#edmund de la pole
Text
Blocking porn accounts like Henry Tudor blocked Yorkist pretenders to his throne
33 notes
·
View notes
Note
I know Elizabeth of York has met the person suspected of murdering the prince in the tower? It makes me curious. It is said that the Queen and her cousin Suffolk are very close, which makes me doubt whether this meeting is for her brother or cousin
Hi! There's actually no direct evidence that Elizabeth was 'very close' to Edmund de la Pole. He was often at court and they were cousins so it's likely that they saw each other and had opportunities to talk but there are no recorded gifts or office appointments from Elizabeth to him, so I wouldn't say they were particularly close like she was to his sister Anne (the abbess of Syon), for example, a cousin with whom she did indeed exchange gifts.
But to go back to your question, yes Elizabeth visited the Tower around the time Sir James Tyrell was imprisoned and interrogated there. No records from Henry's own reign say Tyrell was implicated in the death of Elizabeth's brothers — Tyrell was condemned for his participation in the conspiracy involving Edmund de la Pole — but Thomas More claimed that Tyrell, whilst imprisoned, confessed that Miles Forest and John Dighton killed the princes at his instance. This claim has been extensively doubted but new evidence recently discovered (2020) shows that More was in touch with the sons of one of the men he alleged to have carried out the murder for Tyrell, as he himself indicated in his text: 'as I haue learned of them that much knew and litle cause had to lye, wer these two noble princes [...] murthered'.
Whether Tyrell's real confession that Elizabeth heard was about the murder of her brothers or about her cousin Edmund's treasonous plans, it's interesting that almost immediately after hearing Tyrell's confession Elizabeth left the Tower and visited her aunt Elizabeth the Duchess of Suffolk at her house at Stepney (London). Tim Thornton, who recently wrote an article about it, says that 'the immediacy of this visit might suggest the importance of any revelations from Tyrell in the Tower, and Elizabeth’s desire to pass news of the princes’ fate to their aunt, the last survivor of their parents’ generation'. For the Duchess of Suffok, news of her son's treason could be equally — if not more — important so my opinion is that Elizabeth's visit is no evidence for the confession involving the murder of her brothers.
It's difficult to say though why Elizabeth would have been in any way invited to hear a confession about treasonous activities against her husband the king, when by that point there had been several and she had not been involved in any other of Henry's interrogations carried out in the Tower (Henry's willingness to take a personal role in the questioning of prisoners has been confirmed in other cases but never Elizabeth's). So we'd have to take into consideration both Elizabeth's extraordinary presence and her subsequential visit to her oldest remaining paternal relative.
Thomas More's claim about Tyrell's confession and the fact that he came in contact with the alleged assassin's sons is also very intriguing. A possibility as to why Tyrell was not publicly exposed after his confession is that it would reflect badly on Henry VII for not only allowing the princes' murderers to go unpunished for so long, but also actively favouring them/keeping their privileges intact. It's difficult to say. It's a kind of evidence that definitely does not 'prove' anything.
#elizabeth of york#edmund de la pole#james tyrell#elizabeth of york duchess of suffolk#henry vii#ask#anon#historian: tim thornton
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
Discussing the de la Pole claim (2/3): The Tudor-de la Pole cohabitation (1485-1501).
John de la Pole clearly favoured his uncle Richard III considering that he fought at Bosworth for him. The annuities and offices bestowed upon him by Richard III alone could explain his support. He was captured by Henry VII, spared, and then released with a position on the Royal Council. A few months later, he would exile himself to the Continent, plot with his aunt Margaret of York and various discontents to... enthrone Lambert SImmel, claiming he was Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. This move often puzzled historians (and led to bad takes). Why didn't John de la Pole push his claim and favour an obvious fake?
We cannot know for sure, but part of the answer might be that Richard III did not name John his heir. Hence, John de la Pole would have more difficulties making good his blood claim to the throne. It also explains why Henry VII decided to release him shortly after Bosworth. Henry VII clearly regarded Warwick as a potential rival, but less John.
John de la Pole might have had royal ambitions. However, he clearly put them aside for the last Plantagenet, who carried more support. Warwick might have been more popular in Ireland or with his aunt Margaret of York. Maybe John intended to show Simmel as a fake after his victory, but that would pose the question of what he would do with the real Warwick if he won at Stoke. It would be dangerous to usurp the throne and risk losing the support of his allies, who clearly preferred Warwick. An intermediate and more realistic goal for John might have been a restoration of his annuities, offices, and the influence John had with Richard III. While Henry VII released and didn't attaint him, he took back Richard's grants and John, as a new convert to the Tudor dynasty, carried a minor influence on the new king. A grateful Edward V (or VI) would have been better for him.
Anywhomst, John lost at Stoke and was killed in action. Henry VII wanted to avoid making a foe from John's father, Suffolk and granted his son's land to him, but without the possibility of transmitting them to his four surviving sons.
The death of John de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk, in 1492 would change Henry VII's approach to the de la Pole family. A sizeable chunk of de la Pole estate was returned to him ( Lincoln's lands), while Suffolk's widow was granted 1/3 of her late husband's estates as dowry. Edmund de la Pole would become a young but impoverished duke with less than £1,000 of income. Henry VII would make a deal with him, giving back a portion of his brother's lands in exchange of £5,000, paid progressively and the demotion of his title from duke to earl (his grandfather's title until 1448). Interpreting this deal is difficult between the view of Henry VII seeking to humiliate and reduce a rival or a deal made to keep afloat a magnate that might have sunk otherwise. Edmund's grandfather owed his dukedom from heavy-handed favours from Henry VI that were lost in 1450. Edmund's father was probably demoted in 1459 because of an inability to sustain his rank before Edward IV's usurpation that restored his ducal title. The de la Poles were poorly endowed, and with a king unwilling to actively help them, a demotion was inevitable.
Edmund de la Pole's career as a magnate (1492-1501) shows that de la Pole-Tudor enmity wasn't unavoidable. After initial and difficult settlements with the Crown, Edmund de la Pole had a loyalist career. He accompanied Henry VII at his attempted siege of Boulogne (1492), and more importantly, he was a loyalist leader against the Cornish rebellion in 1497. Edmund actively supported Henry VII against a serious rebellion of 15,000 Cornish led by lord Audley and fought for Henry at the battle of Blackheath. There were also no links between him and the Perkin Warbeck conspiracy (contrary to his East-Anglia neighbour, lord Fitzwalter). Edmund de la Pole had a seemingly loyalist career and seems to have been close to the queen, Elizabeth of York.
The relationship between the king and the Earl of Suffolk started to collapse in 1498 when Edmund murdered a man and was judged on the king's bench but eventually pardoned by Henry VII. It is possible that Suffolk resented a humiliating trial. In july 1499, Edmund did flee to Guisnes, a city controlled by England whose governor was Sir James Tyrell. The reason for such a departure is unknown. Notably, the plot to free Warwick and Perkin Warbeck from the Tower of London was under fruition at that time, and Suffolk was sometimes in London. However, he returned to England in September and was present at court when Henry VII decided to execute Perkin Warbeck, various of his accomplices, and the last Plantagenet.
Those executions hurt Henry VII's relationship with Edmund. Any discontent toward Tudor rule would come to him as a claimant by default, considering the end of other Yorkist pretenders.
Henry VII was more wary about a magnate who was a prime alternative to his rule and proved erratic and unreliable. He applied pressure: Edmund lost two trials in 1500-1 and was fined £100 for claiming the allegiance of a yeoman and lost a trial regarding contested lands in Norfolk. Some of his close servants were fined for not appearing in front of the King during his short exile.
