Sara. 20. Canadian. Writer. Book Worm.
Let's be friends!
Reblogged from stardust-pond  111 notes
dark-beer-to-wash-it-down:

scribblesincrayon:

Ah. *rubs hands together in glee* 
Before I go on an epic rant, I encourage everyone to read the comments from harritudur and stardust-pond on this post. 
As with most things surrounding the brief reign of Richard III, the facts are a bit hard to come by and what little we do know is open to widely disparate interpretations. 
There are, IMO, three ways to parse the facts here: the Ricardian way, the anti-Ricardian way, and a middle-of-the-road way that might be closer to the truth. As an aside, many of the people who assume a relationship between Elizabeth and Richard also believe Elizabeth Woodville encouraged the affair and possible marriage because of her own dynastic ambitions. If there’s a person more maligned than Richard here, it has to be poor Elizabeth Woodville (but this post is not about her, fwiw). 
The confession above deals with three pieces of “evidence” for an actual relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York. 
Piece of Evidence #1:  Elizabeth of York wore the same kind of clothes as Queen Anne. 
The primary contemporary evidence for this comes from the account in the Crowland Chronicle [1] which noted, in relevant part: 

There may be many other things that are not written in this book and of which it is shameful to speak, but let it not go unsaid that during this Christmas festival, an excessive interest was displayed in singing and dancing and to vain changes of apparel presented to Queen Anne and the Lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, being of similar color and shape: a thing that caused the people to murmur and the nobles and prelates greatly to wonder at…

This was almost certainly written by a cleric in attendance at the Christmas festivities of 1484 (probably Bishop Russell). The fact that court festivities were lavish and a bit rowdy is nothing remarkable in itself, although perhaps offensive to a man of the cloth. The remarkable fact is the note about Anne and Elizabeth’s clothing.
The Ricardian view is that Anne and Elizabeth were close, and it was only natural that they would be dressed alike. The anti-Ricardian view is that Elizabeth and Anne being similarly dressed violated sumptuary laws that prohibited anyone outside the royal family from wearing cloth of gold, and therefore, it was downright scandalous for Elizabeth to be wearing clothes similar to Anne, or even swapping clothes with her. Alison Weir [2] goes so far as to suggest that this must have been on Richard’s orders because Anne, being both queen and a woman of noble birth, would have guessed the rumors this would arouse and would never have agreed to it. 
But here’s the weird part: the Chronicle notes that Anne and Elizabeth were of similar shape and color (i.e. they were both slender, fair-haired women) and that they were both presented with vain changes of apparel. It doesn’t actually say they were wearing the same outfit, and it does not indicate that they swapped clothes or that Elizabeth wore cloth of gold in violation of existing sumptuary laws. It’s entirely possible that Anne and Elizabeth were having a bit of frivolous fun, changing their clothes for each new event, dancing, etc. It was the fashion at the time for ladies of the court to be color-coordinated, so many women celebrating Christmas at court would have tried to match Anne’s dresses, including Elizabeth and her sisters.
Obviously, what the Chronicle is really complaining about is that everyone partied too hard. This amount of partying was remarkable only in the sense that Richard’s court was viewed as far more austere and moral than Edward IV’s court had ever been, so it was a departure from the standard Richard himself had set. 
Piece of Evidence #2: Elizabeth of York was given Richard’s copy of Tristan and Iseult (with the fly leaf showing both his “ex libris” (Iste liber constat Ricardo Duci Gloucestre) and Elizabeth’s pre-marriage motto and signature (sans removyr, Elyzabeth). 
Elizabeth actually owned two books that had once belonged to Richard: the aforementioned Tristan and Iseult and Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae. In the latter book, Elizabeth appears to have written Richard’s motto (Loyaulte me lie) above her own signature.
Again, the Ricardian view is that this was an innocent and appropriate exchange of literature between uncle and niece. He liked to read, she liked to read, and so he gave her a couple of his books. The anti-Ricardian view (which Weir expounds on in her recent biography of Elizabeth of York) is that books were valuable, Richard’s collection was his personal property, and to present books to Elizabeth was a meaningful gesture that implied he was a suitor for her hand. I suppose both of these views are perfectly reasonable, under the circumstances. 
