ning Matulac Seven last words as gleaned from your dear departed father’s life. My condolences Remi and family, yes he will be with those risen from the dead to be with the Risen Lord.1

Rico Pamplona Condolence & prayers for you, Rem & the whole family. I’ll surely miss your Dad.

Andie Cosio condolence Sir Rem...

Rowie Quincena Jucal Our condolences Rem and to your family... surely we will miss Sanko Lani

Mariel Kierulf Asiddao Condolences Rem, this is a beautiful tribute to your dad

Gloria Saguit Amen!!! To God be the glory !!!

Marion Renolla Retuerne i thank God upon every rembrance of you...we love you,ate n the 3 boys(men n pala)...hugs

Norilyn Carpio With deep sympathy and sadness with you and your family Rem. Lalo na ke ate Yollie.Walang pag sidlan ng lungkot ang pag kawala ng dad mo at kuya namin. Wala ring pagsidlan ang saya na kaparte kami sa pamilya nyo.It is a great honor Rem...thank you!… See More

Casey Copengco So sorry for your loss Rem. My condolences.

Antonina Ruth Bruno What a beautiful tribute to a man of God! Praying that the Lord Jesus Will Comfort your heart and those of your family at this time. My mom went home to be with Jesus 2 years ago and I'm always reminded of the hope we have, because Easter was her favor… See More1

Joanne C. Marges Nakikiramay, Kuya Rem.

Wendy Clare Beautifully said...the resurrection means all the more when our saved loved ones go ahead of us. Praying for comfort here and a joyful reunion on the other side whenever the Lord sees fit to take you home. <><1

Tommy Matic IV My most sincere condolences Rem.

Nem CastroCondolence Sir Rem and family!

Elnora Ebillo Condoling with you and family Rem. May His peace that passes all undersranding be in your hearts.

Cecile Bacarisa Fajardo Sorry for your loss sir rem

Pearl Bambico-estrada The wound is deep, remi, your words made me cry while reading... but after reading, the wound may heal but i don't know when, because kuya lany have really touched our hearts and our lives.... we love you all...1

Chin Chin Condolence, sir.

Avie Olarte Our deepest condolence to the family .. rest in everlasting peace aurea and benny olarte and family

Milagros Racacho Baldemor Our deepest sympathy on your loss. Praying for his eternal repose.

Bett E. Ram Our condolences Remi, may he rest in peace

Mya Rosos-Tenorio Praying for the family.

Cheska Kyx Young Pakikiramay po at panalangin para sa inyo Sir at sa inyong pamilya.

Mabel Sudaprasert Sincere condolences to you and your family, Rem...

Emerita Trases It such a great blessing to be a part of your family.

Janice Dalaza Baradi condolence po.

Clerisse Payson Condolences to you and your fam, sir!

Cheska TaculodCondolences sayo Kuya Rem... God’s comfort and peace be upon you..

Sier C Menis Condolence Rem

Moki Magpantay Condolences bro

Franco Antonio Regalado My condolences.

Burt Gabot My deepest condolences, Red. I know exactly how you feel.

Gege Cruz Sugue Thank you for sharing this, Rem.

Leovic Arceta Condolences.

Alexa Lhei prayers

OLa Paula Condolence

Niña Irene Reyes Condolences Kuya Rem and fam

Ronito Regacho Ting Condolence Rem...RIP po Tito

Michael Lim Thank you, Rem. May it be that in death as in life, he may usher people into God’s kingdom.Til we meet again!

Grace Marie B Gonzales Condolences and prayers

Fely Medina Gonzalgo Condolence rem we are one with you in your loss.

Romualdo Picar De Ocampo Condolence Rem!Paul said,I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. (2 Timothy 4:7)

Bernadette Ruth Milagros Orencia-biasbas Condolence Rem...

Mildred Moscoso My heart goes out to you and your family, Rem. May the Lord send you His comfort during these times.

Elsie Coloma We Will Miss u Brother/Compadre

Jean Tumanon Condolence Rem and to the whole family. Praying for God’s comfort.

Maria Celeste Habito Cadiz A life well lived and given. Prayers for his eternal rest and comfort for his loved ones left behind.

Joanna Victolero Blessed by this post po, kuya Rem. Condolence po to the family. Praying for everyone po

Sharon Corpuz Aytona Condolence Rem..

Kate Palma de Jesus Prayers for his eternal rest..

Kristopher Dela Cruz Condolences bro and fam.

Romeo Hernandez Nakikiramay ako sa inyong pamilya Rem salamat sa magandang naiwang alala ng inyong Tatay sa pamilya nyo at sa maraming tao na natulungan nia isa na ang pamilya namin. Sobrang na blessed kami sa buhay ni Lani at ni yoly n sa inyong magkakapatid. Ang huling talk namin ni Lani ng irequest nia na paano simulan ng formal na program ang grupo sa cubao bilang isang church. At nagawa naman nia i hope magpatuloy ang grupo at isang magandang alala sa ating lahat ang kaniyang ginawa. Salamat Rem sa naipost mo nkaka touch naman again tanggapin nyo ang aming taos pusong pakikiramay sa inyong pamilya.

