[part 2] and her claim was never put in question but there she was – losing her crown. Like… they had a solid reason to be paranoid about that. Or The Tudors being very jealous and dynastic but of a “barren stock”.
Yeah, I agree there are a lot of generalizations that are taken as gospel that are…you know, digestible but oversimplify a lot.
I mean, “not legitimate in the first place” I read a lot but like you can’t have it both ways?
By which I mean, dynastically it’s so messy like…that post that went viral about how MQOS was the ‘true queen’ and Elizabeth I was ‘the pretender’ (i.e. from the dreaded BASTARD LINE~).
Like there were definitely people that thought that, just not enough for it to matter (like, was she overthrown by her own people, or ever, for that matter? Non), but this argument be like a souffle– it falls apart as soon as you poke at it. MQOS was descended from Margaret Tudor. Margaret Tudor was the daughter of Henry VII (who’s royal line through Catherine of Valois I guess ‘ “ didn’t count “ ‘ because it’s through CoV making it with a Welsh thot) and EoY (who even some others say wasn’t a ‘ “true royal” ‘ because Edward IV ‘shouldn’t have been king, rightfully Henry VI was’ and then her mother was an English noblewoman and only royal/Queen Consort by marriage– like four out of six of Henry VIII’s wives).
Anyway, all that to say that if the Tudors are an ‘inherently bastard line’ and any fruit of that tree will only live to be bad, illegitimate apples unfit to rule– then MQOS is also precluded from the ‘fit to rule’ basket by that same argument.
Also, as far being ridiculously paranoid– even if Henry VII had the best, most solid claim to the throne ever (through lineage, that is– and while his was def not the most, neither was it the worst), I think any English monarch at this point would be? I think even if Edward V had gone through his accession smoothly and with zero fuss and that had been Alternate Timeline, he would have to? Or any other potential claimant that might have tried to win it from Richard III in battle?
Think of the precedent up to that point:
Henry V wasn’t ” ‘supposed’ “ to be king, either– Henry IV had been forced to abdicate, then murdered.
Henry VI deposed (his only son and heir killed in battle), Edward IV then king, then deposed, then king again etc. etc.
Edward IV’s sons (both who were to be king next) sent to the Tower, go MIA (Presumed Dead) real fast
Also I forgot to add– yeah, the ‘barren stock’ thing is stupid, lmao….Henry VII and VIII’s children were what, fake news?
If we’re honing in on Henry VIII, well, he had four children that survived childhood (if not…teenage-hood in the case of Fitzroy and Edward VI), a son that lived fifty(ish?) weeks, and several pregnancies by his first two wives alone. Doesn’t seem like an issue with fertility to me but what do I know, I’m not a scientist or w/e…
As for Elizabeth, we have no idea if she would have been able to carry a child to term (her doctors seemed to think she could), nor Edward VI since he died at fifteen…absence of evidence isn’t evidence itself.
Mary wasn’t wed until she was past what was traditionally and typically, medically, considered to be ‘child-bearing years’. Had she been married in her twenties or earlier, who knows?
(part 2) I’m not even going to start about Elizabeth and children because some people have wild ideas about her but saying James becoming king of England is a big “fuck you” to her is so funny cause she never stated she didn’t want him on the throne, she was just scared of naming an heir. Thus said, I agree that there are things we should criticize them but bringing such trivial things and making them some kind of flaws is just plain nonsense
Hm, idt I agree with you about Henry being fanatical about continuing his line. He was about as focused about it as other monarchs of the time. If we go by the Reader’s Digest version of history (my World History textbook for one of my classes, in the small section about the Tudors, said, verbatim “Anne Boleyn didn’t have a son; so he had her executed on false charges of adultery, incest, and treason”, but correlation does not prove causation), then he was definitely fanatical but I don’t subscribe to…those issues.
Also, I don’t believe the creation of the Church of England is proof that he was ‘fanatical’ about continuing his line, either. Had he broken with Rome like, a year after being stonewalled constantly about the annulment and double-dealt by other foreign rulers (Charles V, for instance, breaking the betrothal with Mary and marrying elsewhere so that he could have his own son as early as possible, which he did– the same year he was throwing his weight behind blocking the annulment proceedings, done so Henry himself could secure an heir after nearly twenty years of failing to do so, as much as he could) I think that argument could be made.