But again, here’s the thing: Elizabeth almost certainly acquired these books before her marriage, because of the way she signs her name. But it doesn’t say when she acquired the books, and it could have been after Richard’s death, but before her January 1486 marriage to Henry VII. There is evidence to suggest that most of Richard’s personal property was acquired by a single person after Henry VII’s accession, i.e. his mother, Margaret Beaufort. Maybe she passed these books on to Elizabeth, especially as she may not have found these books to her taste. An unmarried Elizabeth may have scrawled Richard’s motto in Boethius as a way of preserving his connection to the book, not for romantic reasons, but because he was a close relative. (Incidentally, Margaret tore out the pages where Richard had written in his name in the books she acquired, so Elizabeth may have deliberately signed her name under Richard’s to make sure there would be no fly leaf destruction!)
Piece of Evidence #3: Richard had to make a public declaration that he had no intention to marry his niece.
Again, the Crowland Chronicle is the source of this contemporary fact, although it’s borne out by other reports from the time. It is generally accepted as true that “shortly after Easter” (March 30), Richard appeared in Clerkenwell and made a public declaration that he had no intention of marrying his niece and that he had not poisoned his wife and grieved for his wife in the way that any man would. 
The Ricardian view here is that Richard made the declaration because he found the rumors personally offensive. They were untrue and maligned Elizabeth’s reputation and his own grief over Anne’s death. The anti-Ricardian view is that Richard was forced into making a public declaration by Catesby and Ratcliffe because they’d come to the conclusion that Richard’s intention to marry his niece would not meet with public approval and would erode his northern support. Both of these views are perfectly reasonable, and in fact, they may both be simultaneously true, i.e. Richard was offended by the rumors he poisoned his wife AND he had actually considered marrying Elizabeth (a young woman from a notoriously fecund family) but was concerned about losing the Neville affinity. 
Again, there’s a third possibility. The declaration at Clerkenwell did happen, but Crowland’s contemporary reports of the rumors about Richard and Elizabeth are countered by evidence from the Portuguese court. Those records suggest that, as early as January 1485 (yes, while Anne was still alive), Richard was in active negotiation with Portugal for an alliance with Joanna of Aviz (for himself) and the Duke of Beja (for Elizabeth). In fact, shortly after Anne’s death, he dispatched an embassy to Portugal with Edward Brampton to finalize the alliance. The proposal appears to have stalled out while Richard prepared for the Tudor invasion, but it was an actual negotiation and not mere rumor. Indeed, some historians believe Richard made the declaration at the behest of Portugal, i.e. they needed some assurance that both he and Elizabeth were good marriage material and still available to them. 
When the OP says “where did the rumors come from,” I assume the OP is implying that the rumors indicate the existence of a real relationship. Here I have to disagree. Richard’s public denial of the rumors is not evidence of anything but the existence of the rumors, and the rumors could have come from anywhere. They could have been raised by Richard’s detractors as a way to demonstrate what a horrible monster he was. They could have been raised by Richard himself, since any plans for his own marriage to Elizabeth would neutralize Henry Tudor’s plans to marry her (and Richard was not above the pragmatic realpolitik of the day, which required judicious use of malicious gossip). Finally, they could have been raised by mainline Yorkists who wanted to see Edward IV’s daughter on the throne, and didn’t particularly care who she married. 
[1] Historians generally accept the Chronicle as both contemporary and largely unbiased, but some parts of the Chronicle were written in 1486, after the fact, and by one or more unknown monks (the Continuator) who may not have witnessed the events of Richard’s reign first-hand. There is also some evidence to suggest that the monks of Crowland were unhappy that Richard’s usurpation had denied them a significant amount of wealth they’d expected from disposition of Edward IV’s last will and testament. 
[2] This is a personal editorial comment, but seriously, why does Alison Weir’s word carry so much weight? She’s not a historian and her popular histories of the time are open to serious question. 

