#richard de la pole

[happy-chappy-miniatures]

A Doomed Pretenders Project: Richard de la Pole, the Last White Rose

Hi again! This time, I've opted to go for the upper-bound time-wise of this project (before things get too Renaissance-y), with a command base to represent Richard de la Pole, or Richard IV, titular Duke of Suffolk and the last serious military contender for the House of York, before his death in the Battle of Pavia in 1525.

De La Pole (and his brothers) presented a fairly serious threat to the early Tudor regime, having a stronger claim to the throne than Henry VII. While the eldest brother died in 1487 at Stoke Field, and Richard's other elder brothers arrested and/or executed by the Tudors, Richard was able to flee to Europe, where he ended up being notably charismatic, winning over a number of highly influential figures in France, the Holy Roman Empire and Hungary to support his claim. Plans were made under both Louis XII and Francis I to support an invasion of England with Scottish support, and with rumblings of Yorkist sympathisers in England itself and the earls of Desmond and Kildare in Ireland happening as well, it's no surprise that the Tudors saw the pretender as a problem. Adding to their concerns, Richard de la Pole had become a seasoned battlefield commander during the start of the 16th century, leading forces of Landsknecht on behalf of France in Italy and Navarre, giving him vital experience that the earlier Yorkist pretenders definitely lacked! First up on the base are a pair of retainers with halberds, to act as bodyguards for de la Pole. Desmond Seward in The Last White Rose mentions that during Richard's stay in Metz in the 1510s he retained a group of musicians and bodyguards in blue and grey livery, so I've used that as the basis for the colours on the livery jackets. I thought it was a bit unusual that unlike every other de la Pole Richard decided to opt for grey instead of yellow in his livery, but my guess is that it may be a deliberate call-back to his grandfather Richard Duke of York's blue and white livery during the War of the Roses. With that in mind, I've added a white rose to the chest of the livery jackets, to tie-in de la Pole to York, and as a pastiche of Henry Tudor's own retainers. Both retainers are based on Steel Fist standing dollies, with Perry Early-Tudor heads and medieval arms

Next up are the two standard bearers on the base (one for Richard de la Pole's personal arms, and the other for his livery banner). One standard bearer is an unmodified War of the Roses figure in older armour, while the other is a liveried retainer built using the same method as the two others

Also on the base is a knight, pointing out something on the horizon to Richard. I'm using him to represent an attaché from France or Foix to provide battlefield support for Richard, or alternatively an English exile, adventurer or opportunist who decided to throw in with de la Pole. The figure is one of the excellent Steel Fist Miniatures Italian Wars foot knights without any modifications

And finally, the pretender himself, Richard de la Pole, Duke of Suffolk. Like the other knight, Richard is a Steel Fist Miniatures Italian Wars foot knight. I love the pose for this figure in particular for a commander, and Richard de la Pole seemed like an excellent excuse to use the figure!

I've painted de la Pole's jacket in his livery colours of blue and grey, and like with his retainers, I've given him a white rose livery badge (only larger!). I've not found any decisive evidence for any livery badges used by Richard, compared to his father, or older brother John, but I made the assumption that seeing as just about everyone among his contemporaries refers to him as the White Rose, that he must have some effective 'branding' and actively cultivated that association. I decided the beardy head quite nicely captures the look of the portrait that shows up on Google when you search for Richard de la Pole (although, I think it may be actually of Charles III, Duke of Bourbon instead from what I've found!)

And finally, a couple of pictures of the command base on a grassy field

[cesareeborgia]

↳ richard iii of england + alphabet

[toreii]

The last volume finally arrived even though it was released last month lol. I hope to collect this in English too, but for now I will enjoy the entirety of this prequel (plus side stories)💖 It was so good!😭 Once again, Aya-sensei delivers.💕🙇‍♀️

[blackboar]

The de la Pole claim and actions 1/3: Did Richard III named John de la Pole his heir?