Drew Santos Condolences Rem and to your family.

Julie Holmes Reeves So sorry for your loss!! Glad he knew Jesus!! Hugs your way!!

[saintorr]

“Gentrification Genocide” Three scenes (as to be published in R. Roth’s “And Then” 2018)

I.  Having survived AIDS, a gay-bashing, 9-11, Sandy and an endless stream of trickster, horny-queens posing as no-show clients, I reflect; will this latest wave of too-close-for-comfort gentrification be my own, personal, genocidal Swan Song? Tonight, while riding my bike like a crazed, clowning pterodactyl, I found myself breathily imitating the sound of a very feminized bicycle bell. “Ding-ding” one moment, and the next, screaming like a crazed banshee at a female pedestrian dressed in black as she is mindlessly stepping directly into my on-coming path. My crazed battle-cry makes her stop bunglingly in her tracks; her oral addiction to her mobile device unforgivingly interrupted. Indignantly, she screams “Oh my God!” in a belting, bleating voice tinged with a Valley-girl accent. This happens just off 7th Street and First Avenue. I pedal on gleefully, half ashamed for my acting out, and half empowered and self-congratulatory for my anarchistic, bad-boy tendencies. I’m hoping and praying that maybe, said jay-walker is one of the new billionaire zombies inhabiting the crystal cardboard and colorless tag-team duo of buildings that went on the market last fall. They are located on Avenue A between 6th and 7th Streets; or perhaps she's a new resident of the renovated and reconverted Shul just four doors west of my man cave. Oh, you know, that confusing condo-synagogue; that half place-of-worship, half billionaire-broken-hearted-haunt of the ghost of the big Rabbi; the one survived by his swarmy, conniving, snake-eyed son, also named Sandy.

 II. In the morning, do not fear, I tell myself, for those monstrous explosions are merely the renovation of the deceased artist De Maria’s former studio. Semi-formerly a Con-Ed substation, the building is currently being magically and noisily transformed into a private museum for one Mr. Brant, the new billionaire owner. Ordinary neighborhood citizens will not be allowed access to the beatific garden growing between 421 East 6th Street, and cutting straight through to East 7th, like a slender, cold, fish knife slicing through a newborn babe’s beating heart, nor will they be allowed into the private storage space where priceless, modern (and most-likely insipid) works of art will be hidden away. Here will be housed Brant’s sacred treasures of the inner sanctum; here in this great, tall, glass-walled chapel of a structure, art will dwell. Rich man’s art, available only for private viewing to the coterie of fellow billionaires, stars and their kingly cronies. Cannibalize yourselves, you lowly 99%, suffer the noise! Let the new money frighten away the former spirit guides and the friendly semi-wild gypsy cats that once played, sang and danced along and in between these semi-lit row houses of tenements, filled with the ghosts of beer and dreams and young strains of fading songwriters’ guitars and falling-in-love-with-the-moonbeam-dreams and rainy-days-and-Sundays of East Village hungry-hearts and shadow leather lovers. Monsieur Brant wanted a location and tax-write off that was “creative”, so here we are! Oh you poor 99%, you starving nothings, yes, you may die of noise, entitlement and achingly tight ass-holeism when the chic parties start and the drones and the helicopters and the limousines start arriving with darling, parasitic models and the zombie-hungry, spoiled-cool, hipster billionaires and their cold, cold parents but oh! Just look how your property values are increasing!

 With every chiseled BOOM BOOM of chards detaching and jagged, dusty, broken bricks flinging, the work crew of flying monkeys is tossing all, all into the the BOOMING maw of the dumpster from hell (it must be half a block wide). Then comes the skeletal, fire-cracking, whacking-snapping chorus of never-ending jackhammers (often five at once), for this is a war of money over time, fought, won and played out by short, trollish billionaires with crooked smiles and hawk-like noses. For WE THE PEOPLE are obsolete and irrelevant; WE THE PEOPLE are little better than charming old engines, White slave labor, memories of America’s fragmented, shrunken middle class; now addicted to crack, Walmart, Nikes and digitized Disney dreams of “Searching for Dory”. WE THE PEOPLE are better forgotten, better disposed of, better buried by the Trumps, so the young, rich litters of billionaire spawn can play here anew, can fling themselves into their endless selfie-cesspools of Chai lattes, tropical banana and protein powder smoothies, funny French black bulldogs named Lucy and lovely, decadent, divinely narcissistic empty and burning consumeristic dreams of pretension and nothingness. In short, WE THE PEOPLE are poor, inconsequential, invisible and don’t matter.

