Tumgik
#Richard Towers
abs0luteb4stard · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
W A T C H I N G
3 notes · View notes
lasthumaninwales · 5 months
Text
Inspired by this post by @bunniesandbeheadings , a list of explanations for what happened to the Princes in the Tower:
They both fell down the stairs.
They murdered EACH OTHER.
Everyone who has been accused of murdering them turned up to murder them at the same time, only to find they had died of natural causes already, so they all backed out of the room without saying anything.
They escaped out of the window by tying bedsheets together.
They were murdered by George Duke of Clarence's ghost.
Aliens.
Autocannibalism.
Spontaneous human combustion.
The plot of season one of Blackadder is 100% factually accurate.
They were eaten by wolves.
A surge of improbability caused them both to turn into bowls of petunias.
They became companions of the Doctor and ended up settling down on a planet three galaxies away.
They are both still alive TO THIS DAY.
656 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
I love the cast of lotr and the hobbit with all my heart
362 notes · View notes
pitoframbling · 4 months
Text
Something I felt compelled to make tonight. Splicing of Stone Tower Temple, and the infamous "He says that he will never die" excerpt from Blood Meridian.
91 notes · View notes
bunniesandbeheadings · 5 months
Text
My take on what happened to the Princes in the Tower? They were the only true Christians and therefore were the only people taken in the Biblical Rapture.
114 notes · View notes
arc-hus · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Lloyd's Building, London - Richard Rogers
117 notes · View notes
anne-the-quene · 2 months
Text
You know what’s funny about debates when it comes to Richard III and Elizabeth Woodville and the Princes and people wonder if Elizabeth believed Richard killed Edward and Prince Richard and no one ever brings up the fact that Richard definitely killed one of her sons (Richard Grey)
31 notes · View notes
taxusbaccata6 · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
264 notes · View notes
ungoliantschilde · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Dark Tower: the Long Road Home, Vol. 1 # 1 Variant, by Mike Deodato, Jr., with Colors by Richard Isanove.
350 notes · View notes
wonder-worker · 2 months
Text
Here’s the thing I need people to understand:
Even if we believe that the (entirely unproven and far too politically convenient) pre-contract story between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot was true, it doesn’t actually matter. Even if it was hypothetically true, there was still no reason why Edward V – who was already King at that point and was referred to as such – couldn’t have been able to succeed his father regardless.
David Horspool (Richard's own historian) summarizes it better than I could, so I’m just quoting him here:
"[Richard also made] no allowance for any potential solution to the problem that might have re-legitimized Edward V and his siblings. These included securing a retrospective canonical or papal judgement of the invalidity of the pre-contract; an Act of Parliament legitimizing the children of Edward and Elizabeth Woodville’s marriage, as happened to Henry VIII’s variously tainted offspring; or even ignoring the issue and proceeding to the coronation of Edward V, which would legitimize him by making him the Lord’s anointed, and render allegations of his bastardy as newer versions of the old tittle-tattle about his father."
In short, even if Edward IV truly had a pre-contract with Eleanor Talbot, and even if all of his children with Elizabeth Woodville were supposedly illegitimate, it should by no means prevent Edward V from succeeding his father to the throne. If Richard truly wanted to support his nephew, he had a variety of useful and entirely workeable options to choose from. Instead, he officially declared his nieces and nephews (including a literal 3-year-old) illegitimate, kept Edward V and his even younger brother confined in the Tower of London, and declared himself King.
Why didn't Richard take these actions, all of which he would have been well aware of? As Horspool says simply: "that Richard took none of these courses was because he had no interest in doing so."
The ONLY conclusion we can come to based on Richard's actions is summarized most succinctly by A.J Pollard:
"The truth of the matter is that Richard III did not want Edward V to be legitimate because he did not want him to be king."
48 notes · View notes
xliallix · 24 days
Text
Tumblr media
Hello everyone! I deeply apologize for the absence of posts. I have a ton of traditional drawings of teen titans but barely any on my iPad which is why I have a shortage of posts. I am also overwhelmed with school as well lol. I didn’t want to post this because I wasn’t very proud of it, but I decided to post it anyway. I hope the Robstar shippers like this drawing! (Also I ship almost every ship, BBRAE, Robstar, RobRae, TerraBB, Cyjinx, Cyborg x Bumblebee, etc. I like all ships, so if you don’t like Robstar and prefer another, don’t worry I can make it!) I hope you enjoy this drawing.
22 notes · View notes
richmond-rex · 3 months
Note
Hi there
So I follow the Tudor Trio and Nicola Tallis, Matthew Lewis and Nathan Amin were doing a debate today on the Princes in the Tower with the quote on quote new evidence that has been revealed from Philippa Langley.