It is an accepted fact for many that Richard III named John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, as his heir. Paul Murray Kendall, in Richard III, openly states so, pointing to his claim as Richard III's nephew, his adulthood, and his (supposed but probable) competence. This idea was often put in the public eye, as with The White Queen, in which Henry VII says to John that he was named heir by Richard III (even if John then supports Warwick's claim after). However, Richard III never officially named him heir, which doesn't mean the de la Pole claim is irrelevant in English royal succession.

The only contemporary source openly stating John de la Pole was named Richard III's heir is Jon Rous (1420-1492), author of Historia Regum Angliae, a history of the kings of England. Rous was a cleric from Warwickshire who also wrote about the Beauchamp family. He had Beauchamp connections considering he was chaplain of the Collegiate Church of St Mary, founded by a Beauchamp and in which many Beauchamp Earl of Warwick are entombed. He was a Ricardian supporter before switching after Bosworth to less generous views of Richard III. His Historia Regum Angliae is posterior to Bosworth and more hostile to Richard than his Rous Roll. Rous claim in Historia Regum Angliae that Richard III named Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick (and of the Beauchamp family) as heir after his own son's demise in 1484 but that he changed his mind in 1485 in favor of John de la Pole. For Paul Murray Kendall, those choices might have been made after Anne Neville's death, who pushed for her nephew to be the heir. Her death allowed Richard III to change his mind. Needless to say, no official document confirms that. Charles Ross also doesn't think it's true, considering that Edward Plantagenet couldn't be named heir by a king whose own claim is based on the exclusion of his nephew, barred from royal succession by an act of attainder.

The truth is difficult to assess. On the one hand, it's possible that Richard III would again infringe on succession rules for his nephew Warwick if he desired so. Familial solidarity might have played: Edward was the last Plantagenet after him. On the other, it could create a dangerous heir that Richard III couldn't afford at the moment

Naming John de la Pole was better because he didn't have a lineage that suffered from a recent attainder. He was a magnate with extensive connections: his father was duke of Suffolk, and his stepfather was the Earl of Arundel. Richard III might have needed to secure their support by naming John heir. John de la Pole was also a magnate on his own right, with many estates given by his father to give him the estates necessary to maintain his ranks of Earl. He was the son of a younger sister of Richard III, and his eldest sister, Anne of York, already had a daughter (Anne St-Leger). Richard III couldn't choose Anne St-Leger as heiress, considering he executed her father for treason less than two years ago and that having a ruling queen would be unprecedented in England.

So John de la Pole was an adult nephew, a magnate with significant connection and a capable man. It make sense that Richard III would chose him amongst the various candidate of his family. However this analysis is clearly made a posteriori. It is made with the inside knowledge that Richard III would die at Bosworth heirless and without any new marriage that would bring him a new heir. It's telling that Rous wrote about John de la Pole's promotion after Bosworth (and maybe Stoke) and would fall under the fallacy that Richard III should have named an heir as if he preempted his future demise. We know that Richard III was under negotiation for the hand of Joanne of Portugal. An unfounded rumor spread about his potential marriage with Elizabeth of York, and others have theorized about a marriage with Anne of Britanny. Richard III was under the active search of a new queen that would eventually bring him heirs. This option actively pushed him to not name a presumptive heir considering that in his mind, he would only keep this position for a short time. It was needless to do it, and similar kings without male heirs for a time acted the same (Edward IV until the birth of Edward V in 1470, Henry VII before Arthur's birth in 1486).

That doesn't mean Richard III didn't consider it or sent hints to John de la Pole, as to secure his family's loyalty. John was given lands worth 500 marks and an annuity of £176 13s 4d from the duchy of Cornwall. He was also named Lieutenant of Ireland in October 1484 and made him president of the newly-established Council of the North. Those were good rewards, and one can point out that the Lieutenancy of Ireland and annuities from a duchy traditionally given to the king's heir were hints of a potential royal destiny. The Lieutenancy of Ireland and Cornwall was granted before to Richard III's sole son and heir. However, it is worth noting that the Lieutenancy was also granted to other members of the royal family or even outsiders. It might have been a hint of Richard III's consideration for John and a tacit message that John would be preferred to other pretenders if Richard III couldn't have heirs but not a clear patent making John de la Pole heir to the throne. Richard III certainly thought unnecessary to elevate one family member as heir and risk creating a dangerous precedent, and creating discontent amongst his nobility. He intended to have a son as his heir shortly and this is why he never bothered with naming a presumptive heir.