WARNING, LONG POST: I agree, we can’t exactly rule out for a 100% that Richard III contemplated a marriage to Elizabeth of York at some point, because we simply have no possibility to know what was on his mind at that stage. But the annoying thing is, that even though there’s no conclusive evidence for this, many modern historians still give so much credence to this issue rather than focussing on his marriage plans with Joanna of Portugal, which is actually far more interesting and for which there is actual evidence. (I mean, ok, the evidence wasn’t found until relatively recently and none of his contemporaries actually reported about it, so earlier historians have an excuse here.)
As I have said before, Richard thinking briefly about marrying Elizabeth may have been the case, maybe he had a moment of utter desperation and stupidity, we can’t know, and maybe he even voiced his thoughts and was advised against it. Nothing too unbelievable here. And this is the scenario that the Croyland Chronicler is reporting, but the thing is, he is describing it in such a blatantly sensationalist way that it really should be taken with a pinch of salt. Also: the reasons why a marriage to Elizabeth of York was sheer folly are numerous and obvious but the reasons Richard’s advisers allegedly put forth according to the Croyland Chronicler are quite simply pants.
For example: „They brought to him more than a dozen Doctors of Divinity, who asserted that the pope could grant no dispensation in the case of such a degree of consanguinity.“ 
A couple of questions here: Where the hell did Catesby get all these bible experts so suddenly? And why so many? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient enough to convince Richard that a marriage to his niece was impossible on the prohibitions of the Old Testament? Not to mention that it absolutely wasn’t, because there is nothing explicit in the scripture that condemns an uncle/niece marriage. Sure, the pope could simply refuse to grant a dispensation but this was not for Doctors of Divinity to know. 
On the issue of the rumors and the subsequent denial, here is my theory: 
It has always been assumed, that Catesby and Ratcliffe had to talk Richard out of marrying Elizabeth and pressured him to make a public denial, claiming that if he didn’t „all the people of the north, in whom he placed the greatest reliance, would rise in rebellion against him, and impute to him the death of the queen“. So, the assertion here is that the northern gentry and commons, Richard’s greatest supporters and loyalists, might give credence to the rumour that Richard had hastened his wife’s death and then immediately take up arms. I call bullshit on that one.
First: Who rises in rebellion simply because of a rumour he’s heard which doesn’t even affect you politically and without so much as a crumb of evidence? I mean, who is that stupid? They would need to have a clear goal for their rebellion and, you know, a backstory of disaffection to willingly absorb this rumour as truth. And even if they didn’t dismiss it as obvious slander, you would need to give them a bit more to outright rebel. When King John starved the wife and the young son of William de Braose to death in prison, nobody in his home country so much as lifted a spoon in response, even though people were definately outraged and shocked. Only later due to John’s squeez’em-dry tax policy, his military failings and the papal interdict would people rise in popular oppossition against him resulting in Magna Carta. 
Second: The only rumour that could in fact cause a rebellion was the rumour that Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York, because a marriage to EoY would simply demonstrate that Richard himself didn’t believe in his right to rule. (Even Henry VII was reluctant for a long time to marry Elizabeth until he was formally petitioned by parliament.) There was no better way of exposing himself as a liar and usurper than by marrying EoY. This was the main reason why a marriage would’ve been madness and this is also why the mere rumour of him even considering such a marriage was not just slander but dangerous. And none of his advisers makes a mention of it? Really? Of course Richard was well-advised to make sure that the loyalist north was not being alienated as well, but there was definitely no immediate danger. Richard’s much more pressing problem at this point was his public image in south and the invisible enemy camp of Tudor agents for whom these rumours were perfect propaganda to rile up the edwardian loyalists. You see, a lot of people have claimed that the rumour of him marrying Elizabeth simply sprang up around Christmas 1484 because apparently Anne was very sick and great favor was shown to Elizabeth and therefore the whole rumour was just a tragic misunderstanding. But because of the reasons I’ve cited above, I think it was much more calculated. And this is doubtless why Richard issued a public denial, addressing both the rumour concerning Elizabeth AND the rumour concerning Anne, which in my mind was a very wise decision. Why?
Like I’ve said, the rumour that Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York was playing perfectly in the hands of Richards enemies, because it was casting even further doubt on his right to rule, so it was necessary for Richard to squash it by swearing solemnly that a marriage would never occur. But what about the rumour that Richard poisened Anne? Was that dangerous as well? Hm. As I’ve said before, the north had no reason to believe it to be true and much less to boneheadedly rebel, so if Richard’s enemies tried to stir up a rebellion among his loyalists, it was incredibly sloppy. The south would definitely be more ready to believe it, but they probably wouldn’t give two shits about Anne. She was merely a noble lady from the north and by herself nothing. So the whole rumour just seems like pointless extra slander.
But keep in mind that no matter how much Richard as a man and husband might be devastated by the loss of his wife, Richard’s new status as a widower was politically really fortunate. The proposed marriage alliances with the Lancaster descended House of Aviz (or Trastamára) which also included Elizabeth of York would finally unite Lancaster and York. (Despite what others claim, the Elizabeth of York/Henry Tudor marriage was NOT in fact the marital uniting of Lancaster and York, it was the uniting of Beaufort and York. There is a fundamental difference and the legitimate blood of Lancaster was still out there, so none of this „last heir of Lancaster“ bullcrap. Henry was merely a convenient figurehead for remaining lancastrian loyalists and a pawn for the French to annoy the English, the Tudor rose is a big fat lie so just sit down!) Elizabeth of York would be unavailable. And an England allied with Portugal or/and Spain would be a formidable enemy against France. So this was a tremendous setback for Richard’s enemies. This is why I believe that the rumour of Anne’s murder was specifically fabricated in order to alienate not the north of England but Spain and Portugal, because even though Richard was ever on good terms with both countries, this alliance was still fresh. There was indeed the danger that these Kings might give credence to the rumour and you’d think, that they would then think twice about proposing relatives as spouses to a King who had a reputation for wife-poisoning. (A similar incident: When Edward IV arranged a marriage between his sister Margaret and Charles of Burgundy, Louis XI panicked and tried everything to stop it, including slandering Margaret, claiming that she was not a virgin and already had a bastard son.)
 But it seems like the Portuguese and the Spanish were really not buying it and remained very keen on an alliance. Was that because Richard denied it? Probably not, because in this case a denial wouldn’t prove his innocence. Seems more likely to me that they simply assumed that it was french-born slander in order to prevent an alliance. So why was denying Anne’s murder smart? Kings were not expected to give credence to the slander fabricated by enemies and very few did. And there was a reason, because when a personal statement does nothing to establish innocence or guilt, it just becomes a show of weakness and humiliation. But that’s exactly why it was a brilliant move in his situation. Richard basically throwing regality and pride down the drain and reducing himself to a picture of misery in front of everybody made him suddenly sympathetic. (I know it worked, because I always swoon when I read about Richard’s manly tears, don’t hate me.) Richard was after all a student of his family’s history, he most probably knew about Henry II’s emotional speech some time after Becket’s death, that he never intended for him to come to harm, and what a positive effect this had on Henry’s reputation. Richard no doubt hoped that a humiliating public display of his private grief would help to burnish his public image which was so damaged at that point. Sad that it didn’t work out as he hoped.