 III.  As a matter of fact, Medicaid was specifically created to hasten us to an early grave. Those of us that weren’t exterminated by the first or second waves of gentrification genocide will surely spill into the trenches or be forced to emigrate now with this new third and greatest wave. Someone once said “We don’t know how good we have it.” “We don’t’ know how good we have it” I repeat as I am having a nervous breakdown trying to make an appointment, trying to get a referral from my (formerly organized, now Trans-dystopian) community healthcare clinic where only Trans people now matter; for, besides the billionaires, they are also the new co-masters-of-the-race, everyone else is irrelevant. I’m trying to make an appointment, for this back pain’s made every other step excruciating for three months now, all through the holidays (the wine helped, sometimes the sex). “No, Goddammit I don’t NEED ESTROGEN! FUCK YOUR ESTROGEN AND YOUR PHONE MENU AND YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO CALL 9-1-1 IF THIS IS A MEDICAL EMERGENCY!” One of the patient associates who handles referrals, Martino, a vicious, little queen with bitchy glee is quoting too-fast and meaningless policies at me like cream pies. The next confusing day (nervous breakdown number two due to my inane, continuing efforts to make an appointment hoping for an end to my seemingly endless saga of back pain) I am connected with a manager named Stephanie. Is cisgen, transgen genderqueer, genderfluid, or something else? Dare I ask and be reported for inappropriate behavior? Stephanie pulls no punches and begins to attack and berate me for my wholly unfriendly, hostile, and homophobic language, for I made the mistake of referring to the "vicious queen? of yesterday’s quoting policies-to-me-episode.  “This is Callen Lorde” she proclaims, like a punitive, fixed, female, pit-bull cop, “You should know better!” Her raw, neuter, Bougie-Bitch delivery strips me bare, exposing me for all the bisexual silliness and tendencies toward anarchistic prostitution and polymorphously, pleasure-seeking perversity that I am; that I inhabit and display, for this is the magical stuff that makes me me. Imagine her, lambasting my essence! I have an allergy to anyone that coldly ignores and debases men only for being men. Why do some females act like raging amazon warriors slicing through the air, waving their clitorises like sharpened bayonets; so ready with a threat or an admonishment over any microscopic drop of incorrect language or innuendo that happens to ejaculate, albeit casually, from any MAN’S mouth merely for the sake of jest? For we all know men are not innocent; especially older white ones who protest the the stinging swipe of the feminist’s cattle prod. Still, I refuse to go gently into that “older-white-male-former-slaveowner’s-guilty-place night”.

#steven orr writer #and then 20

[neurogenpapers]

An abnormal periventricular magnetization transfer ratio gradient occurs early in multiple sclerosis.

PubMed: Related Articles An abnormal periventricular magnetization transfer ratio gradient occurs early in multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2017 Jan 02;: Authors: Brown JW, Pardini M, Brownlee WJ, Fernando K, Samson RS, Prados Carrasco F, Ourselin S, Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Miller DH, Chard DT Abstract In established multiple sclerosis, tissue abnormality-as assessed using magnetization transfer ratio-increases close to the lateral ventricles. We aimed to determine whether or not (i) these changes are present from the earliest clinical stages of multiple sclerosis; (ii) they occur independent of white matter lesions; and (iii) they are associated with subsequent conversion to clinically definite multiple sclerosis and disability. Seventy-one subjects had MRI scanning a median of 4.6 months after a clinically isolated optic neuritis (49 females, mean age 33.5 years) and were followed up clinically 2 and 5 years later. Thirty-seven healthy controls (25 females, mean age 34.4 years) were also scanned. In normal-appearing white matter, magnetization transfer ratio gradients were measured 1-5 mm and 6-10 mm from the lateral ventricles. In control subjects, magnetization transfer ratio was highest adjacent to the ventricles and decreased with distance from them; in optic neuritis, normal-appearing white matter magnetization transfer ratio was lowest adjacent to the ventricles, increased over the first 5 mm, and then paralleled control values. The magnetization transfer ratio gradient over 1-5 mm differed significantly between the optic neuritis and control groups [+0.059 percentage units/mm (pu/mm) versus -0.033 pu/mm, P = 0.010], and was significantly steeper in those developing clinically definite multiple sclerosis within 2 years compared to those who did not (0.132 pu/mm versus 0.016 pu/mm, P = 0.020). In multivariate binary logistic regression the magnetization transfer ratio gradient was independently associated with the development of clinically definite multiple sclerosis within 2 years (magnetization transfer ratio gradient odds ratio 61.708, P = 0.023; presence of T2 lesions odds ratio 8.500, P = 0.071). At 5 years, lesional measures overtook magnetization transfer ratio gradients as significant predictors of conversion to multiple sclerosis. The magnetization transfer ratio gradient was not significantly affected by the presence of brain lesions [T2 lesions (P = 0.918), periventricular T2 lesions (P = 0.580) or gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions (P = 0.724)]. The magnetization transfer ratio gradient also correlated with Expanded Disability Status Scale score 5 years later (Spearman r = 0.313, P = 0.027). An abnormal periventricular magnetization transfer ratio gradient occurs early in multiple sclerosis, is clinically relevant, and may arise from one or more mechanisms that are at least partly independent of lesion formation. PMID: 28043954 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] http://dlvr.it/N2FcDR