Loss of favour, reduction of income and judicial guerilla pushed Edmund into exile in 1501. This second exile could have been temporary but retrospectively became a turning point of the De la Pole-Tudor relationship marked by open confrontation. Edmund knew that any pardon from Henry VII wouldn't solve his issues regarding income and loss of power and prestige as a magnate while Henry VII perceived Edmund as an unreliable and dangerous vassal who couldn't be trusted.
#De la Pole#John de la Pole#Edmund de la Pole#Earl of Suffolk#Earl of Lincoln#war of the roses#henry vii
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
After Catherine died, Gloucester summoned Tudor before the council under a safe conduct; he sought sanctuary at Westminster. He maintained his innocence of any charge and was released, but on his way to Wales was arrested. His goods, worth £137 10s. 4d., were seized and he was consigned to Newgate prison, whence he escaped in January or early February 1438. After his recapture by John, Lord Beaumont (d. 1460), he returned to Newgate, and was then transferred to Windsor Castle (14 July) in the charge, soon afterwards, of Edmund Beaufort. Released in July 1439 on a £2000 recognizance, he was pardoned all offences on 12 November. Thereafter he was a member of the king's household; his two sons were in the care (1437–42) of the earl of Suffolk's sister, Katherine de la Pole, abbess of Barking, at the king's expense.
Ralph Griffiths, "Tudor, Owen [Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur] (c. 1400–1461)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004, updated 2008)
#owen tudor#humphrey duke of gloucester#edmund beaufort 2nd duke of somerset#katherine de la pole#henry vi#historian: ralph griffiths#posting this because it's just the facts#and interestingly gives humphrey a minimal role in proceedings
2 notes
·
View notes
Note
Just to clarify you think Sir James Tyrrell was innocent or his guilt is in serious doubt?
So as I alluded to before, Sir James Tyrrell confessed to murdering the Princes in the Tower on Richard's orders under torture, and confessions given under torture are notoriously unreliable. That doesn't mean that he didn't do it, or that he didn't do it under Richard's orders, only that any or all of the elements of his confession could be false, because that's what he thought Henry Tudor wanted to hear and thus would make the torture stop.
Moreover, there are some weirdnesses about the acocunt that have given various historians pause over the years:
Tyrrell could not give information about where the princes had been buried, and claimed the bodies had been moved later, which seems unlikely.
Tyrrell's confession has not survived - and the only contemporary account that mentions it is Thomas More's, which is a bit odd when you consider that we have quite a few contemporary sources who mentioned the princes' disappearances and the rumors of their murders at Richard's hand.
Moreover, Tyrrell's confession came about significantly after the fact - while he was a Yorkist and in Richard's service, he was in France at the time of Bosworth and was pardoned by Henry Tudor repeatedly. He was only questioned almost twenty years later, after his arrest for supporting Edmund de la Pole, the "White Rose," in 1502.
These and some other issues have led some historians to question the reliability of Thomas More's account. Ricardians point to these factors to argue that Richard was innocent, and that the Princes might have been killed on Buckingham's orders, or even on Henry Tudor's orders if they had still been alive in the Tower after Bosworth, given how unclear the timeline of their deaths is.
I'm a bit skeptical of the "strong" Ricardian case: it was certainly contemporaneously rumored that Richard had killed the Princes in the Tower, and if he had wanted to scotch those rumors, he could have done so by presenting them alive in front of witnesses, but didn't do so - which suggests an earlier date for their deaths. As to the "weaker" case, it is true that Tyrrell's confession is rather a thin reed - which is why most historians say that Richard is the most likely suspect, rather than conclusively stating it.
#history#english history#wars of the roses#richard iii#princes in the tower#henry tudor#thomas more#medieval history
45 notes
·
View notes
Note
Hi! I don't know how much you're interested in the subject today, but considering how i really adored a lot of your opinions/views of the Wars of the Roses and some people involved, especially Richard III, i was wondering how you think a scenerio where Richard remained King for more time or simply won Bosworth would be
Thank you for the teresting question.
Contrary to historical fiction works that portray him as desperate at the Battle of Bosworth, I think it's more likely Richard was hoping to get rid of Henry Tudor quickly and saw him as just a temporary nuisance. If only the battle had happened a couple of days later, when Richard got reinforcements from the North, or if William Stanley had not made the decision to definitely switch sides to Henry, the battle would've probably gone completely differently.
Below is my speculation of what happens if Richard wins:
The immediate outcome seems relatively clear - we know now that Richard was in the middle of secret negotiations with the royal family of Portugal for a double marriage between him and Infanta Joanna, and Elizabeth of York and King's 16-year old cousin Manuel, Duke of Beja, which were apparently going very well. It seems unlikely that Joanna, who had been refusing to get married for so long, would accept, but supposedly the negotiations were going well. We know Richard had sent her a personal letter, so it's fun to speculate what he said that would make her reconsider. I'm thinking he may have talked about religion (as they were both known to be pious) and pitched the marriage in terms of a partnership, and how she could do good for peace and the people of England through charity work (which she was known to do) and maybe even assured her that she wouldn't have to keep having children after she gave birth to an heir? Richard was expected to remarry and have a son after his only legitimate son and his wife died, but going by his choice of bride, he was looking for a great Queen and political partner above all, and not a broodmare - I can't imagine Joanna, who wanted to be a nun and was against marriage, agreeing to keep popping up a child every year or two until she hits menopause. He also may not have been two concerned because he had an heir and spares already, even though not 'of his body'- - his adult nephew John de La Pole and his younger brothers William, Edmund and Richard. The Portugal double marriage would've been a genius political move for many reasons: it would allow Richard to claim that he was ending the York/Lancaster rift for good by marrying Joanna, since the Portuguese royal family were through the female line the main surviving Lancastrian branch; it would fulfil his promise to Elizabeth Woodville that he would find good matches for her daughters in spite of their new 'bastard' status - and how! a Portuguese royal marriage was worthy of a princess* - and could be seen as healing the rift between the Yorkists too (and would at the same time make it impossible for Henry Tudor or anyone else to try to claim the throne of England by marrying her); and it would give England a great, intelligent and respectable Queen, who had experience in ruling as regent and could rule in RIchard's absence when he spent time abroad in wars, and whose reputation for piety and charity for people would help restore his tarnished reputation.
One interesting consequence of his marriage alliance is that Elizabeth of York would eventually have become a Queen Consort, but of Portugal, as Manuel eventually became King.Manuel I in 1495.
Once the situation became more stable, Richard would've probably focused on the things he had already started to do during his short reign - legal reforms aimed mostly at bettering the judiciary and the status of common people, and he would no doubt also want to curtail the power of major noblemen of questionable loyalty such as the Stanleys - and things he is known to have enthusiastically talked about planning to do, such as trying to convince other European countries to mount a campaign to stop the Ottoman Empire's conquests in Europe. (France would be an unlikely ally, Portugal and Burgundy would be obvious ones, and he'd no doubt try to pitch it to the Holy Roman Empire.)