dark-beer-to-wash-it-down:

scribblesincrayon:

Ah. *rubs hands together in glee* 

Before I go on an epic rant, I encourage everyone to read the comments from harritudur and stardust-pond on this post. 

As with most things surrounding the brief reign of Richard III, the facts are a bit hard to come by and what little we do know is open to widely disparate interpretations. 

There are, IMO, three ways to parse the facts here: the Ricardian way, the anti-Ricardian way, and a middle-of-the-road way that might be closer to the truth. As an aside, many of the people who assume a relationship between Elizabeth and Richard also believe Elizabeth Woodville encouraged the affair and possible marriage because of her own dynastic ambitions. If there’s a person more maligned than Richard here, it has to be poor Elizabeth Woodville (but this post is not about her, fwiw). 

The confession above deals with three pieces of “evidence” for an actual relationship between Richard and Elizabeth of York. 

Piece of Evidence #1:  Elizabeth of York wore the same kind of clothes as Queen Anne. 

The primary contemporary evidence for this comes from the account in the Crowland Chronicle [1] which noted, in relevant part: 

There may be many other things that are not written in this book and of which it is shameful to speak, but let it not go unsaid that during this Christmas festival, an excessive interest was displayed in singing and dancing and to vain changes of apparel presented to Queen Anne and the Lady Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of the late King, being of similar color and shape: a thing that caused the people to murmur and the nobles and prelates greatly to wonder at…

This was almost certainly written by a cleric in attendance at the Christmas festivities of 1484 (probably Bishop Russell). The fact that court festivities were lavish and a bit rowdy is nothing remarkable in itself, although perhaps offensive to a man of the cloth. The remarkable fact is the note about Anne and Elizabeth’s clothing.

The Ricardian view is that Anne and Elizabeth were close, and it was only natural that they would be dressed alike. The anti-Ricardian view is that Elizabeth and Anne being similarly dressed violated sumptuary laws that prohibited anyone outside the royal family from wearing cloth of gold, and therefore, it was downright scandalous for Elizabeth to be wearing clothes similar to Anne, or even swapping clothes with her. Alison Weir [2] goes so far as to suggest that this must have been on Richard’s orders because Anne, being both queen and a woman of noble birth, would have guessed the rumors this would arouse and would never have agreed to it. 

But here’s the weird part: the Chronicle notes that Anne and Elizabeth were of similar shape and color (i.e. they were both slender, fair-haired women) and that they were both presented with vain changes of apparel. It doesn’t actually say they were wearing the same outfit, and it does not indicate that they swapped clothes or that Elizabeth wore cloth of gold in violation of existing sumptuary laws. It’s entirely possible that Anne and Elizabeth were having a bit of frivolous fun, changing their clothes for each new event, dancing, etc. It was the fashion at the time for ladies of the court to be color-coordinated, so many women celebrating Christmas at court would have tried to match Anne’s dresses, including Elizabeth and her sisters.

Obviously, what the Chronicle is really complaining about is that everyone partied too hard. This amount of partying was remarkable only in the sense that Richard’s court was viewed as far more austere and moral than Edward IV’s court had ever been, so it was a departure from the standard Richard himself had set. 

Piece of Evidence #2: Elizabeth of York was given Richard’s copy of Tristan and Iseult (with the fly leaf showing both his “ex libris” (Iste liber constat Ricardo Duci Gloucestre) and Elizabeth’s pre-marriage motto and signature (sans removyr, Elyzabeth). 

Elizabeth actually owned two books that had once belonged to Richard: the aforementioned Tristan and Iseult and Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae. In the latter book, Elizabeth appears to have written Richard’s motto (Loyaulte me lie) above her own signature.

Again, the Ricardian view is that this was an innocent and appropriate exchange of literature between uncle and niece. He liked to read, she liked to read, and so he gave her a couple of his books. The anti-Ricardian view (which Weir expounds on in her recent biography of Elizabeth of York) is that books were valuable, Richard’s collection was his personal property, and to present books to Elizabeth was a meaningful gesture that implied he was a suitor for her hand. I suppose both of these views are perfectly reasonable, under the circumstances. 

But again, here’s the thing: Elizabeth almost certainly acquired these books before her marriage, because of the way she signs her name. But it doesn’t say when she acquired the books, and it could have been after Richard’s death, but before her January 1486 marriage to Henry VII. There is evidence to suggest that most of Richard’s personal property was acquired by a single person after Henry VII’s accession, i.e. his mother, Margaret Beaufort. Maybe she passed these books on to Elizabeth, especially as she may not have found these books to her taste. An unmarried Elizabeth may have scrawled Richard’s motto in Boethius as a way of preserving his connection to the book, not for romantic reasons, but because he was a close relative. (Incidentally, Margaret tore out the pages where Richard had written in his name in the books she acquired, so Elizabeth may have deliberately signed her name under Richard’s to make sure there would be no fly leaf destruction!)

Piece of Evidence #3: Richard had to make a public declaration that he had no intention to marry his niece.

Again, the Crowland Chronicle is the source of this contemporary fact, although it’s borne out by other reports from the time. It is generally accepted as true that “shortly after Easter” (March 30), Richard appeared in Clerkenwell and made a public declaration that he had no intention of marrying his niece and that he had not poisoned his wife and grieved for his wife in the way that any man would. 

The Ricardian view here is that Richard made the declaration because he found the rumors personally offensive. They were untrue and maligned Elizabeth’s reputation and his own grief over Anne’s death. The anti-Ricardian view is that Richard was forced into making a public declaration by Catesby and Ratcliffe because they’d come to the conclusion that Richard’s intention to marry his niece would not meet with public approval and would erode his northern support. Both of these views are perfectly reasonable, and in fact, they may both be simultaneously true, i.e. Richard was offended by the rumors he poisoned his wife AND he had actually considered marrying Elizabeth (a young woman from a notoriously fecund family) but was concerned about losing the Neville affinity. 

Again, there’s a third possibility. The declaration at Clerkenwell did happen, but Crowland’s contemporary reports of the rumors about Richard and Elizabeth are countered by evidence from the Portuguese court. Those records suggest that, as early as January 1485 (yes, while Anne was still alive), Richard was in active negotiation with Portugal for an alliance with Joanna of Aviz (for himself) and the Duke of Beja (for Elizabeth). In fact, shortly after Anne’s death, he dispatched an embassy to Portugal with Edward Brampton to finalize the alliance. The proposal appears to have stalled out while Richard prepared for the Tudor invasion, but it was an actual negotiation and not mere rumor. Indeed, some historians believe Richard made the declaration at the behest of Portugal, i.e. they needed some assurance that both he and Elizabeth were good marriage material and still available to them. 