[travllingbunny]

Hi! I don't know how much you're interested in the subject today, but considering how i really adored a lot of your opinions/views of the Wars of the Roses and some people involved, especially Richard III, i was wondering how you think a scenerio where Richard remained King for more time or simply won Bosworth would be

Thank you for the teresting question.

Contrary to historical fiction works that portray him as desperate at the Battle of Bosworth, I think it's more likely Richard was hoping to get rid of Henry Tudor quickly and saw him as just a temporary nuisance. If only the battle had happened a couple of days later, when Richard got reinforcements from the North, or if William Stanley had not made the decision to definitely switch sides to Henry, the battle would've probably gone completely differently.

Below is my speculation of what happens if Richard wins:

The immediate outcome seems relatively clear - we know now that Richard was in the middle of secret negotiations with the royal family of Portugal for a double marriage between him and Infanta Joanna, and Elizabeth of York and King's 16-year old cousin Manuel, Duke of Beja, which were apparently going very well. It seems unlikely that Joanna, who had been refusing to get married for so long, would accept, but supposedly the negotiations were going well. We know Richard had sent her a personal letter, so it's fun to speculate what he said that would make her reconsider. I'm thinking he may have talked about religion (as they were both known to be pious) and pitched the marriage in terms of a partnership, and how she could do good for peace and the people of England through charity work (which she was known to do) and maybe even assured her that she wouldn't have to keep having children after she gave birth to an heir? Richard was expected to remarry and have a son after his only legitimate son and his wife died, but going by his choice of bride, he was looking for a great Queen and political partner above all, and not a broodmare - I can't imagine Joanna, who wanted to be a nun and was against marriage, agreeing to keep popping up a child every year or two until she hits menopause. He also may not have been two concerned because he had an heir and spares already, even though not 'of his body'- - his adult nephew John de La Pole and his younger brothers William, Edmund and Richard. The Portugal double marriage would've been a genius political move for many reasons: it would allow Richard to claim that he was ending the York/Lancaster rift for good by marrying Joanna, since the Portuguese royal family were through the female line the main surviving Lancastrian branch; it would fulfil his promise to Elizabeth Woodville that he would find good matches for her daughters in spite of their new 'bastard' status - and how! a Portuguese royal marriage was worthy of a princess* - and could be seen as healing the rift between the Yorkists too (and would at the same time make it impossible for Henry Tudor or anyone else to try to claim the throne of England by marrying her); and it would give England a great, intelligent and respectable Queen, who had experience in ruling as regent and could rule in RIchard's absence when he spent time abroad in wars, and whose reputation for piety and charity for people would help restore his tarnished reputation.

One interesting consequence of his marriage alliance is that Elizabeth of York would eventually have become a Queen Consort, but of Portugal, as Manuel eventually became King.Manuel I in 1495.

Once the situation became more stable, Richard would've probably focused on the things he had already started to do during his short reign - legal reforms aimed mostly at bettering the judiciary and the status of common people, and he would no doubt also want to curtail the power of major noblemen of questionable loyalty such as the Stanleys - and things he is known to have enthusiastically talked about planning to do, such as trying to convince other European countries to mount a campaign to stop the Ottoman Empire's conquests in Europe. (France would be an unlikely ally, Portugal and Burgundy would be obvious ones, and he'd no doubt try to pitch it to the Holy Roman Empire.)