I still firmly believe Richard III killed the Princes and find many of Matthew Lewis' arguments bizarre. I'm not sure why he thinks the Princes weren't a threat to Richard but were to Henry VII. If the Princes weren't a threat to Richard then why would they have been a threat to Henry VII? I can't understand why Richard would ever let them escape England of his own free Will. There is almost no chance they could have escaped without him knowing about it.
Also he claimed that Henry VII sent Elizabeth Woodville to Bermondsey Abbey and that she was supporting the Lambert Simnel Rebellion. Is there any truth to that? Thanks!
Hi, sorry for taking so long to reply! Lewis' arguments are so incredibly ridiculous — they largely rest on accepting at face value people's signatures and on the claim that Maximilian and Margaret of York were too blue-blooded to ever lie for political ends: essentially, he claims lying was for peasants. And yes, the princes would absolutely be a threat to Richard III as he found out as soon as he left London after his coronation — there happened a rebellion made by former Edwardian servants that aimed to free the princes from the Tower, very possibly to restore them to the throne. The princes had been raised all their lives to regard the English throne as their birthright — you're telling me they would grow up abroad and would neve try a restoration aided by one of England's political enemies such as France?
The ricardian claim that Richard III sent them to Burgundy is incredibly ridiculous to me as well: even if they stayed with Richard's sister, she wasn't the one ruling Burgundy — Maximilian of Austria, the husband of Margaret's deceased daughter-in-law, was. How could Richard be sure Maximilian wouldn't take the princes the minute Richard did something that went against Maximilian's interests and use them to either blackmail him or depose him so Maximilian could have his own English king? Burgundy had displayed lancastrian loyalties not so long ago in the past and the political game in Europe changed constantly.
It would have been absolutely STUPID of Richard III to deliver the strongest weapon anyone could use against him to a foreign power. Let's also mention that Maximilian at the time was struggling with controlling his own children, the actual Burgundian heirs, because some Flemish cities had rebelled against him and had his heir (Philip of Burgundy) in their power and were up in arms against his regency. From June 1483 to July 1485 Maximilian couldn't have control of his own son. You're telling me Richard would have sent the biggest assets anyone could use against him to that unstable scenario?
The truth is that Ricardians like Matthew Lewis benefit from the fact that people study/know about the Wars of the Roses from an impossibly anglocentric lens, ignoring that the conflict was also the outcome of the multiple iterations of power play between Western European powers: 'the Wars of the Roses were an extended episode in a European conflict, not just a murderous private dispute'. It really is inconceivable, when it comes down to logic, how Richard was one step ahead of everyone during the mounting off to his takeover of the throne (bamboozling and imprisoning the Woodvilles, executing and imprisoning Edward V's strongest supporters such as Hastings) but would commit such a basic political error as sending other claimants to his own crown to a foreign power.
As to Elizabeth Woodville going to Bermondsey Abbey as a way of punishment for her supporting a rebellion against Henry VII, it makes little sense as well. Henry VII carried on with the marriage negotiations with Scotland that involved Elizabeth and two of her daughters until James III's death in 1488. Again, it would make little sense for Henry VII to have found out Elizabeth was conspiring against him but keep wanting to send her north as an ally to Scotland, a country that could easily make war on him and create problems. Why would he deliver an enemy into the hands of another possible enemy, if Elizabeth truly conspired against him? Again, it's the lack of perspective into Europe and international politics that jump out in Lewis' logic.
Do my words make sense to you? I truly cannot comprehend how Lewis can say the stuff he says and no one really contradicts him in his logic.
22 notes · View notes
beardedmrbean · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
Le arson time has arrived
21 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Vincent Price as Richard of Gloucester - Tower of London (1962)
43 notes · View notes
historicconfessions · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
16 notes · View notes
buffyfan145 · 6 months
Text
Looks like Philippa Langley might've done it again as she's written a new book about new evidence she and other historians have found that Edward V and Prince Richard of York actually escaped and were never murdered. Her book is out now in the UK and this is one of the many articles coming out ahead of the documentary that's getting ready to air in the UK this weekend and here in the US on PBS the 22nd, and from what I'm reading these new pieces of evidence does seem to point to the boys actually making it to Europe and that both those pretenders actually were them. One of new evidence found in the Netherlands is a written confession supposedly by Richard of York in Rome detailing how he and his brother escaped. The new evidence is coming from both Italy and France and has been authenticated to the correct time period during Henry VII's reign.
They're saying the new evidence has already changed some minds about this and I'll judge for myself when I watch the doc next week (as either the book doesn't have a US release date yet or my library isn't getting it) but Philippa already was able to find Richard III's remains and get him reburied, and this has been a long thing to clear up just like they did with proving that Shakespeare and others made him more monstrous than he was. My belief was that Richard III might've ordered the princes deaths (as that was common with monarchs and who they deem as threats to the throne) and then regretted it, but maybe so many of us have been wrong this whole time. Again this proves why the whole Wars of the Roses is one of my favorite historical time periods and things are still playing out.
47 notes · View notes