When the OP says “where did the rumors come from,” I assume the OP is implying that the rumors indicate the existence of a real relationship. Here I have to disagree. Richard’s public denial of the rumors is not evidence of anything but the existence of the rumors, and the rumors could have come from anywhere. They could have been raised by Richard’s detractors as a way to demonstrate what a horrible monster he was. They could have been raised by Richard himself, since any plans for his own marriage to Elizabeth would neutralize Henry Tudor’s plans to marry her (and Richard was not above the pragmatic realpolitik of the day, which required judicious use of malicious gossip). Finally, they could have been raised by mainline Yorkists who wanted to see Edward IV’s daughter on the throne, and didn’t particularly care who she married. 

[1] Historians generally accept the Chronicle as both contemporary and largely unbiased, but some parts of the Chronicle were written in 1486, after the fact, and by one or more unknown monks (the Continuator) who may not have witnessed the events of Richard’s reign first-hand. There is also some evidence to suggest that the monks of Crowland were unhappy that Richard’s usurpation had denied them a significant amount of wealth they’d expected from disposition of Edward IV’s last will and testament. 

[2] This is a personal editorial comment, but seriously, why does Alison Weir’s word carry so much weight? She’s not a historian and her popular histories of the time are open to serious question. 

WARNING, LONG POST: I agree, we can’t exactly rule out for a 100% that Richard III contemplated a marriage to Elizabeth of York at some point, because we simply have no possibility to know what was on his mind at that stage. But the annoying thing is, that even though there’s no conclusive evidence for this, many modern historians still give so much credence to this issue rather than focussing on his marriage plans with Joanna of Portugal, which is actually far more interesting and for which there is actual evidence. (I mean, ok, the evidence wasn’t found until relatively recently and none of his contemporaries actually reported about it, so earlier historians have an excuse here.)

As I have said before, Richard thinking briefly about marrying Elizabeth may have been the case, maybe he had a moment of utter desperation and stupidity, we can’t know, and maybe he even voiced his thoughts and was advised against it. Nothing too unbelievable here. And this is the scenario that the Croyland Chronicler is reporting, but the thing is, he is describing it in such a blatantly sensationalist way that it really should be taken with a pinch of salt. Also: the reasons why a marriage to Elizabeth of York was sheer folly are numerous and obvious but the reasons Richard’s advisers allegedly put forth according to the Croyland Chronicler are quite simply pants.

For example: „They brought to him more than a dozen Doctors of Divinity, who asserted that the pope could grant no dispensation in the case of such a degree of consanguinity.“

A couple of questions here: Where the hell did Catesby get all these bible experts so suddenly? And why so many? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient enough to convince Richard that a marriage to his niece was impossible on the prohibitions of the Old Testament? Not to mention that it absolutely wasn’t, because there is nothing explicit in the scripture that condemns an uncle/niece marriage. Sure, the pope could simply refuse to grant a dispensation but this was not for Doctors of Divinity to know. 

On the issue of the rumors and the subsequent denial, here is my theory: 

It has always been assumed, that Catesby and Ratcliffe had to talk Richard out of marrying Elizabeth and pressured him to make a public denial, claiming that if he didn’t „all the people of the north, in whom he placed the greatest reliance, would rise in rebellion against him, and impute to him the death of the queen“. So, the assertion here is that the northern gentry and commons, Richard’s greatest supporters and loyalists, might give credence to the rumour that Richard had hastened his wife’s death and then immediately take up arms. I call bullshit on that one.

First: Who rises in rebellion simply because of a rumour he’s heard which doesn’t even affect you politically and without so much as a crumb of evidence? I mean, who is that stupid? They would need to have a clear goal for their rebellion and, you know, a backstory of disaffection to willingly absorb this rumour as truth. And even if they didn’t dismiss it as obvious slander, you would need to give them a bit more to outright rebel. When King John starved the wife and the young son of William de Braose to death in prison, nobody in his home country so much as lifted a spoon in response, even though people were definately outraged and shocked. Only later due to John’s squeez’em-dry tax policy, his military failings and the papal interdict would people rise in popular oppossition against him resulting in Magna Carta. 

Second: The only rumour that could in fact cause a rebellion was the rumour that Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York, because a marriage to EoY would simply demonstrate that Richard himself didn’t believe in his right to rule. (Even Henry VII was reluctant for a long time to marry Elizabeth until he was formally petitioned by parliament.) There was no better way of exposing himself as a liar and usurper than by marrying EoY. This was the main reason why a marriage would’ve been madness and this is also why the mere rumour of him even considering such a marriage was not just slander but dangerous. And none of his advisers makes a mention of it? Really? Of course Richard was well-advised to make sure that the loyalist north was not being alienated as well, but there was definitely no immediate danger. Richard’s much more pressing problem at this point was his public image in south and the invisible enemy camp of Tudor agents for whom these rumours were perfect propaganda to rile up the edwardian loyalists. You see, a lot of people have claimed that the rumour of him marrying Elizabeth simply sprang up around Christmas 1484 because apparently Anne was very sick and great favor was shown to Elizabeth and therefore the whole rumour was just a tragic misunderstanding. But because of the reasons I’ve cited above, I think it was much more calculated. And this is doubtless why Richard issued a public denial, addressing both the rumour concerning Elizabeth AND the rumour concerning Anne, which in my mind was a very wise decision. Why?