I don't know whether he'd be successful at that, or how long he would live, but a few most obvious historical consequences would be:

the way the previous few decades were remembered in history would be very different, and no one would ever call them the "Wars of the Roses" - which was a name given by Walter Scott in the 19th century based on the fact that Henry VII used the red-white Tudor rose as his sigil, promoting it as a sign of supposed unity between the Lancaster and York dynasties - in spite of the fact that the Lancasters didn't actually use a red rose, or any kind of rose, as their sigil. Henry VII also presented the conflicts that had gone on as a part of one ongoing conflict that he ended with the Battle of Bosworth and by marrying Elizabeth of York. In reality, these were a few conflicts separated by years or even decades in between, and before the battle of Bosworth, the last actual armed conflict fought over the throne of England had been 14 years earlier, when Edward IV won his second and decisive war over the Lancasters. The conflict between the two Yorkist factions after Edward's death did not result in any actual battle (in 1783, Buckingham failed to ignite a rebellion, and his ally Henry turned back to France, realizing the war was lost before it began), so Henry basically 'ended the Wars of the Roses' only after he restarted them in 1485. (Not to mention that Henry had to fight another battle two years later against the Yorkists led by Jon de la Pole, which is always conveniently left out in history books, and had to catch, exile or execute various Yorkist pretenders throughout his reign.) If Henry loses the battle, he becomes only a footnote in history. Edward IV remains considered the one who ended the Lancaster-York conflicts with his decisive victory in 1471. Richard probably manages to be popular and respected king (much more than Henry was with his notorious tax laws) and would likely have claimed to have 'united the York and Lancaster branches' with his marriage to Joanna (though he probably wouldn't have made a huge deal out of it as Henry did, since Henry was promoting himself as the founder of a new dynasty that would start a new era). But what of the Princes in the Tower? Well, we don't know what happened to them and Richard may be suspected to have murdered them, but Henry definitely did imprison 11 year old Edward of Warwick and keep him locked up in the Tower until he was 25 and then executed him on trumped up treason charges just because he was another pretender to the throne, but barely anyone talks about it or cares, so... (insert something about history being written by the winners)

Scotland and England remain separate independent countries. It's very unlikely that the same chain of events would happen where the daughter of a king of England marries a king of Scotland, and then a century later her descendant becomes not just the king of Scotland but also the heir to the throne of England because the ruling dynasty of England died out. There is never a Tudor dynasty, never a Stuart dynasty, never a Hanover dynasty. And there's never a United Kingdom.

There is never such a thing as Anglicanism/the Church of England, with the monarch as its head. Mind you, this doesn't necessarily mean that England remains fully or predominantly Catholic - Protestantism was gaining popularity not just in England (even when Henry was still a devout Catholic) but also in Scotland, which didn't have a Henry VIII splitting with the Pope so he could annul his marriage. It's impossible to tell how exactly the Reformation and Counter-reformation would've affected England under different monarchs and a different dynasty, since so much of the religious strife in the 16th century was linked to Henry's decisions, his break from the Pope, his marriages and annulments and his succession issues, and then with the personalities and backgrounds of his children: Edward as a staunch Protestant (just like his mother's family), Mary as a staunch Catholic (completely unsurprising with her background and the fact that her father broke from the Pope so he could annul his marriage to her mother, proclaiming her a bastard), and then Elizabeth, who couldn't be tolerant to Catholics even if she didn't care about religion, since the Pope and therefore all Catholics considered her a bastard and an illegitimate monarch. How would elderly Richard, and/or his heirs, treat Protestants? What would they think of Martin Luther, or of William Tyndale? It's impossible to tell. He was a devout Catholic, but Protestantism didn't exist at the time, and would he (who was the first of English kings to publish official state documents in English) hate the idea of translating the Bible into English so ordinary people could understand it without the help of clergy? I really don't know, and it's even harder to tell what his heirs would be like in that regard. Would there be more religious tolerance in England? For all we know, it might even be less if a particularly fanatical monarch ended up on a throne... but at least I think I can say with some certainty that English monarchs of this hypothetical York dynasty would have no personal and dynastic reasons to persecute either Protestants or Catholics the way monarchs of the Tudor dynasty had due to their specific circumstances.