I don't know whether he'd be successful at that, or how long he would live, but a few most obvious historical consequences would be:
the way the previous few decades were remembered in history would be very different, and no one would ever call them the "Wars of the Roses" - which was a name given by Walter Scott in the 19th century based on the fact that Henry VII used the red-white Tudor rose as his sigil, promoting it as a sign of supposed unity between the Lancaster and York dynasties - in spite of the fact that the Lancasters didn't actually use a red rose, or any kind of rose, as their sigil. Henry VII also presented the conflicts that had gone on as a part of one ongoing conflict that he ended with the Battle of Bosworth and by marrying Elizabeth of York. In reality, these were a few conflicts separated by years or even decades in between, and before the battle of Bosworth, the last actual armed conflict fought over the throne of England had been 14 years earlier, when Edward IV won his second and decisive war over the Lancasters. The conflict between the two Yorkist factions after Edward's death did not result in any actual battle (in 1783, Buckingham failed to ignite a rebellion, and his ally Henry turned back to France, realizing the war was lost before it began), so Henry basically 'ended the Wars of the Roses' only after he restarted them in 1485. (Not to mention that Henry had to fight another battle two years later against the Yorkists led by Jon de la Pole, which is always conveniently left out in history books, and had to catch, exile or execute various Yorkist pretenders throughout his reign.) If Henry loses the battle, he becomes only a footnote in history. Edward IV remains considered the one who ended the Lancaster-York conflicts with his decisive victory in 1471. Richard probably manages to be popular and respected king (much more than Henry was with his notorious tax laws) and would likely have claimed to have 'united the York and Lancaster branches' with his marriage to Joanna (though he probably wouldn't have made a huge deal out of it as Henry did, since Henry was promoting himself as the founder of a new dynasty that would start a new era). But what of the Princes in the Tower? Well, we don't know what happened to them and Richard may be suspected to have murdered them, but Henry definitely did imprison 11 year old Edward of Warwick and keep him locked up in the Tower until he was 25 and then executed him on trumped up treason charges just because he was another pretender to the throne, but barely anyone talks about it or cares, so... (insert something about history being written by the winners)
Scotland and England remain separate independent countries. It's very unlikely that the same chain of events would happen where the daughter of a king of England marries a king of Scotland, and then a century later her descendant becomes not just the king of Scotland but also the heir to the throne of England because the ruling dynasty of England died out. There is never a Tudor dynasty, never a Stuart dynasty, never a Hanover dynasty. And there's never a United Kingdom.
There is never such a thing as Anglicanism/the Church of England, with the monarch as its head. Mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean that England remains fully or predominantly Catholic - Protestantism was gaining popularity not just in England (even when Henry was still a devout Catholic) but also in Scotland, which didn't have a Henry VIII splitting with the Pope so he could annul his marriage. It's impossible to tell how exactly the Reformation and Counter-reformation would've affected England under different monarchs and a different dynasty, since so much of the religious strife in the 16th century was linked to Henry's decisions, his break from the Pope, his marriages and annulments and his succession issues, and then with the personalities and backgrounds of his children: Edward as a staunch Protestant (just like his mother's family), Mary as a staunch Catholic (completely unsurprising with her background and the fact that her father broke from the Pope so he could annul his marriage to her mother, proclaiming her a bastard), and then Elizabeth, who couldn't be tolerant to Catholics even if she didn't care about religion, since the Pope and therefore all Catholics considered her a bastard and an illegitimate monarch. How would elderly Richard, and/or his heirs, treat Protestants? What would they think of Martin Luther, or of William Tyndale? It's impossible to tell. He was a devout Catholic, but Protestantism didn't exist at the time, and would he (who was the first of English kings to publish official state documents in English) hate the idea of translating the Bible into English so ordinary people could understand it without the help of clergy? I really don't know, and it's even harder to tell what his heirs would be like in that regard. Would there be more religious tolerance in England? For all we know, it might even be less if a particularly fanatical monarch ended up on a throne... but at least I think I can say with some certainty that English monarchs of this hypothetical York dynasty would have no personal and dynastic reasons to persecute either Protestants or Catholics the way monarchs of the Tudor dynasty had due to their specific circumstances.
#richard iii#english history#henry vii#the wars of the roses#battle of bosworth#the tudor dynasty#edward iv#elizabeth of york#henry viii#church of england#english reformation#wars of the roses
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
THIS DAY IN GAY HISTORY
based on: The White Crane Institute's 'Gay Wisdom', Gay Birthdays, Gay For Today, Famous GLBT, glbt-Gay Encylopedia, Today in Gay History, Wikipedia, and more … January 6
1367 – Richard II of England (d.1400), born Prince Richard of Bordeaux was the second, but only surviving child, of Edward, Prince of Wales (also known as the Black Prince and the eldest son and heir of King Edward III) and his wife, in Bordeaux, Gascony, where the Black Prince was serving at the time. At the age of four, Richard became second in line to the throne upon the death of his elder brother, Edward of Angouleme, and heir apparent when his father, the Black Prince, died five years later (1376). Richard was dubbed a Knight of the Garter by his grandfather only months before the old king died on June 21, 1377. With the death of Edward III, Richard ascended the throne as King Richard II at the young age of ten.
Richard was deemed fit to govern and a series of councils were set up to conduct business in the king's name for the next three years. When the first of these councils met, not only was John of Gaunt, Richard's powreful uncle left out, but also the king's other remaining uncles, Edmund of Langley and Thomas of Woodstock, the Earls of Cambridge and Buckingham respectively. But although John of Gaunt had no official title in Richard's government, he was to remain a leading and influential political figure for nearly the entire reign, though he and the king would not be without their differences.
The young Richard managed to weather a number of crises, including the Peasant's Revolt at the ripe old age of 14. During the following years, the king gradually came of age and moved closer to reaching his majority reign. It was also during this period that he began to come under the influence of a small group of courtiers that were to greedily consume all of his attentions. This group consisted of three primary figures: Sir Simon Burley, the king's tutor since he was a young child; Michael de la Pole, the king's chancellor and Earl of Suffolk after 1385; and Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford, whom Richard would ultimately upgrade to Marquis and, soon after, Duke of Ireland.
Richard's close friendship to DeVere was disagreeable to the political establishment. This displeasure was exacerbated by the earl's elevation to the new title of Duke of Ireland in 1386. The chronicler Thomas Walsingham suggested the relationship between the king and DeVere was of a homosexual nature, possibly due to a resentment Walsingham had toward the king.
On top of this, it was also wondered whether Richard was a homosexual since he never bore any children. When thinking of the reign of Richard II, it is difficult not to compare it with that of his great-grandfather, Edward II (another supposed homosexual). Like Edward, Richard had difficulty making decisions for himself and came to be dependent on a small group of favorites for advice, usually bad advice, to run the realm.
This reliance on favorites turned the nobility against him, and he was eventually deposed by Henry IV, and died in captivity in 1400.
1412 – Joan Of Arc, Roman Catholic Saint and national heroine of France (this is a legendary date) (d.1431); Joan wore men's clothing between her departure from Vaucouleurs and her abjuration at Rouen. This raised theological questions in her own era and raised other questions in the twentieth century. The technical reason for her execution was a biblical clothing law. The nullification trial reversed the conviction in part because the condemnation proceeding had failed to consider the doctrinal exceptions to that stricture.
Doctrinally speaking, she was safe to disguise herself as a page during a journey through enemy territory and she was safe to wear armor during battle. The Chronique de la Pucelle states that it deterred molestation while she was camped in the field. Clergy who testified at her rehabilitation trial affirmed that she continued to wear male clothing in prison to deter molestation and rape. Preservation of chastity was another justifiable reason for cross-dressing: her apparel would have slowed an assailant, and men would be less likely to think of her as a sex object in any case.
She referred the court to the Poitiers inquiry when questioned on the matter during her condemnation trial. The Poitiers record no longer survives but circumstances indicate the Poitiers clerics approved her practice. In other words, she had a mission to do a man's work so it was fitting that she dress the part. She also kept her hair cut short through her military campaigns and while in prison. Her supporters, such as the theologian Jean Gerson, defended her hairstyle, as did Inquisitor Brehal during the Rehabilitation trial.
Because Joan wore men's clothes and armor, scholars have speculated about her gender identity and sexuality. Did Joan wear male apparel because she was transgendered? Or did she do so in order to be taken seriously by the men whose support she needed to carry out the orders given by her visions? Was Joan a lesbian or bisexual, if those English terms may be applicable to a French woman living almost six hundred years ago? What relationship did her gender expression have with her sexuality? What about Joan's emphasis throughout her life on her virginity?
