Tumgik
#Thomas more
threesonsofyorks · 22 days
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
JEREMY NORTHAN and JAMES FRAIN as THOMAS MORE and THOMAS CROMWELL
THE TUDORS (2007-2010) | 2x05 "His Majesty's Pleasure"
217 notes · View notes
elizabethan-memes · 5 months
Text
Thomas More: my kink is saying some incredibly cornball shit and watching Thomas Cromwell speedrun the 5 stages of grief as he realises with horror that he still wants to fuck me.
178 notes · View notes
catherinesboleyn · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
THE TUDORS WEEK 2023
Day 3 | best male characters
Henry VIII
Thomas More
Thomas Cromwell
99 notes · View notes
thetudorsedits · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
THE TUDORS (2007-2010) | 2x05
Why? ... Why can he not be like others? Why does he have to cross me? Why can his vanity be greater than a king's? It troubles me. It weighs on my conscience, and my heart is full, and heavy and sore. I say this only to you. I confess only to you. I LOVE HIM. AND I HATE HIM. I hate in equal measure to my love, for he is the spirit that denies. It is up to you to judge whether or not he be on my conscience."
93 notes · View notes
felicityfraser · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
37 notes · View notes
period-dramallama · 8 months
Text
We saw you from across the bar and we hate your vibe:
Tumblr media
54 notes · View notes
richmond-rex · 4 months
Text
Henry VII, far from pushing a ‘propaganda line’ on Richard’s reign or on his own background, did so only very minimally. For any significant detail his tactic was one of obfuscation or concealment rather than propaganda [...] It was not until the early years of Henry VIII that there was an attempt to construct a more coherent narrative of these events, resulting in the well-known accounts by Polydore Vergil and by Thomas More. But even so, there was no rush to publish the results. Vergil did not appear in print until an expensive Latin edition was published at Basel in 1534. More’s work was never completed. Both only became accessible to a wider public when they were plagiarized to form a continuation to The Chronicle of John Hardyng, printed by Richard Grafton in 1543.
— C. S. L. Davies, Information, disinformation and political knowledge under Henry VII and early Henry VIII | Historical Research (2012)
The term ‘Tudor’ is not merely anachronistic but ambivalent [...] the term ‘Tudor tradition’ applied to the sequence of narrators from Vergil to Shakespeare incorrectly suggests sponsorship by the ‘Tudor monarchs’ including Henry VII himself. It will be argued here that neither Henry VII nor Henry VIII, at least in the first half of his reign, was keen to publicize a detailed narrative of the years 1483–5, either in relation to events in England, or to Henry VII’s family antecedents and his activities in exile before his accession.
24 notes · View notes
tianmicons · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
35 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
139 notes · View notes
racefortheironthrone · 8 months
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.
45 notes · View notes
frederick-the-great · 2 months
Text
the problem is that i have to go through life pretending that i don't think about that moment in Wolf Hall where Cromwell tells More that he would rather see his son dead than More dead all the time
"You know I have respected you? You know I have respected you since I was a child? I would rather see my only son dead, I would rather see them cut off his head, than see you refuse this oath, and give comfort to every enemy of England.’ More looks up. For a fraction of a second, he meets his gaze, then turns away, coy. His low, amused murmur: he could kill him for that alone. 
12 notes · View notes
the-city-in-mind · 3 months
Text
Batman is the product of bad street design
Tumblr media
image: Vest on DeviantArt
If there were overlooking balconies and windows to provide eyes on the street, Crime Alley wouldn’t be “Crime Alley,” and Joe Chill would not have a place to rob people.
I mean in every depiction of Gotham other than the 1966 TV show, it’s portrayed like every American city that decided to raze the old main streets, put highways right through downtown, let industries move overseas, let the waterfront rot, has a weird Kowloon Walled City type slum in the middle?? permits industries to cloud the air with coal smoke (I mean, it’s dark DURING THE DAYTIME so what else could that be), let huge chains decimate local commerce…
If they had only read Jane Jacobs!
A good bit of analysis comparing Gotham to Metropolis posits Batman as Machiavelli’s Prince, ruling by fear but setting a moral standard in a city that was corrupt but “free,” and Superman as a Modernist, with Metropolis as Thomas More’s Utopia; an exemplar of civic improvement who helps make Metropolis, and in turn its citizens, better, by sweeping away the old.
One of the earliest stories Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster, the creators of Superman, wrote about the Man of Steel, was a story in which Superman confronted juvenile delinquency by tearing down the slums where the troubled youth lived so authorities would be forced to build “decent public housing.” In Batman's Gotham, human-nature makes the city a bad place. In Superman's Metropolis, exactly like More's Utopia, it is the city that makes people bad, and it needs to be physically reordered for it to be a "good place" and for "the rude and uncivilized inhabitants" to be brought to "that measure of politeness." Superman isn't just any sort of utopian; he's a Modernist.
The "Superman in the Slums" story appeared in 1939, the same year that New York World's Fair opened, celebrating the theme of the World of Tomorrow. DC comic would print special editions comics featuring Superman for the Fair and even sponsored a Superman Day. One of the Fair's organizers' and the man who embodied the vision of housing projects and superhighways that would "displace outmoded business sections and undesired slum areas" was the Modernist urban planner Robert Moses. Slum clearance was the heroic utopian labor of the day, and he was the man responsible for bulldozing more acreage of "slum" housing then any other.
13 notes · View notes
elizabethan-memes · 7 months
Text
Thomas Cromwell: you'd better swear the oath
Thomas More:
Tumblr media
44 notes · View notes
isabelleneville · 1 year
Text
105 notes · View notes
Please promulgate so we may see everyone’s opinion on the Tudor Era Thomases (Henry VIII edition)
Also, take a shot for each Thomas on the list who was executed!
80 notes · View notes
stilltrails · 2 months
Text
Insight at what Thomas More and Thomas Cromwell thought about Henry dragging his daughter's as potential rulers would have been interesting for a multitude of reasons-
one being Thomas Cromwell loved his daughters, lost them, and would have done anything to keep them. Was teaching them to read and write, and even said one of them was a better scholar than his son. He seemed to like them more than his living son actually.
Thomas Moore because he entrusted his legacy with his daughter, and she was his confidant. He invested in her education, made sure she was smart, and treated her like a person. He raised her well and respected her.
Like these two were actually good girl dads and they have to constantly listen to henry, the failure of a girl dad, talk down on his own daughters.
Historical fiction writers should explore that lol
9 notes · View notes