[wonder-worker]

"Mancini, an Italian visitor to England, was concerned for (Edward V and Richard of Shrewsbury's) fate as early as mid July. Well before he left England in that month, the princes, he later wrote, 'were withdrawn into the inner apartments of the Tower and were seen more and more rarely behind the bars and windows, till at length they ceased to appear at all'. Rumours of the princes' deaths were already circulating by the year's end. George Cely reported that he had heard that Edward V might be dead not long after 13 June, and certainly before his uncle claimed the throne. The Crowland chronicler, writing in about 1486, recalled how the rumour arose in September 1483 that 'the princes, by some unknown manner of destruction, had met their fate'. Some early reports went further, stating quite categorically that the princes were no longer alive. Robert Ricart, recorder of Bristol, entered in his Kalendar under the year ending 15 September 1483 that 'in this year the two sons of King Edward were put to silence in the Tower of London'. Shortly after 1485 the anonymous compiler of a genealogy of English kings concluded his work by accusing Richard, with his accomplice Buckingham, of murdering the princes. A London citizen, in some historical notes written before the end of 1488, noted that 'they were put to death in the Tower of London' in the mayoral year ending November 1483. John Rous, writing in 1489, reported that Richard killed the princes within three months of welcoming Edward V at Stony Stratford on 30 April; Richard, he wrote, 'received his lord king Edward V blandly with embraces and kisses, and within three months or a little more he killed him with his brother'. Rumours to similar effect reached France. In a speech to the estates general in 1484 the chancellor of France, Guillaume de Rochefort, reminded his audience how Edward IV s sons had been murdered and the crown seized by the murderer."

-Nigel Saul, "The Three Richards: Richard I, Richard II and Richard III"

*Just to add, Casper Weinrich of Danzig's chronicle at the end of 1483 also states that, "Richard, the King's brother, has put himself in power and crowned in England and he had his brother's children killed" and then in 1485 "King Richard of England, who had had his brother Edward’s children killed, was killed about St. Lawrence Day"

#r*chard iii #there were many more reports but I didn't want this post to drag #the thing is: contemporaries and immediate post-contemporaries were unanimously confident in their assertion that Richard III #murdered his nephews. But their reports are muddled and occasionally contradictory when it comes to the details #(the exact time and month; the method; etc) #and Ricardians seize those discrepancies to discredit all of them #but these minor differences are in fact entirely understandable and to be expected. #If the Princes had been murdered it would have been done secretly and would have been deliberately hidden #Richard never acknowledged or refuted any of the rumors against him and never displayed his nephews' bodies (dead or alive) to the public #So it's only natural that contemporaries were unsure about the specific details #But it's striking that despite these differences all contemporaries were unanimously certain about one thing: #that the Princes of the Tower were murdered and Richard III was their murderer #Their minor discrepancies make their main point MORE - not less - conspicuous

[wonder-worker]

Any judgement on (Richard III)’s reign has to be seen as provisional. The critic of the reign only has to consider how the Tudors would now be regarded if Henry VII lost at Stoke, to realize the dangers of too many assumptions about the intractability of Richard’s problems. But it would be equally unrealistic to ignore Richard’s unpopularity altogether. The fact that he generated opposition among men with little material reason for dissent, and that the disaffection then continued to spread among his own associates, says something about what contemporaries regarded as the acceptable parameters of political behaviour. There is no doubt that Richard’s deposition of his nephews was profoundly shocking. To anyone who did not accept the pre-contract story, which was probably the majority of observers, the usurpation was an act of disloyalty. Gloucester, both as uncle and protector, was bound to uphold his nephew’s interests and his failure to do so was dishonourable. Of all medieval depositions, it was the only one which, with whatever justification, could most easily be seen as an act of naked self-aggrandizement.

It was also the first pre-emptive deposition in English history. This raised enormous problems. Deposition was always a last resort, even when it could be justified by the manifest failings of a corrupt or ineffective regime. How could one sanction its use as a first resort, to remove a king who had not only not done anything wrong but had not yet done anything at all?