It is difficult adequately to address these personal issues based on the historical evidence that we now possess. It is clear, however, that Joan's cross-dressing was a significant part of her life, and that as a cross-dressed warrior and military leader she was venerated by French royalty, soldiery, and peasantry alike.
1854 – English fictional detective, born; What!? Sherlock Holmes? Why include the famous, hawk-nosed detective, a figment of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fertile imagination? Why? Because almost no one realizes that Sherlock Holmes, whom his creator almost named "Sherinford," was Gay.
He was, of course, the first consulting detective, a vocation he followed for 23 years. In January 1881, he was looking for someone to share his new digs at 221B Baker Street, and there being no personal ads in the Village Voice or The Advocate (remember those?) in those days, a friend introduced him to Dr. John H. Watson.
Before agreeing to share the flat, the two men, immediately attracted to one another, listed their respective character deficiencies. Holmes admitted to smoking a smelly pipe, although he didn't mention that he was a frequent user of cocaine. Watson owned up to a peculiar habit of leaving his bed at odd hours of the night.
"I have another set of vices," he admitted, but, then, so did Sherlock. The two became friends and roommates for the rest of their lives. For the sordid details of the famous marriage of true minds that followed, read Rex Stout's astonishing "Watson Was Woman," in which the famous creator of Nero Wolfe (himself hardly a paragon of butch studliness) reveals that Watson and Holmes were the most extraordinary Gay team in sleuthing history.
In 1971, The Traveller's Companion, Inc., an affiliate of Olympia Press, published a book based on the assumption that Holmes and Watson were lovers: The Sexual Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Claiming to be from a newly-discovered secret cache of John Watson's papers, the book retells, very erotically, some of the original stories. It is hard-core gay porn at its best!
1961 – Bill Hayes is an American non-fiction writer and photographer. He has written four books – Sleep Demons, Five Quarts, The Anatomist, and Insomniac City – and has produced one book of photography, How New York Breaks Your Heart. His freelance writing has appeared in a number of periodicals, most notably The New York Times.
Hayes was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the fifth of six children, five of them girls. He remains close with his sisters. His mother Jean was an artist; his father John a military man who had lost an eye as a paratrooper in the Korean War. When Bill was three, the family moved to Spokane, Washington, where his father bought a Coca-Cola bottling plant. His mother opened an art school, where Hayes learned to develop and print film. Hayes was close with his maternal grandmother, Helen, from the age of eleven until he left home for college. In high school, Hayes was drawn to the writing of Joan Didion. Hayes attended Santa Clara University in California.
Hayes knew he was gay at a young age, though he had relationships with women in high school and college. He came out at age 24, and considers his orientation to be a core part of his identity.
Hayes' father never accepted him as a gay man and did not maintain a relationship with him, but when John Hayes developed dementia, he came to believe Bill was an old Army friend, and spoke with him warmly. Bill's mother also suffered with dementia until her death in 2011.
Hayes lived in San Francisco for many years, where he worked at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. His partner of sixteen years was HIV-positive. In 2009, Hayes moved to New York City, where he had a relationship with neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks, until the latter's death in 2015. Hayes' experiences in New York and his six-year relationship with Sacks are the subject of his book Insomniac City.
Hayes has described his adult life as "colored by death" – the deaths he dealt with in his AIDS Foundation work, the sudden death of his longtime partner in San Francisco, and later the death of his partner Oliver Sacks.
1968 – Today is the birthday of the Hungarian politician Gábor Szetey. Szetey is the former Secretary of State for Human Resources, a role he held since July 2006. He is a member of the Hungarian Socialist Party.
Szetey publicly declared that he was gay at the opening night of Budapest's Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, on July 6, 2007. He is the first LGBT member of government in Hungary, and the second politician to come out, after Klára Ungár. Szetey's coming out came at the end of a speech on equality and tolerance:
"When we can be proud of being Hungarian, Romanian, Jewish, Catholic, Gay or Straight... If we can be proud of our differences, we will be proud of our similarities. I believe in God. And I believe that all men and women have the right to love and be loved. Everywhere. Love has no party preference. Neither does happiness or choosing a partner. So: I am Szetey Gábor . I am European, and Hungarian. I believe in God, love, freedom, and equality. I am the Human Resources Secretary of State of the Government of the Republic of Hungary. Economist and HR director. Partner, friend, sometimes rival. And I am Gay."
!n the audience was Klára Dobrev, the wife of Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsány, as well as four other members of the Hungarian cabinet. The Prime Minister supported Szetey on his blog and called for public debate about same-sex relationships in Hungary. Hungary currently recognises same-sex registered partnerships. After the coming out of Mr. Szetey, the Parliament adopted the Registered Civil Union Act, which came into force 1 January 2009.
In a subsequent interview, Szetey declared:
"There is a small but vocal group of right-wing extremists which is intent on offending everyone... According to a survey, 51 percent of the respondents thought my speech was courageous and that it would improve the situation for homosexuals. It's strange that the conservatives, who attach such great importance to neighboring states giving their Hungarian minorities equal rights, couldn't care less about equal rights in their own country."
1976 – Today's the birthday of child actor Danny Pintauro. Pintauro played Jonathan Bower, son of Angela Bower in the series 'Who's the Boss' from 1984 till 1992. He was born as Daniel John Pintauro in Milltown, New Yersey, USA. Pintauro studied English and drama at Stanford University.
Pintauro first appeared on the television soap opera As the World Turns as the original Paul Ryan and in the film Cujo, but he came to prominence on the television series Who's the Boss?. After the conclusion of that series, he was less frequently cast. Pintauro went on to act in stage productions like The Velocity of Gary and Mommie Queerest. He also worked as a Tupperware sales representative and as of 2013, he was managing a restaurant in Las Vegas.
In 1997, in an interview with the National Enquirer tabloid, Pintauro declared that he is gay.
Pintauro (R) with husband Wil Tabares
In April 2013 he was engaged to his boyfriend, Wil Tabares, and they married in April 2014.
In 2015, Pintauro revealed in an interview with Oprah Winfrey that he has been HIV positive since 2003. He also disclosed that he had previously been addicted to methamphetamine.
2015 – Florida recognizes same-sex marriages.
8 notes
·
View notes
Text
now you're just a page torn from the story I'm building
selective, mutuals only indie rp blog. i am over 25, so anyone under 21, i prefer not to interact with
all I gave you is gone tumbled like it was stone
canon divergant pirate based colin bridgerton @pirtecolin
edits blog @dynastymusesedits
resources such as gifhunts, psds, and templates blog: @dynastymusesresources
thought we built a dynasty that heaven couldn't shake
as such all muses are over 18 (some have been aged up)
thought we built a dynasty like nothing ever made
i am very open to crossovers, as well as oc’s, but plotting must be done. if i am not following you, please do not send me in character memes. i am mutual only!
thought we built a dynasty forever couldn't break up
fandoms include: bridgerton, various period drama, star wars, lord of the rings/rings of power, wheel of time, shadow&bone/gisha verse.
