[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.