-Rosemary Horrox, "Richard III: A Study of Service"

#r*chard iii #my post #english history #Imo this is what really stands out to me the most about Richard's usurpation #By all accounts and precedents he really shouldn't have had a problem establishing himself as King #He was the de-facto King from the beginning (the king he usurped was done away with and in any case hadn't even ruled); #He was already well-known and respected in the Yorkist establishment (ie: he wasn't an 'outsider' or 'rival' or from another family branch) #and there was no question of 'ins VS outs' in the beginning of his reign because he initially offered to preserve the offices and positions #for almost all his brother's servants and councilors - merely with himself as their King instead #Richard himself doesn't seem to have actually expected any opposition to his rule and he was probably right in this expectation #Generally speaking the nobility and gentry were prepared to accept the de-facto king out of pragmatism and stability if nothing else #You see it pretty clearly in Henry VII's reign and Edward IV's reign (especially his second reign once the king he usurped was finally #done away with and he finally became the de-facto king in his own right) #I'm sure there were people who disliked both Edward and Henry for usurpations but that hardly matters - #their acceptance was pragmatic not personal #That's what makes the level of opposition to Richard so striking and startling #It came from the very people who should have by all accounts accepted his rule however resigned or hateful that acceptance was #But they instead turned decisively against him and were so opposed to his rule that they were prepared to support an exiled and obscure* #Lancastrian claimant who could offer them no manifest advantage rather than give up opposition when they believed the Princes were dead #It's like Horrox says - #The real question isn't why Richard lost at Bosworth; its why Richard had to face an army at all - an army that was *Yorkist* in motivation #He divided his own dynasty and that is THE defining aspect of his usurpation and his reign. Discussions on him are worthless without it #It really puts a question on what would have happened had he won Bosworth. I think he had a decent chance of success but at the same time #Pretenders would've turned up and they would have been far more dangerous with far more internal support than they had been for Henry #Again - this is what makes his usurpation so fascinating to me. I genuinely do find him interesting as a historical figure in some ways #But his fans instead fixate on a fictional version of him they've constructed in their heads instead #(*obscure from a practical perspective not a dynastic one) #queue

[wonder-worker]

"Although (Richard III) himself seems to have not been aware of this until it was too late, it was the duke himself who destroyed his brother (Edward IV)'s polity in the name of preserving it."

-Rosemary Horrox, "Richard III: A Study of Service"

#It's one of the things I find most interesting about his reign #But it's rare to find concrete discussions on it because Ricardians simply refuse to acknowledge the actual reality of 1483-85 #They live in their fantasy fictional AU instead #r*chard iii #15th century #english history #my post #queue

[wonder-worker]

It is of course possible that Richard (III) only advanced his own claim to the throne after he was informed by a deeply troubled Bishop Stillington that Edward V and his brother were illegitimate. It is possible, but highly implausible. The case finally put together concerning the bastardy of the princes, and enrolled in a parliamentary statute of January 1484, is theologically sound. It was that Edward IV had entered a pre-contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler before he had married Elizabeth Woodville and that this rendered his children by her illegitimate. Under canon law, had Edward IV entered a pre-contract of marriage with Eleanor Butler, all the children born of a later union, before or after Eleanor’s death, even if Elizabeth Woodville had been ignorant of the previous liaison, would have been illegitimate. In this respect the fact that Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville had married clandestinely made matters worse. Moreover, it was perfectly acceptable in law to raise objection on these grounds several years after the event. The pre-contract story, in its final form, presented a strong legal case.

There are, however, several sound reasons for doubting its truth. While it is the case that parliament was a proper body to adjudicate on matters of inheritance that resulted from illegitimacy, in England in the later-fifteenth century an ecclesiastical court should have heard the original charge. And if it were true, why was it not put before such a court so as to remove all doubts? Moreover, even if it had been proved that Edward V and his brother were illegitimate, deposition was not the only course open to the protector. The stain of illegitimacy could have been removed by the ritual of coronation. Edward V, like Elizabeth I later, could have been declared legitimate and all doubts removed. Above all, the revelation of the princes’ bastardy was so timely and convenient as to leave little doubt in the minds of contemporaries that it was but the colour for an act of usurpation.

There is, too, a suspicious degree of confusion over the precise detail of the charge of illegitimacy as it was first advanced in June. Mancini’s account of the sermons and speeches hints at a change in the story. At first the charge appeared to be that Edward IV himself was a bastard; two days later it seems that the princes were. The first official government statement appears in a letter dated 28 June to the captain of Calais informing him that his oath of loyalty to Edward V was no longer valid. Many people, he was assured, had made similar oaths in ignorance of Richard III’s true title which had been shown and declared in a petition presented by the lords spiritual and temporal and the commons on 26 June, a copy of which was to be sent to Calais for publication. Unfortunately that copy has not survived. The earliest surviving version is, therefore, that transcribed as part of the parliamentary act settling the throne on Richard. This purports to reproduce that petition verbatim, but doubts have been cast on its veracity. It is possible that the final, official version, had been subsequently amended. Even so, there is no reason to doubt that the substance of the original petition of 26 June was the same as that reproduced in January: namely that ‘all the issue of the said King Edward been bastards’

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Richard III usurped the throne in June 1483. Perhaps in retrospect what happened appears more controlled and more deliberate than was in fact the case. We tend to favour a conspiratorial view of the past, where often a ‘cock-up’ theory might be more applicable. Did Richard III mastermind a brilliantly conceived and skilfully executed coup d’état? Or did it all happen in confusion, ignorance and fear? Richard might well have had a plan to take the throne by one means, but found that he had to change it as events developed.