It all fell down, it all fell down, it all fell down
all of my characters as of now
(🍊 is high muse)
(🌊muses i want plots for)
(🧁new muses)
starter calls
open starters
Bridgerton Verse
anthony bridgerton 🍊
benedict bridgerton 🌊
colin bridgerton🍊
daphne bridgerton🌊
francesca bridgerton🌊
gregory bridgerton🍊
penelope featherington🍊🌊
philip crane🍊🌊
michael sterling🍊
brimsley🌊🧁
sophie beckett🌊
kate sharma🍊
gareth st.clair🍊
prince freidrich hohenzollern🍊🌊
king george freidrick 🍊
lady agatha danbury🌊🧁
queen charlotte of mecklenburg-strelitz 🍊🌊🧁
felicity featherington🌊🧁
posy reiling🌊🧁
shadow&bone/grishaverse
alina starkov 🍊🌊
kaz brekker🍊🌊
inej ghafa🌊
nina zenik🌊
wylan van eck🌊
genya safin🌊🧁
nikolai lanstov🌊
tolya yul bataar🌊🧁
matthais helvar🌊
lord of the rings/rings of power
galadriel🍊
elrond🌊🧁
bronwyn🌊🧁
aragorn🌊🧁
samwise gamgee🌊🧁
wheel of time
rand al’thor🍊🌊
lan mandragoran🍊🌊
siuan sanche🍊
egwene al'vere🍊
elayne trakand🍊
Star Wars
luke skywalker🍊🌊
qui gon jinn🌊
obi wan kenobi🍊🌊
padme amidala🍊🌊
finn🌊
poe dameron🌊🧁
han solo🌊
Rey of Jakku 🌊🧁
the musketeers
d’artagnan 🍊
athos
aramis
queen anne of austria🌊
Sanditon
charlotte heywood (sanditon)🌊
lord babington (sanditon)🌊
young stringer (sandtiton)🌊
Marvel
Yelena Belova
Kate Bishop
Tandy bowen
Karolina Dean 🍊
Marcos Diaz 🍊
Esme Frost 🍊
John Proudstar🌊
Hank McCoy 🌊🧁
Chase Stein 🍊
Scott Summers 🍊
Charles Xavier🌊
Jennifer Walters
Sersi 🍊
DCEU
Barry Allen 🍊
Beth Chapel🌊
Barbara Gordon 🍊
Dick Grayson🍊
Mary Hamliton 🍊
Virgil Hawkins 🍊
Pamela "Poisin Ivy" Isley 🍊
Kate Kane🌊
Clark Kent 🍊
jenny kord🌊🧁
Selina Kyle 🍊
Dinah Lance 🍊
Gar Logan🍊
M'gann M'orroz 🍊
Tommy Merlyn🌊
Sophie Moore🌊
Yolanda Montez
James Olsen 🍊
Anissa Pierce🌊
milagro reyes🌊🧁
Donna Troy 🍊🧁
Bruce Wayne🍊
Courtney whitmore 🌊
Jinx🌊
Komand'r🌊
TVD Verse
Marcel Gerald 🍊
Elena Gilbert 🍊
Jeremy Gilbert🌊
Tyler Lockwood🌊
Elijah Mikealson 🍊
Hope Mikealson🌊
Lizzie Saltzman 🍊🌊
Shadowhunters
Magnus Bane 🍊🌊
Clary Fray 🍊🌊
Simon Lewis🌊🧁
Alec Lightwood🌊
Fate:The Winx Saga
Terra Harvey🌊
Bloom Peters 🍊🌊
Beatrix 🌊🧁
Flora🌊
Musa🌊
Riven🌊
Sky🌊
Stella🌊
Narnia
Edmund Pevensie 🍊🌊
Lucy Pevensie🍊🌊
Peter Pevensie🌊🧁
Jill Pole🌊
Eustance Clarence Scrubb🌊
the umbrella acaddemy
Deigo Hargreeves🌊
Five Hargreeves 🍊🌊
Klaus Hargreeves 🌊
Sloane Hargreeves 🍊🌊
Lila Pitts🌊
one tree hill
Julian Baker
Jake Jagelski
Nathan Scott 🍊
Clay Evans
Degrassi
Sav Bhandari 🌊
Fiona Coyne🌊
Clare Edwards 🍊🌊
Jake Martin🌊
Drew Torres🌊
Wednesday/Addams Family
Wednesday Addams🌊
Enid Sinclair
what we do in the shadows
colin robinson 🌊🧁
Guillermo de la Cruz🌊🧁
nadja of antipaxos🌊🧁
lazslo cravensworth 🌊🧁
nandor the relentless 🌊 🧁
the boys/gen v
hughie campbell🌊🧁
annie january / starlight 🌊🧁
billy butcher🌊🧁
kimiko miyashiro🌊🧁
queen maeve🌊🧁
other period drama muses
francis valois (reign with some historical influences) 🍊
Sebastian de poitiers (reign)
tom jones (tom jones 2023)🌊
henry tudor (7th) (the white queen/the white princess/the spainsh princess with some historical influences) 🍊
richard plantagent (the white queen with some historical influences)🍊
elizabeth woodville (the white queen/the white princess with some historical influences)
anne shirley cuthbert (anne with an e)
marie antoinette( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊
(king) louis bourbon (16th) ( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊
captain henry ossroy (mr malcom’s list)🌊
selina dalton (mr malcom’s list)🌊
dido elizabeth belle (belle 2013)🌊🧁
camlia dunne (daisy jones&the six) 🌊🧁
tim laughlin (fellow travelers) 🌊🧁
Other Scifi/Fantasy
Lucy Caryle- Lockwood&Co🌊
Anthony Lockwood-Lockwood&Co🌊
Wendy Darling-Peter Pan/Disney 🍊🌊
Elinor Fairmont-First Kill🌊🧁
Juliette Fairmont-First Kill🌊
Kat Harvey-Casper🌊
Harvey Kinkle-Sabrina The Teenage Witch/Archie comics🌊
Wyatt Logan-Timeless🌊
Arthur Pendragon-Merlin🌊
Scott mccall-teen wolf 🌊
OUAT/Fairytales
david nolan/prince charming-once upon a time 🌊🧁
graham humbert/the huntsman-once upon a time 🌊🧁
mary margret blanchard/snow white-once upon a time 🌊🧁
Rapunzel (various media)🌊🧁
other medias
Alexander Clearmond Diaz-red, white, & royal🌊
Lacey Porter-Twisted🌊
Henry Stuart Fox -red, white, & royal🌊
Glimmer-She Ra🌊
comedy
Haley Dunphy (modern family)🌊🧁
Alex Dunphy (modern family) 🌊🧁
Janine Teagues-Abbott Elementary🌊
Clare Devlin-Derry Girls🌊
Gregory Eddie-Abbott Elementary🌊
Jim Halpert-The Office🌊
Ben Wyatt-Parks and Recreation 🌊
chidi anagonye (the good place)🌊🧁
eleanor shellstrop (the good place)🌊🧁
janet (the good place)🌊🧁
original characters
elisabeth barlowe 🍊🌊🧁
jacquetta covington 🍊🌊🧁
maxwell danbury 🍊🌊🧁
dylan lyons 🍊🌊🧁
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
now you're just a page torn from the story I'm building
selective, mutuals only indie rp blog. i am over 25, so anyone under 21, i prefer not to interact with
all I gave you is gone tumbled like it was stone
canon divergant pirate based colin bridgerton @pirtecolin
edits blog @dynastymusesedits
resources such as gifhunts, psds, and templates blog: @dynastymusesresources
thought we built a dynasty that heaven couldn't shake
as such all muses are over 18 (some have been aged up)
thought we built a dynasty like nothing ever made
i am very open to crossovers, as well as oc’s, but plotting must be done. if i am not following you, please do not send me in character memes. i am mutual only!
thought we built a dynasty forever couldn't break up
fandoms include: bridgerton, various period drama, star wars, lord of the rings/rings of power, wheel of time, shadow&bone/gisha verse.