Like I’ve said, the rumour that Richard planned to marry Elizabeth of York was playing perfectly in the hands of Richards enemies, because it was casting even further doubt on his right to rule, so it was necessary for Richard to squash it by swearing solemnly that a marriage would never occur. But what about the rumour that Richard poisened Anne? Was that dangerous as well? Hm. As I’ve said before, the north had no reason to believe it to be true and much less to boneheadedly rebel, so if Richard’s enemies tried to stir up a rebellion among his loyalists, it was incredibly sloppy. The south would definitely be more ready to believe it, but they probably wouldn’t give two shits about Anne. She was merely a noble lady from the north and by herself nothing. So the whole rumour just seems like pointless extra slander.

But keep in mind that no matter how much Richard as a man and husband might be devastated by the loss of his wife, Richard’s new status as a widower was politically really fortunate. The proposed marriage alliances with the Lancaster descended House of Aviz (or Trastamára) which also included Elizabeth of York would finally unite Lancaster and York. (Despite what others claim, the Elizabeth of York/Henry Tudor marriage was NOT in fact the marital uniting of Lancaster and York, it was the uniting of Beaufort and York. There is a fundamental difference and the legitimate blood of Lancaster was still out there, so none of this „last heir of Lancaster“ bullcrap. Henry was merely a convenient figurehead for remaining lancastrian loyalists and a pawn for the French to annoy the English, the Tudor rose is a big fat lie so just sit down!) Elizabeth of York would be unavailable. And an England allied with Portugal or/and Spain would be a formidable enemy against France. So this was a tremendous setback for Richard’s enemies. This is why I believe that the rumour of Anne’s murder was specifically fabricated in order to alienate not the north of England but Spain and Portugal, because even though Richard was ever on good terms with both countries, this alliance was still fresh. There was indeed the danger that these Kings might give credence to the rumour and you’d think, that they would then think twice about proposing relatives as spouses to a King who had a reputation for wife-poisoning. (A similar incident: When Edward IV arranged a marriage between his sister Margaret and Charles of Burgundy, Louis XI panicked and tried everything to stop it, including slandering Margaret, claiming that she was not a virgin and already had a bastard son.)

 But it seems like the Portuguese and the Spanish were really not buying it and remained very keen on an alliance. Was that because Richard denied it? Probably not, because in this case a denial wouldn’t prove his innocence. Seems more likely to me that they simply assumed that it was french-born slander in order to prevent an alliance. So why was denying Anne’s murder smart? Kings were not expected to give credence to the slander fabricated by enemies and very few did. And there was a reason, because when a personal statement does nothing to establish innocence or guilt, it just becomes a show of weakness and humiliation. But that’s exactly why it was a brilliant move in his situation. Richard basically throwing regality and pride down the drain and reducing himself to a picture of misery in front of everybody made him suddenly sympathetic. (I know it worked, because I always swoon when I read about Richard’s manly tears, don’t hate me.) Richard was after all a student of his family’s history, he most probably knew about Henry II’s emotional speech some time after Becket’s death, that he never intended for him to come to harm, and what a positive effect this had on Henry’s reputation. Richard no doubt hoped that a humiliating public display of his private grief would help to burnish his public image which was so damaged at that point. Sad that it didn’t work out as he hoped.

We put my little girl Lucy today. It was supposed to be next week but I switched it until today so I knew my mom could be there and I’d have time off work to grief. I took a lot of pictures and cuddled with her and when we took her in she was crawling around and sneezing until the doctor came in. She’s a family friend so she gave me a hug and walked me through what was going to happen before bundling her up and taking her away. It went very well, she didn’t feel anything and ‘settled’ into it well. She was cremated in her scarf which she loved so much.

She was more then just a hamster to me. My mom got her to help me deal with my grief for Norbert and she was there when I went through the worst depression and anxiety that I’ll hopefully ever go through. She had her own personality and was so fierce and so funny and though it doesn’t feel long there was so much life in her year and a half and she was loved every moment of it. As my mom said “for 12.99” she was treated like a queen and there was no way her life could have gone better. She was getting old and sick and we wanted her to go as peacefully and as in little pain as possible. I will miss her very much and I will see her again one day.

Reblogged from uneditededit  10,821 notes
thewritingcafe:

And now for a Halloween themed post.
HALLOWEEN

Also known as Samhein, Sauin, La Samhna, Samhuiin, Oiche Shamhna, Samain, Hallowmas, Shadowfest, All Hallow’s Eve, Samhuinn, Samhain, Witch’s New Year, Summer’s End, the Third Harvest, Samana, Vigil of Saman, and others.
The name “Samhain”, and its other spellings and similar names, comes from the Old Irish “sam” for summer and “fuin” for end, thus making this holiday the mark of the end of summer.