... We should not assume that the usurpation was conducted according to a timetable; but there are nevertheless several observations that can be made with some certainty. The first is that Richard took and never surrendered the initiative. It is hard to sustain the idea that he was forced into usurpation by circumstances or by his rivals’ actions. He did not need to seize Rivers and his companions at Stony Stratford; he did not need to execute Hastings on 13 June. On both these occasions experienced politicians walked unsuspectingly into a trap. None of Richard’s victims in the summer of 1483 anticipated the fate awaiting them. In modern jargon, Richard was proactive, not reactive. The second observation is that Richard acted with unprecedented ruthlessness. His enemies were executed without trial. They were not in arms against their sovereign; they were not taken after battle and slain even under the colour of the law of arms. There was no pretence of lawful process. They were murdered in cold blood. The third observation is that Richard faced little opposition. Potential opposition was removed by pre-emptive strikes. The fourth observation is that he deposed a boy of twelve, his nephew, who on his own insistence had been placed in his trust.

The magnitude of what (Richard III) did should not be played down. Edward V was not of an age to have caused personal political offence. He could not be accused of tyranny, like Richard II, or gross incompetence, like Henry VI. He had begun to reign, but he had not yet ruled. The usurpation of 1483 was of a fundamentally different order to those of 1399, 1461, or even 1485. Those, whether justifiable or not, were acts of the last resort. In 1483, uniquely, deposition was used as a weapon of first resort.

-A.J Pollard, "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower"

#SAY IT LOUDER 👏🏻 #it's definitely ridiculous when people act as though Richard's actions in 1483 were typical of its time or 'just another usurpation' #absolutely not #it was unprecedentedly ruthless unpredictable and unnecessary #people did not go around casually imprisoning bastardizing and murdering their own pre-teen nephews #r*chard iii #edward v #princes in the tower #15th century #english history #the wars of the roses #queue #my post

[wonder-worker]

“(Richard III)’s usurpation in 1483, and his removal by Henry Tudor two years after that, had very little to do with the conflicts that had come to a conclusion after Barnet, Tewkesbury, and the deaths of Henry VI and his heir twelve years before. Again, Shakespeare must bear most of the burden for the telescoping of these events in our minds, so that Edward IV’s reign is reduced to a pause for breath in the epic bout between two warring houses. Richard’s rise was the result of a palace coup rather than a rebellion, but rebellions were the almost immediate consequence, stemming directly from Richard’s own actions, not from more long-term ‘unfinished business’.

- David Horspool, “The English Rebel”

#r*chard iii #edward iv #henry vii #(kinda not really? he was the focal point of rebellions against richard by the end of 1483 so i'm tagging him) #15th century #english history #my post

[wonder-worker]

"On 31 July, as troops assembled, William Caxton brought out an edition of the late Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte d’Arthur. The story of King Arthur and his knights of the round table was a perennial favourite – Caxton had, he said, been prompted to publish by ‘many noble and diverse gentlemen’ – and Malory’s version was an obvious choice. Malory had fought in Edward IV’s wars against the Lancastrians and had completed his book in prison during the tumultuous late 1460s. All human life was here, Caxton explained in his prologue: ‘herein may be seen noble chivalry, courtesy, humanity, friendliness, hardiness, love, friendship, cowardice, murder, hate, virtue, and sin.’ The printed book included a number of alterations to Malory’s manuscript. In one episode, a sleeping King Arthur dreams of a mortal fight between a ravening bear, ‘a tyrant that torments your people’, and a dragon, which kills it. In Caxton’s edition, someone changed the bear to a boar. The allusion was unmistakeable: the boar was Richard. And the dragon? Back in 1461 Edward IV had claimed that beast, portraying himself as heir to the mythical British king Cadwaladr – ‘rubius draco’ – who would unite England, Wales and Scotland and whose heirs would reign to the end of the world. But now, in the summer of 1485, ‘rougedragon’ denoted somebody different: the man who, in the absence of Edward’s children, loyalists to the late king now saw as the heir to his cause – Henry Tudor."