The creation of the CoE doesn’t strike me as an impulsive choice. How can an impulsive choice take place over the span of six-odd years?
I agree that it was his focus; the security of the realm depended on the security of a succession. For a monarchy, it always did.
And yes, I agree that that is funny. And that there are definitely plenty of valid reasons to criticize the Tudors (yes, all of them); both in their leadership/reigns and in their personal lives– to the point where the hyperfocus on things like paranoia, and the pearl-clutching over how the line was Too Bastardy to Live/Laugh/Love, does seem pretty silly.
[part 2] and her claim was never put in question but there she was – losing her crown. Like… they had a solid reason to be paranoid about that. Or The Tudors being very jealous and dynastic but of a “barren stock”.
Yeah, I agree there are a lot of generalizations that are taken as gospel that are…you know, digestible but oversimplify a lot.
I mean, “not legitimate in the first place” I read a lot but like you can’t have it both ways?
By which I mean, dynastically it’s so messy like…that post that went viral about how MQOS was the ‘true queen’ and Elizabeth I was ‘the pretender’ (i.e. from the dreaded BASTARD LINE~).
Like there were definitely people that thought that, just not enough for it to matter (like, was she overthrown by her own people, or ever, for that matter? Non), but this argument be like a souffle– it falls apart as soon as you poke at it. MQOS was descended from Margaret Tudor. Margaret Tudor was the daughter of Henry VII (who’s royal line through Catherine of Valois I guess ‘ “ didn’t count “ ‘ because it’s through CoV making it with a Welsh thot) and EoY (who even some others say wasn’t a ‘ “true royal” ‘ because Edward IV ‘shouldn’t have been king, rightfully Henry VI was’ and then her mother was an English noblewoman and only royal/Queen Consort by marriage– like four out of six of Henry VIII’s wives).
Anyway, all that to say that if the Tudors are an ‘inherently bastard line’ and any fruit of that tree will only live to be bad, illegitimate apples unfit to rule– then MQOS is also precluded from the ‘fit to rule’ basket by that same argument.
Also, as far being ridiculously paranoid– even if Henry VII had the best, most solid claim to the throne ever (through lineage, that is– and while his was def not the most, neither was it the worst), I think any English monarch at this point would be? I think even if Edward V had gone through his accession smoothly and with zero fuss and that had been Alternate Timeline, he would have to? Or any other potential claimant that might have tried to win it from Richard III in battle?
Think of the precedent up to that point:
Henry V wasn’t ” ‘supposed’ “ to be king, either (Richard II was forced to abdicate by Henry IV, so neither was Henry IV by that virtue)
Henry VI deposed (his only son and heir killed in battle), Edward IV then king, then deposed, then king again etc. etc.
Edward IV’s sons (both who were to be king next) sent to the Tower, go MIA (Presumed Dead) real fast
[part 2] and her claim was never put in question but there she was – losing her crown. Like… they had a solid reason to be paranoid about that. Or The Tudors being very jealous and dynastic but of a “barren stock”.
Yeah, I agree there are a lot of generalizations that are taken as gospel that are…you know, digestible but oversimplify a lot.
I mean, “not legitimate in the first place” I read a lot but like you can’t have it both ways?
By which I mean, dynastically it’s so messy like…that post that went viral about how MQOS was the ‘true queen’ and Elizabeth I was ‘the pretender’ (i.e. from the dreaded BASTARD LINE~).
Like there were definitely people that thought that, just not enough for it to matter (like, was she overthrown by her own people, or ever, for that matter? Non), but this argument be like a souffle– it falls apart as soon as you poke at it. MQOS was descended from Margaret Tudor. Margaret Tudor was the daughter of Henry VII (who’s royal line through Catherine of Valois I guess ‘ “ didn’t count “ ‘ because it’s through CoV making it with a Welsh thot) and EoY (who even some others say wasn’t a ‘ “true royal” ‘ because Edward IV ‘shouldn’t have been king, rightfully Henry VI was’ and then her mother was an English noblewoman and only royal/Queen Consort by marriage– like four out of six of Henry VIII’s wives).
Anyway, all that to say that if the Tudors are an ‘inherently bastard line’ and any fruit of that tree will only live to be bad, illegitimate apples unfit to rule– then MQOS is also precluded from the ‘fit to rule’ basket by that same argument.
Site Title 