The celebration of Halloween goes back six thousand years where the Celtic people celebrated the end of the harvest and the coming of winter. This day is traditionally October 31st, though some celebrated it in the early days of November. Its most precise date is when the sun is at 15 degrees Scorpio. In the year of 2013, it will occur on November 7th. The celebration usually began the day before, at sunset.
This day was used to honor the dead and those who had passed away that year, as it was said the veil between the living and the dead was thinnest at this time of year. Rather than mourning the dead, Halloween was a celebration for the death of all things old and the beginning of all things new. 
SUPERSTITIONS

Bird Superstitions:
An owl that circles a house three times is said to be a sign that someone within the house will die soon.
It is said robins gained their red feathers because they attempted to remove the thorn crown from Jesus’s head, but his blood fell on the bird instead.
It is unlucky to kill a robin.
The eye on a peacock feather is said to be the “evil eye” and therefore bad luck to bring inside a home.
There are countless superstitions about birds near homes and windows that signify oncoming death.
Tip your hat at a magpie to avoid back luck.
It’s unlucky to kill sparrows because they carry the souls of the dead.
A crow at the window represents the soul of a dead person.
A nearby robin carries the soul of a deceased family member.
If a bird call comes from the north, misfortune will follow.
If a bird call comes from the west, good luck will follow.
If a bird call comes from the south, a good harvest will follow.
If a bird call comes from the east, love will follow.
Unbaptized children become birds until they are accepted into Heaven.
Pet birds must be informed of important family events or they will die.
It is unlucky to find a dead bird outside the home. 
A raven near a sick person means death is coming.
In Wales, a blind person can regain sight by showing kindness to a raven.
Cardinal Superstitions
Bird Folklore
Crow Folklore
Death Superstitions
Victorian Funeral Customs and Superstitions
Superstitions on Death
Superstitions of Death
13 Superstitions About Death and Dying
Superstitions About Death
Death Superstitions
Superstitions Surrounding Death
General Superstitions:
Put almonds in your pocket when you need to find something.
Scatter chili peppers around your house to break a curse.
Never blow out the first candle you lit before you blow out the others or bad luck will follow.
Throw rice in the air to make it rain.
Ask an orange a yes or no question and count the seeds. An even number of seeds means no and an odd number means yes.
In a photograph of three, the person in the middle will die first.
Walk through the branches of a maple tree to have a long life.
Carry peach wood to have a long life.
Eat a peach to assist in making a tough decision
Mix salt and pepper together and scatter it around your house to repel evil.
Do not whistle at night.
Eat mustard seed to ensure fertility.
Place chips of cedar wood in a box with some coins to draw money to you.
If you bite your tongue, someone is talking about you or thinking of you.
Hanging up a new calendar before the year is over will bring bad luck
Animal Superstitions
Irish Superstitions and Folklore
Superstitions
Superstitions From Europe
Superstitions in Shakespeare’s Time
Folklore of Puerto Rico
Old Irish Superstitions
Halloween Superstitions:
Put out all fires in the home the night before Halloween to cleanse negative spirits. Reignite them from a common source on Halloween.
Burying apples along the path is said to serve as food for souls as they pass through our world.
The veil between the living and the dead is said to be thinnest on Halloween.
13 Halloween Superstitions
Halloween Superstitions
Halloween Superstitions and Folklore
Home & Hearth Superstitions:
Hanging a pair of scissors over the front door will cut off negativity
Hanging a cluster of acorns on the front door will protect those who live there
Put thorny branches on your doorstep to keep evil away
Smell dill to get rid of hiccups
Place cotton on an aching tooth to relieve pain
Place a sliced onion in the room of an ill person to draw out the sickness
Hang a pea pod with nine peas above your door to draw your future lover
Place a pine branch above your bed to keep illness away
Love Superstitions:
Cut an apple in half and give one half to your love for a long relationship.
Put pepper inside a piece of cotton and sew it shut to bring back a lost love
It is bad luck for siblings to marry within the same year
If you see a robin on Valentine’s Day, you will marry a crime fighter
Eight Love Superstitions and Their Origins
Superstitions About Love and Marriage
Love Superstitions
Wedding Superstitions
Love Superstitions (highlight to read text)
Sleep Superstitions:
Smell peppermint to help you sleep
Eat a bit of thyme before bed for sweet dreams
Putting garlic under the bed will prevent nightmares
Rub a lettuce leaf on your forehead to help you sleep
Placing a full glass of water by your bed every night will collect any negativity in the room, but don’t drink it
Putting a broom on the bed brings bad luck
If you leave laundry hanging outside during the night, a spirit will attach itself to it and possess the wearer
Never put a hat on the bed
Place morning glory seeds under your bed to cure nightmares
Place an onion underneath your pillow to have prophetic dreams
Never sleep with your head pointing east
Never sleep with your head pointing west
If you go to bed backwards, you will have good dreams
Sea Superstitions:
Superstitions and the Sea
13 Sailor Superstitions
Maritime Superstitions
Seafaring Superstitions
Sailors’ Superstitions
Superstition Bash: Sailors

BOOKS
Best Books to Read for Halloween
Best Halloween Books
Best Halloween Picture Books
Great Reads for Halloween
Halloween Reads
Reading for October Evenings
Spooky Kids Books to Read at Halloween
October Reading List
Witchy Picture Books
Halloween 2012 Must Reads
Killer Ghost Stories
Creepy Halloween Reads
Haunted Reads 2013
All Hallows Reads
Amazing Paranormal Books
Forests in Myth, Folklore, and Fairy Tales
Fantasy Novels Based in Native American Myth
Ghost Story Collections
Asian Folktale Picture Books
Mythology/Folklore

thewritingcafe:

And now for a Halloween themed post.

HALLOWEEN

Also known as Samhein, Sauin, La Samhna, Samhuiin, Oiche Shamhna, Samain, Hallowmas, Shadowfest, All Hallow’s Eve, Samhuinn, Samhain, Witch’s New Year, Summer’s End, the Third Harvest, Samana, Vigil of Saman, and others.

The name “Samhain”, and its other spellings and similar names, comes from the Old Irish “sam” for summer and “fuin” for end, thus making this holiday the mark of the end of summer.