-Thomas Penn, "The Brothers York: An English Tragedy"

#I spent money on this stupid book I may as well post from it #william caxton #edward iv #henry vii #r*chard iii #(that's my tag for him ig) #the wars of the roses #15th century #english history #my post #queue

[wonder-worker]

"In reality Richard III invented a Woodville scare as a screen for his own conspiracy"

-A.J Pollard, "Richard III and the Princes in the Tower"

#lmao #r*chard iii #my post #I think that's true for all usurpations and coups to an extent #but its 10x more applicable and accurate for Richard III #Not only because of the compressed length of time (a mere 3 months as opposed to years of back-and-forth tensions) #but also because ultimately one of the key reasons Richard could do what he did was because he did it from the heart of the political #institution (ie he was an internal threat rather than an external one) #and he was someone who was trusted and loved rather than mistrusted and hated. His betrayal was political but it also had far more personal #ramifications for everyone involved - most people simply did not expect it from him and cooperated with him precisely because of that #which enabled him to seize power before most people even realized what he was doing #And there's the fact that he actually did stage a conspiracy by accusing the Woodvilles of plotting to attack and ambush him #and produced weapons from his own war in Scotland as fake 'proof' - when in fact we know that HE deceived and ambushed THEM #there's also the (propagandic) lie that they usurped him from the position as Lord Protector when they certainly didn't #either Edward IV didn't appoint Richard Lord Protector meaning the Woodvilles denied him nothing #OR the council collectively chose to have a council rule during Edward V's minority rather than a Protector (something they were entirely #within their rights to do both socially and legally) #so claims that they wrongly defied Edward IV's last wishes or broke the law (which Mancini repeats in his account) must be seen as exactly #that - propagandic lies to vilify EW and her family #when in fact Richard was the one plotting a seizure of power - whether it was as Lord Protector or as King #(of course these are just two things - there's a whole laundry list of others) #so this is definitely applicable to him

[wonder-worker]

"Because Richard (III) usurped the throne, his retinue is inevitably seen as inimical to the crown and therefore in an important sense independent of royal authority. In the context of Edward IV's reign, in which the retinue was created, neither assumption is true. The development of the retinue would have been impossible without royal backing and reflected, rather than negated, the king's authority. Within the north itself, Gloucester's connection subsumed that of the crown. Elsewhere, in East Anglia and in Wales, that focus for royal servants was provided by others, but Gloucester was still part of that royal connection, not remote from it. In the rest of England, as constable and admiral, he had contributed to the enforcement of royal authority. When he seized power in 1483 he did not do it from outside the prevailing political structure but from its heart."

-Rosemary Horrox, "Richard III: A Study of Service"

#r*chard iii #english history #my post #Richard was certainly very powerful in the north but to claim that he 'practically ruled' or was king in all but name is very misleading #his power/success/popularity were not detached from Edward IV's rule but a fundamental part/reflection/extension of Edward IV's rule #even more so that anyone else because he was Edward's own brother #there's also the 1475 clause to consider: Richard & Anne would hold their titles jointly and in descent only as long as George Neville #also had heirs. Otherwise Richard's title would revert to life interest. His power was certainly exceptional but his position wasn't as #absolute or indefinite as is often assumed. It WAS fundamentally tied to his brother's favor just like everyone else #and Richard was evidently aware of that (you could even argue that his actions in 1483 reflected his insecurity in that regard) #once again: when discussing Edward IV's reign & Richard III's subsequent usurpation it's really important to not fall prey to hindsight #for example: A.J Pollard's assumption that Edward IV had no choice but to helplessly give into his overbearing brothers' demands #and had to use all his strength to make Richard to heed to his command which fell apart after he died and Richard was unleashed #(which subsequently forms the basis of Pollard's criticism of Edward IV's reign & character along with his misinterpretation of the actions #of Edward IV's council & its main players after his death who were nowhere near as divided or hostile as Pollard assumes) #is laughably inaccurate. Edward IV was certainly indulgent and was more passive/encouraging where Richard (solely Richard) was concerned #but he was by no means unaware or insert. His backing was necessary to build up Richard's power and he was clearly involved & invested #evidenced by how he systematically depowered George of Clarence (which Clarence explicitly recognized) and empowered Richard #and in any case: to use Richard as an example to generalize assumptions of the power other magnates held during Edward IV's reign #- and to judge Edward's reign with that specific assumption in mind - is extremely misleading and objectively inaccurate #Richard's power was singular and exceptional and undoubtedly tied to the fact that he was Edward's own brother. It wasn't commonplace. #as Horrox says: apart from Richard the power enjoyed by noble associates under Edward IV was fairly analogous to the power enjoyed by #noble associates under Henry VII. and absolutely nobody claims that HE over-powered or was ruled by his nobles or subjects #the idea that Richard's usurpation was 'inevitable' and the direct result of Edward empowering him is laughable #contemporaries unanimously expected Edward V's peaceful succession. Why on earth would anyone - least of all Edward - #expect Richard to usurp his own nephew in a way that went far beyond the political norms of the time? #that was the key reason why the usurpation was possible at all #as David Horspool says: RICHARD was the 'overriding factor' of his own usurpation There's no need to minimize or outright deny his agency #as Charles Ross evidently did

[wonder-worker]