It all fell down, it all fell down, it all fell down
all of my characters as of now
(🍊 is high muse)
(🌊muses i want plots for)
(🧁new muses)
starter calls
Bridgerton Verse
anthony bridgerton 🍊
benedict bridgerton 🌊
colin bridgerton🍊
daphne bridgerton🌊
francesca bridgerton🌊
gregory bridgerton🍊
penelope featherington🍊🌊
philip crane🍊🌊
michael sterling🍊
brimsley🌊🧁
sophie beckett🌊
kate sharma🍊
gareth st.clair🍊
prince freidrich hohenzollern🍊🌊
king george freidrick 🍊
lady agatha danbury🌊🧁
queen charlotte of mecklenburg-strelitz 🍊🌊🧁
felicity featherington🌊🧁
posy reiling🌊🧁
shadow&bone/grishaverse
alina starkov 🍊🌊
kaz brekker🍊🌊
inej ghafa🌊
nina zenik🌊
wylan van eck🌊
genya safin🌊🧁
nikolai lanstov🌊
tolya yul bataar🌊🧁
matthais helvar🌊
lord of the rings/rings of power
galadriel🍊
elrond🌊🧁
bronwyn🌊🧁
aragorn🌊🧁
samwise gamgee🌊🧁
wheel of time
rand al’thor🍊🌊
lan mandragoran🍊🌊
siuan sanche🍊
egwene al'vere🍊
elayne trakand🍊
Star Wars
luke skywalker🍊🌊
qui gon jinn🌊
obi wan kenobi🍊🌊
padme amidala🍊🌊
finn🌊
poe dameron🌊🧁
han solo🌊
the musketeers
d’artagnan 🍊
athos
aramis
queen anne of austria🌊
Marvel
Yelena Belova
Kate Bishop
Tandy bowen
Karolina Dean 🍊
Marcos Diaz 🍊
Esme Frost 🍊
John Proudstar🌊
Chase Stein 🍊
Scott Summers 🍊
Charles Xavier🌊
Jennifer Walters
Sersi 🍊
DCEU
Barry Allen 🍊
Beth Chapel🌊
Barbara Gordon 🍊
Dick Grayson🍊
Mary Hamliton 🍊
Virgil Hawkins 🍊
Pamela "Poisin Ivy" Isley 🍊
Kate Kane🌊
Clark Kent 🍊
jenny kord🌊🧁
Selina Kyle 🍊
Dinah Lance 🍊
Gar Logan🍊
M'gann M'orroz 🍊
Tommy Merlyn🌊
Sophie Moore🌊
Yolanda Montez
James Olsen 🍊
Anissa Pierce🌊
milagro reyes🌊🧁
Donna Troy 🍊🧁
Bruce Wayne🍊
Courtney whitmore 🌊
Jinx🌊
Komand'r🌊
TVD Verse
Marcel Gerald 🍊
Elena Gilbert 🍊
Jeremy Gilbert🌊
Tyler Lockwood🌊
Elijah Mikealson 🍊
Hope Mikealson🌊
Lizzie Saltzman 🍊🌊
Shadowhunters
Magnus Bane 🍊🌊
Clary Fray 🍊🌊
Simon Lewis🌊🧁
Alec Lightwood🌊
Fate:The Winx Saga
Terra Harvey🌊
Bloom Peters 🍊🌊
Flora🌊
Musa🌊
Riven🌊
Sky🌊
Stella🌊
Narnia
Edmund Pevensie 🍊🌊
Lucy Pevensie🍊🌊
Peter Pevensie🌊🧁
Jill Pole🌊
Eustance Clarence Scrubb🌊
the umbrella acaddemy
Deigo Hargreeves🌊
Five Hargreeves 🍊🌊
Klaus Hargreeves 🌊
Sloane Hargreeves 🍊🌊
Lila Pitts🌊
one tree hill
Julian Baker
Jake Jagelski
Nathan Scott 🍊
Clay Evans
Degrassi
Sav Bhandari 🌊
Fiona Coyne🌊
Clare Edwards 🍊🌊
Jake Martin🌊
Drew Torres🌊
Wednesday/Addams Family
Wednesday Addams🌊
Enid Sinclair
what we do in the shadows
colin robinson 🌊🧁
Guillermo de la Cruz🌊🧁
nadja of antipaxos🌊🧁
lazslo cravensworth 🌊🧁
nandor the relentless 🌊 🧁
the boys/gen v
hughie campbell🌊🧁
annie january / starlight 🌊🧁
other period drama muses
francis valois (reign with some historical influences) 🍊
Sebastian de poitiers (reign)
charlotte heywood (sanditon)🌊
lord babington (sanditon)🌊
young stringer (sandtiton)🌊
tom jones (tom jones 2023)🌊
henry tudor (7th) (the white queen/the white princess/the spainsh princess with some historical influences) 🍊
richard plantagent (the white queen with some historical influences)🍊
elizabeth woodville (the white queen/the white princess with some historical influences)
anne shirley cuthbert (anne with an e)
marie antoinette( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊
(king) louis bourbon (16th) ( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊
captain henry ossroy (mr malcom’s list)🌊
selina dalton (mr malcom’s list)🌊
dido elizabeth belle (belle 2013)🌊🧁
camlia dunne (daisy jones&the six) 🌊🧁
tim laughlin (fellow travelers) 🌊🧁
Other Scifi/Fantasy
Lucy Caryle- Lockwood&Co🌊
Anthony Lockwood-Lockwood&Co🌊
Wendy Darling-Peter Pan/Disney 🍊🌊
Elinor Fairmont-First Kill🌊🧁
Juliette Fairmont-First Kill🌊
Kat Harvey-Casper🌊
Harvey Kinkle-Sabrina The Teenage Witch/Archie comics🌊
Wyatt Logan-Timeless🌊
Arthur Pendragon-Merlin🌊
Scott mccall-teen wolf 🌊
david nolan/prince charming-once upon a time 🌊🧁
graham humbert/the huntsman-once upon a time 🌊🧁
mary margret blanchard/snow white-once upon a time 🌊🧁
other medias
Alexander Clearmond Diaz-red, white, & royal🌊
Clare Devlin-Derry Girls🌊
Gregory Eddie-Abbott Elementary🌊
Jim Halpert-The Office🌊
Ben Wyatt-Parks and Recreation 🌊
Lacey Porter-Twisted🌊
Janine Teagues-Abbott Elementary🌊
Henry Stuart Fox -red, white, & royal🌊
Glimmer-She Ra🌊
Rapunzel (various media)🌊🧁
Haley Dunphy (modern family)🌊🧁
Alex Dunphy (modern family) 🌊🧁
original characters
elisabeth barlowe 🍊🌊🧁
jacquetta covington 🍊🌊🧁
maxwell danbury 🍊🌊🧁
5 notes
·
View notes
Photo
Selective accounts of Queen Elizabeth’s payments.[April 1502]
#queen elizabeth of england#elizabeth of york#queen elizabeth of york#queen's payments#primary sources#tudor england#tudor consort#plantagenet dynasty#tudor dynasty#house of york#noteworthy: mentions to the widow of Edmund de la Pole#the duchess of norfolk#Elizabeth's fool#a prince edward who I suppose to be one of her late brothers#she must have paid for his soul#payments to the servants of the queen's brother-in-law#william courtney
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
[Elizabeth of York] was only thirty-seven and still attractive when she died from complications of her final pregnancy in 1503. She had never lived in entirely tranquil times. The diplomacy in which she sometimes participated was part of Henry’s effort to establish peaceful relations with as many states as possible. Yet her death came just four years after the execution of the Yorkist pretender Perkin Warbeck and three years before the final imprisonment of the real Yorkist claimant, Edmund de la Pole, 3rd Duke of Suffolk. That she was able, devout, charitable, and kind is beyond question. That she sacrificed her claim to the throne for the good of the kingdom is obvious. That Henry used her abilities to his advantage is clear enough, but that he unfeelingly exploited her is doubtful.