The celebration of Halloween goes back six thousand years where the Celtic people celebrated the end of the harvest and the coming of winter. This day is traditionally October 31st, though some celebrated it in the early days of November. Its most precise date is when the sun is at 15 degrees Scorpio. In the year of 2013, it will occur on November 7th. The celebration usually began the day before, at sunset.

This day was used to honor the dead and those who had passed away that year, as it was said the veil between the living and the dead was thinnest at this time of year. Rather than mourning the dead, Halloween was a celebration for the death of all things old and the beginning of all things new. 

SUPERSTITIONS

Bird Superstitions:

  • An owl that circles a house three times is said to be a sign that someone within the house will die soon.
  • It is said robins gained their red feathers because they attempted to remove the thorn crown from Jesus’s head, but his blood fell on the bird instead.
  • It is unlucky to kill a robin.
  • The eye on a peacock feather is said to be the “evil eye” and therefore bad luck to bring inside a home.
  • There are countless superstitions about birds near homes and windows that signify oncoming death.
  • Tip your hat at a magpie to avoid back luck.
  • It’s unlucky to kill sparrows because they carry the souls of the dead.
  • A crow at the window represents the soul of a dead person.
  • A nearby robin carries the soul of a deceased family member.
  • If a bird call comes from the north, misfortune will follow.
  • If a bird call comes from the west, good luck will follow.
  • If a bird call comes from the south, a good harvest will follow.
  • If a bird call comes from the east, love will follow.
  • Unbaptized children become birds until they are accepted into Heaven.
  • Pet birds must be informed of important family events or they will die.
  • It is unlucky to find a dead bird outside the home. 
  • A raven near a sick person means death is coming.
  • In Wales, a blind person can regain sight by showing kindness to a raven.
  • Cardinal Superstitions
  • Bird Folklore
  • Crow Folklore

Death Superstitions

General Superstitions:

  • Put almonds in your pocket when you need to find something.
  • Scatter chili peppers around your house to break a curse.
  • Never blow out the first candle you lit before you blow out the others or bad luck will follow.
  • Throw rice in the air to make it rain.
  • Ask an orange a yes or no question and count the seeds. An even number of seeds means no and an odd number means yes.
  • In a photograph of three, the person in the middle will die first.
  • Walk through the branches of a maple tree to have a long life.
  • Carry peach wood to have a long life.
  • Eat a peach to assist in making a tough decision
  • Mix salt and pepper together and scatter it around your house to repel evil.
  • Do not whistle at night.
  • Eat mustard seed to ensure fertility.
  • Place chips of cedar wood in a box with some coins to draw money to you.
  • If you bite your tongue, someone is talking about you or thinking of you.
  • Hanging up a new calendar before the year is over will bring bad luck
  • Animal Superstitions
  • Irish Superstitions and Folklore
  • Superstitions
  • Superstitions From Europe
  • Superstitions in Shakespeare’s Time
  • Folklore of Puerto Rico
  • Old Irish Superstitions

Halloween Superstitions:

Home & Hearth Superstitions:

  • Hanging a pair of scissors over the front door will cut off negativity
  • Hanging a cluster of acorns on the front door will protect those who live there
  • Put thorny branches on your doorstep to keep evil away
  • Smell dill to get rid of hiccups
  • Place cotton on an aching tooth to relieve pain
  • Place a sliced onion in the room of an ill person to draw out the sickness
  • Hang a pea pod with nine peas above your door to draw your future lover
  • Place a pine branch above your bed to keep illness away

Love Superstitions:

Sleep Superstitions:

  • Smell peppermint to help you sleep
  • Eat a bit of thyme before bed for sweet dreams
  • Putting garlic under the bed will prevent nightmares
  • Rub a lettuce leaf on your forehead to help you sleep
  • Placing a full glass of water by your bed every night will collect any negativity in the room, but don’t drink it
  • Putting a broom on the bed brings bad luck
  • If you leave laundry hanging outside during the night, a spirit will attach itself to it and possess the wearer
  • Never put a hat on the bed
  • Place morning glory seeds under your bed to cure nightmares
  • Place an onion underneath your pillow to have prophetic dreams
  • Never sleep with your head pointing east
  • Never sleep with your head pointing west
  • If you go to bed backwards, you will have good dreams

Sea Superstitions:

BOOKS

Reblogged from youngadultread  12,922 notes

Friendzoning is a terrible thing. The idea of a friend zone is like a terrible, male…have you ever heard a girl say she’s in the friend zone? It’s a thing I think men need to be really careful about using. When they were kicking around titles for What If, before What If was chosen, I think that came up, and I was like, ‘No! Don’t do that!’ Do I think men and women can be friends? Yes, absolutely. Do I think men and women who are sexually attracted to each other can just be friends? Eh, it will probably become an issue at some point whether you deal with it, and talk about it and just move on, but it will always sort of get dealt with eventually…I definitely think the idea of friend zone is just men going, ‘This woman won’t have sex with me.’ By Daniel Radcliffe, getting it (via whokilledcookie)

Reblogged from barbarajgordon  281,189 notes

filharmagic:

how come you never see Troy and Gabrielle fucking acting in the first High School Musical. they’re auditioning for a play. a play with words. words need spoken. stage directions need be taken. what even is the plot of that musical. did anyone go to see it. how come Sharpay and her gay brother didn’t get supporting roles actually wait fuck were there any supporting roles? what is the high school musical in high school musical. why does ryan keep wearing hats.