"The new treaty with Scotland showed every sign of holding [in 1475] and, that February, English messengers headed north to Edinburgh with the first instalment of Cecily’s dowry. There were, inevitably, infractions. Much to [Edward IV’s] annoyance, they came from the English side, from his brother [Richard of Gloucester] and his sidekick Northumberland. Both had been notably remiss in failing to attend cross-border meetings with their Scottish colleagues. Richard, too, had failed to keep in line the fiercely independent frontier communities of which he was now overlord, resulting in vocal Scottish complaints. There was also tension at sea, James III writing indignantly to Edward that one of his ‘own proper’ ships had been plundered by an English vessel under Richard’s command. Perhaps it was slackness on Richard’s part; that, or an unwillingness – or inability – to adjust to the new dispensation of peace with England’s habitual enemy. A visibly irritated Edward gave his brother a ticking-off, telling him that he held Richard directly responsible for the act of piracy – ‘considering that the said ship was his at the time’ – and briskly reminding him to sort himself out and act ‘according to the king’s pleasure for his honour and surety’ at all times. Richard duly fell into line. There would, Edward assured the Scottish king […] be no further ‘cause of trouble nor breach’ of the truce."

-Thomas Penn, "Brothers York: An English Tragedy"

PEAK older sibling/younger sibling energy

#r*chard iii #edward iv #english history #ig it's also interesting in the sense that it's a clear indication of what Richard felt about the treaty and Anglo-Scottish relations #as a whole #my post #queue #this was buried in my drafts im posting it to get rid of it

[wonder-worker]

Late medieval and early modern people were increasingly more creative in their reactions to official and elite discourse; hence the crown had to adjust to this new reality to show concern with dialogue. Although the surviving proclamations about wars, truces, and peace treaties do not show special appropriations, the very fact that they were widely distributed shows a willingness to engage in an interaction. In the Yorkist period they were ordered at least four times between the 1460s and 1470s, and in 1471 the truce with Scotland was alleged to be ‘for the weal’ of both realms. More successfully, the old popular title to the crown of France was frequently used to secure taxation, despite the occasional failures. In parliament, the government argued in 1474 that the problem of a great number of ‘disbanded soldiers’ after the late civil wars could only be solved by an expedition to France—which had been the key to success of past monarchs, even Henry VI who was a notable example of failure in that regard. This rhetoric ensured the initial granting of funds by parliament and became a central part of William Worcester’s Boke of Noblesse in 1475—a mirror of the commendable English past in France since Edward III. Henry VII attempted the same strategy between 1489 and 1492, with relatively limited success. Similar vocabulary was repeated in 1502, when Henry was urging his people to take action against the Turks, and in 1514–15 when peace was agreed with France. Even proclamations about the intercourse of merchandise in the 1490s made clear the shared concerns between commons, merchants, and the government. The increased resistance to war levies should not necessarily imply that the title to the crown of France became unpopular but that the dialogue also increased in that respect, and the ‘negotiation’ occasionally proved fruitful to the commons—such as in 1525. All these measures, therefore, might well have sounded quite responsive and self-explanatory as they offered news that justified the extraction of taxation, lengthy negotiations, the mustering of troops, and both failed and successful military expeditions.

The crown also echoed various public concerns about economic and social issues which were likely to cause murmuring among the people. In 1464, Edward IV decided to solve the scarcity of coins in the kingdom, stating that although seditious language was being raised, anyone who had reasons to think the measure was not ‘for the common weal but rather a loss and hurt, [should] come before him and his council and show them’. Such readiness to engage in dialogue is again evident in his skilful claims that he would ‘live upon [his] own resources’ in the parliament of 1467— an echo of the manifestoes of Jack Cade’s rebellion in 1450 and the Kentish men in 1460. In July 1483 Richard III allegedly responded to the ‘clamor, grugge, and complaints’ that people in England were raising against the difference in the value of the Irish coins—an issue which would be raised another three times in the 1490s. Another great concern was with the availability, or more importantly the scarcity, of grain. The enforcement of statutes against illegal trading of grain was particularly addressed in 1491 as being a policy aimed at the ‘common weal’ of the subjects, then similarly several times in Henry VIII’s reign. Mendicancy was treated similarly, as it was commonly believed that beggars carried the seeds of revolt, spread rumours, robbed and murdered the people, and meant the decay and ruin of the commonwealth. The enforcement of local jurisdiction, especially in suppressing extortion, was likewise propagated as part of the ‘advancement of the commonwealth’. Consequently, by responding to such popular concerns, the crown was not only echoing the voices of the people but also legitimising them.

-Wesley Corrêa, "Political Dialogue, Exchange, and Propaganda: Or, How Yorkist and Early Tudor Governments Managed Public Opinion, c. 1461–1537", "Loyalty to the Monarchy in Late Medieval and Early Modern Britain, c.1400–1688"

#english history #15th century #16th century #...i'm not sure who to tag in this? #henry vii #edward iv #henry viii #ig?? #r*chard iii #my post #medieval #queue