— William B. Robison, The Sexualization of a “Noble and Vertuous Quene”: Elizabeth of York, 1466-1503 | The Royal Studies Journal
#elizabeth of york#henry vii#historicwomendaily#i don't think we can say she 'sacrificed her claim'#she leant into it to lend support to her husband#she would've sacrificed it if she'd refused to marry#as no englishman thought a woman could rule alone#(at that time in the 15th century)#historian: william b. robinson
32 notes
·
View notes
Note
I saw a saying that Elizabeth of York had a good relationship with her cousin Duke of Suffolk? Do they have any records?
Yeah I wrote it here. We have no certainty but:
a) travel record shows that Edmund was around Elizabeth of York a lot.
b) They were first cousins around the same age.
So it's quite probable they knew each other quite well.
1 note
·
View note
Text
Everything wrong with Spanish Princess-1x04
TSP had no idea what English custom were at Tudor times.
It was against customs for royals to go to funeral! It was not unusal at all that Henry VII wouldn’t attend his wife’s funeral.
Elizabeth was mourned yes(big time), however her death didn’t cause public to turn against Tudors. Margaret Beaufort was no spymaster and Wolsey wasn’t her agent.
Showing the lion without explaining it was Henry VII’s gift to Elizabeth of York, makes whole scene meaningless. Because majority of people don’t know about this, and it just makes whole scene alward. Why is the lion there?!
Lady Margaret wanting Catherine out-again vilifying her! Lady Margaret was historically for match between Harry and Catherine!!!
Scene in church is very odd-especially prince’s shirt. If that was attempt at blackwork, it failed miserably.
Bull is sacred, a deity?! Holy shit, this show is ripping Catherine’s piety to shreds. They make her heretic! And worst-pep talker ever! Her story would make nobody feel any better. It makes no sense, bull still died of his injuries.
Love birds before their marriage was decided upon? More of Catherine’s pedophilia! (Because she is flirting with child!) More of Rosa ruining herself and being immoral-because aparently everybody was according to TSP. More of poor and dark English court.
Buckingham wasn’t part of council at that time. Lady Margaret was not official regent back then, but she was ruling for a while(while her son mourned) and nobody bat an eye! By the way de la pole never managed to raise an army. They make lady Margaret into power-hungry villain. She wouldn’t call herself a King. No way!
The idea that lady Margaret had spies all over England and still they didn’t manage to check bedsheets for signs of sex is riduculous.
What was Catherine applying they were doing with Arthur in their bed, if not sex?! The conversations throughout the TV show is often a word salad! I kind of feel pitty for actors for having to say these poor-written lines!
Lady Margaret is right by pointing lying is sin and is right to not believe the version this Catherine presents. It!’s such obvious lying!
Because if Catherine was in good health fallowing Arthur’s health(which she was not, because she caught it too), it’d be most suspicious, if she didn’t say she was virgin straight away and let people in suspence over if she was virgin or not.
Catherine was not thrown from the palace. Her own parenst demanded she had separate household-her own, after Elizabeth of York died!!!
All of this is false! And wrongfully villifying lady Margaret Beaufort.
Fake flashback scene with warrior Isabella being wounded from battle(despite her never actually fighting in any!)
Tudor men apparently shave their chests and their hands. News to me. But they don’t all shave their beards-which is historically inccorect! At least for season 1.
Louis VII was married at the time, how could Catherine marry him?! What are they suggesting-bigamy?
Henry knew his scriptures, but he wouldn’t call spanish alliance their holy grail-this is so false! Right now lady Margaret is only one rightfully concerned by Catherine’s horrible character. That more characters are not pointing it out, is actually very weird. Is it attempt to potray Tudor men as stupid and Catherine being able to outsmart them? Idk.
Durham house was very noble house, suitable for any princess.(I’ll make post about it). They make it so small and, fit for maybe 10 people max. Not 50+ household.
By the way, no way wedding was set for summer 1503. Henry was to be 11 at summer 1503! Also lady Margaret didn’t ursupe anything, nor was Henry VII allowing her to bully Catherine, nor did Henry VIII ever had falling out with his grandmother. NONE OF THIS HAPPENED!
Once again weird conversations between Catherine and Margaret Tudor. Very lazy writing, and set to apparently show Catherine as strong.
Lady Margaret taking her son’s letters without asking?! Oh dear lord! This is getting more inaccurate longer you watch this.
Edmund de la Pole’s identity was long known by time of Elizabeth of York’s death. Habsburgs never supported him! Had no reason to give him funds to raise an army. AND once again English treasury was not empty!!!
Dudley, yes helped fill royal coffers, but not by giving fines for ridiculous thing.(this is misleading though not entirely untrue) Henry VII himself did tons to raise royal revenues and achieved decent income by 1503.
Incorrectly stating de la Pole was in Flanders raising army-while in fact he was imprisoned. It was Philip, who didn’t want to hand him over(not his father), fearing English would execute him. Idk why he was bothered by it.
Soldiers being treated as property, as part of dowry?! English at the time were not involved in slavery! And that is exactly what basically was proposed in that council scene! And is totally untrue!
By the way, suddenly Catherine is humble and not demanding bitch?! People’s personalities don’t change so easily. Unless she has big mental issues. Idk-borderline personality disorder, narcism? But clearly not right in her head!
Catherine acts as if she is willing to fallow God, yet she breaks his rules!!! They make her into total hypocrite!
Tbh, the damask for Margaret Tudor’s dress would be way more better for Catherine’s wedding dress, than the horrible satin damask they used! This is way whiter! (would be still wrong fabric, but acceptable.)
More vilification of lady Margaret, making it seem as if she is dictator and everybody fears her, while in fact she was loved and respected and fun to be with. (how do you think she charmed Edward IV to give her son back his lands? Not by being a bitch! By being eloquent and fun.)
Henry VIII wasn’t allowed to visit Catherine and do as he pleased, he was kid after all and sole heir to England. His father was very protective of him(too much actually).
Oh now her personality returns! The demanding b, who really dislikes the poor house-which Durham House was not! Bitching that man is grieving and not doing her bidding. Catherine’s life in Durham was never described as beneat her station by ambassador nor dona Elvira, i understand she was without money(though imo because dona Elvira stole it not because Henry VII did not give any-check my posts about spanish correspondece for more about that), but not living in horrible place.
Harry was child and would not be allowed at council meetings. Good arguments on lady Margaret’s part for why such bitch Catehrien would want to be married to next heir. But zero reasoning why Catehrine would be stripped of her luxuries at that moment. Poorly written.
More fake plotline between Lina and Ovieto, more of wickedness. More of Harry sneaking out to flirt with Catherine, when he was child! And wouldn’t hunt with crossbow, but longbow.
Henry is right to point Catherine is being greedy and she is completely wrong to say they were equal. BUt as in real life Catherine sometimes did forget that they were not, I’ll leave them that.
Letters between Catherine and Isabella are such lazy writing and totally false. Isabella making it seems as pope’s dispensation was something impossible. Dear lord!
Catherine is having episode! As in-get her to psychiatric ward, this is not normal. Screaming upon reading letter!
“I am not coming home! That will not be my fate! I will be Queen of England!”
It’s mental! and so untrue. Isabella wanted this new match! Ferdinand wanted it too(and i do’t get why they leave him from corespondence). He needed this match to keep France in check! As they threatened his Italian holdings!
Lady Margaret seeing oranges for first time? Oh lord. Yes, they were unusual and rare, but not unknown to royal courts in northern royal courts.
Real Catherine’s confessor straight out said marriage was consumated(idk why he said so, but he certainly wasn’t only confessor of Catherine who misinterpreted some things), why would lady Margaret mention him and then want the answer to this from lady Pole?! Lady Pole lies, setting herself for hell.
Lady Margaret banishing lady Pole, and is acting as crazy person. Totally untrue. Lady Pole wasn’t banned from court, but there was no Queen, so few ladies remained at court.
Edmund de la Pole was locked up by the time supposedly he met lady Pole. By the way, if we fallowed York succesion(and go through female line to males), then Henry VIII would be next York heir, then lady Pole’s son, and then Edmund de la Pole. So why would she support de la Pole over her own son, over her own claim?! It makes no sense!!!
Lady Margaret acting like Vader, marching among troops.
Lady Margaret speaks Spanish?! This is untrue! (though it’d be cool if true).
Henry VIII being totally uncaring about his sister Margaret-which is untrue. Though they weren’t closest of siblings(his personality was more alike with his sister Mary). Margaret Tudor set for Scotland in June 1503, from Richmond Palace. Very lavish, modern, and very large palace. Much larger than any place they used for filming.
Also in this scene of saiyng goodbye to Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII is already taller than his father. He was in fact 12, and though he started to sprung up, Henry VII was tall too, so he wasn’t smaller than his son. Yet.
More flirting between child and grown girl. Henry VII announces he shall wed infanta. This never happened! He actually never even asked for her hand. Puebla wrote such match was rumoured at court(just after Elizabeth of York died) and Isabella said it was impossible.
I disliked most of what i found in corespondence between Spain and England at that time(see posts about it), but I have to give credit to Isabella for this-she didn’t want her daughter to marry old man, and she said no. Even though he wasn’t asking.
Henry VII saying his kingdom was best and all of christendom would bow to them?! No sane King would say such thing in public. He’d make all christendom as his enemy. This is crazy!
So poorly written! And it is continuous issue with TSP. There usually is no more than minute of good dialog per episode. And they talk all the time!
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
Events 4.30
311 – The Diocletianic Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire ends.
1315 – Enguerrand de Marigny is hanged at the instigation of Charles, Count of Valois.
1492 – Spain gives Christopher Columbus his commission of exploration. He is named admiral of the ocean sea, viceroy and governor of any territory he discovers.
1513 – Edmund de la Pole, Yorkist pretender to the English throne, is executed on the orders of Henry VIII.
1557 – Mapuche leader Lautaro is killed by Spanish forces at the Battle of Mataquito in Chile.
1598 – Juan de Oñate begins the conquest of Santa Fe de Nuevo México.
1598 – Henry IV of France issues the Edict of Nantes, allowing freedom of religion to the Huguenots.
1636 – Eighty Years' War: Dutch Republic forces recapture a strategically important fort from Spain after a nine-month siege.
1789 – On the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York City, George Washington takes the oath of office to become the first President of the United States.
1803 – Louisiana Purchase: The United States purchases the Louisiana Territory from France for $15 million, more than doubling the size of the young nation.
1812 – The Territory of Orleans becomes the 18th U.S. state under the name Louisiana.
1838 – Nicaragua declares independence from the Central American Federation.
1863 – A 65-man French Foreign Legion infantry patrol fights a force of nearly 2,000 Mexican soldiers to nearly the last man in Hacienda Camarón, Mexico.
1871 – The Camp Grant massacre takes place in Arizona Territory.
1885 – Governor of New York David B. Hill signs legislation creating the Niagara Reservation, New York's first state park, ensuring that Niagara Falls will not be devoted solely to industrial and commercial use.
1897 – J. J. Thomson of the Cavendish Laboratory announces his discovery of the electron as a subatomic particle, over 1,800 times smaller than a proton (in the atomic nucleus), at a lecture at the Royal Institution in London.
1900 – Hawaii becomes a territory of the United States, with Sanford B. Dole as governor.
1905 – Albert Einstein completes his doctoral thesis at the University of Zurich.
1925 – Automaker Dodge Brothers, Inc is sold to Dillon, Read & Co. for US$146 million plus $50 million for charity.
1927 – The Federal Industrial Institute for Women opens in Alderson, West Virginia, as the first women's federal prison in the United States.
1937 – The Commonwealth of the Philippines holds a plebiscite for Filipino women on whether they should be extended the right to suffrage; over 90% would vote in the affirmative.
1939 – The 1939–40 New York World's Fair opens.
1939 – NBC inaugurates its regularly scheduled television service in New York City, broadcasting President Franklin D. Roosevelt's N.Y. World's Fair opening day ceremonial address.
1943 – World War II: The British submarine HMS Seraph surfaces near Huelva to cast adrift a dead man dressed as a courier and carrying false invasion plans.
1945 – World War II: Führerbunker: Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun commit suicide after being married for less than 40 hours. Soviet soldiers raise the Victory Banner over the Reichstag building.
1945 – World War II: Stalag Luft I prisoner-of-war camp near Barth, Germany is liberated by Soviet soldiers, freeing nearly 9,000 American and British airmen.
1947 – In Nevada, Boulder Dam is renamed Hoover Dam.
1948 – In Bogotá, Colombia, the Organization of American States is established.
1956 – Former Vice President and Democratic Senator Alben Barkley dies during a speech in Virginia.
1957 – Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery entered into force.
1961 – K-19, the first Soviet nuclear submarine equipped with nuclear missiles, is commissioned.
1963 – The Bristol Bus Boycott is held in Bristol to protest the Bristol Omnibus Company's refusal to employ Black or Asian bus crews, drawing national attention to racial discrimination in the United Kingdom.
1973 – Watergate scandal: U.S. President Richard Nixon announces that White House Counsel John Dean has been fired and that other top aides, most notably H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, have resigned.
1975 – Fall of Saigon: Communist forces gain control of Saigon. The Vietnam War formally ends with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnamese president Dương Văn Minh.
1980 – Beatrix is inaugurated as Queen of the Netherlands following the abdication of Juliana.
1980 – The Iranian Embassy siege begins in London.
1982 – The Bijon Setu massacre occurs in Calcutta, India.
1993 – CERN announces World Wide Web protocols will be free.
1993 – Tennis player Monica Seles – at this time the top-ranked player in women's tennis – is stabbed during a match at the 1993 Citizen Cup in Hamburg, Germany.
1994 – Formula One racing driver Roland Ratzenberger is killed in a crash during the qualifying session of the San Marino Grand Prix run at Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari outside Imola, Italy.
1999 – Neo-Nazi David Copeland carries out the last of his three nail bombings in London at the Admiral Duncan gay pub, killing three people and injuring 79 others.
2000 – Canonization of Faustina Kowalska in the presence of 200,000 people and the first Divine Mercy Sunday celebrated worldwide.
2004 – U.S. media release graphic photos of American soldiers committing war crimes against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.
2008 – Two skeletal remains found near Yekaterinburg, Russia are confirmed by Russian scientists to be the remains of Alexei and Anastasia, two of the children of the last Tsar of Russia, whose entire family was executed at Yekaterinburg by the Bolsheviks.
2009 – Chrysler files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
2009 – Seven civilians and the perpetrator are killed and another ten injured at a Queen's Day parade in Apeldoorn, Netherlands in an attempted assassination on Queen Beatrix.
2012 – An overloaded ferry capsizes on the Brahmaputra River in India killing at least 103 people.
2013 – Willem-Alexander is inaugurated as King of the Netherlands following the abdication of Beatrix.
2014 – A bomb blast in Ürümqi, China kills three people and injures 79 others.
2021 – Forty-five men and boys are killed in the Meron stampede in Israel.
0 notes
Text
5 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
ask-sds
Welcome to the Daycare!
absolutechocolateperfection
Chocolate Perfection
eddiesshovel
Loser
doloresgaze7
*:･ﾟ✧*:･ﾟ✧
favzicons
only MY favs