[richmond-rex]

Hi! I'm trying to read up on the York princesses' early lives and I can find frustratingly few details on the same. I was specifically curious about their various childhood betrothals that ultimately never came into fruition due to the death of their father, but I can barely find anything online beyond the bare basics (essentially: the names of the people they were betrothed to). I was wondering of any specific details of all their individual betrothals survived, and if they changed across the years of their father's reign?

And in Bridget of York's case - since she's more elusive to find than her sisters - was she destined for a church path since birth? I've seen some sites claim that her grandmother Cecily Neville named her with no actual evidence beyond her piety, but I always assumed it was her parents who was more likely to have done so? Both Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV were connected to St. Bridget and Elizabeth was also very pious.

You know a lot about this era so I hope it's okay to ask, sorry if the question seems out of the blue!

Hello! Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had to sit down and look up some things because the story of the betrothal of Edward IV's daughters is quite murky. I will talk about the betrothals that were done during Edward IV's reign because after that it's another thing entirely.

Let's talk about Bridget first. Was she destined for a church path since birth? There's no way of actually knowing this, but it's entirely possible she was. On a practical level, as the king's fifth surviving daughter, a competitive dowry to be used in a foreign marriage alliance would be hard to achieve (more about Edward IV and dowries in a second). More concrete evidence though does come from her name. I haven't found many noblewomen named Bridget in late medieval England but the one I did find, Bridget Holland (daughter of Thomas Holland 2nd Earl of Kent, Richard II's half-brother), indeed became a nun. Like Bridget of York, she seems to have been the youngest of 5-6 sisters.

Saint Bridget of Sweden was a very popular saint in England and she was especially revered by the English royal family (who since Henry V's time were patrons of a Bridgettine monastery at Sheen, Syon Abbey). Elizabeth of York and Margaret Beaufort would go on to commission the printing of a list of prayers popularly thought to have been written by St Bridget. For the Yorkists, however, St Bridget held particular importance because one of her prophecies had been used to justify Edward IV's right to rule. Cecily Neville in particular owned a copy of St Bridget's revelations which she later bequeathed to her granddaughter Anne de la Pole who not only also became a nun, but rose to the highest rank of prioress at Syon.

Cecily Neville was Bridget of York's godmother. Traditionally, godparents were the ones to name ('christen') the child at their baptism. Of course, most time the parents had their input too before the child was brought to the baptismal font. Elizabeth Woodville was also devoted to St Bridget. Interestingly, Cecily left her religious books to the two granddaughters who became nuns: Anne de la Pole, which I commented on above, and Bridget. Bridget received Cecily's Legenda Aurea (a collection of saints' lives), a book about St Katherine and another one about St Matilde.

To me, it seems entirely possible that Cecily Neville might have planned Bridget's career as a nun from the very beginning. It's quite likely that Edward IV and his wife Elizabeth vouched for the idea too, considering how important St Bridget's prophecy had been for Edward's legitimisation as king, they might have made a promise/vow to dedicate one of their children's lives to the Church as many catholic people still do today. I've seen the speculation that Bridget was sickly/had some kind of impairment from birth that would make her less desirable in the marriage market but I don't think we need that as a reason for her going into a convent.

Now going into the other princesses. We already know about Elizabeth of York, right? First, she was betrothed to Warwick's nephew and heir, George Neville, as a way to appease him in 1469. Then she was offered to Prince Edward of Lancaster but Margaret of Anjou went on to choose Anne Neville which was probably for the best, as Edward IV's suggestion, at a time when Edward V was about to be born, was probably just a ruse. Elizabeth's hand was also used as bait to bring back Henry Tudor to England in 1476. And again, it most certainly was a ruse as by that time she had just recently been betrothed to the Dauphin of France. She would be known as Madame la Dauphine until France called off the betrothal in late 1482.

Mary of York occupied 'the rather unfortunate position' as Ross describes it, of being her sister's replacement in the marriage alliance with France in case Elizabeth of York died before the wedding took place. It would not be until 1481, by then a time when many doubted the French marriage would even go through, that Mary was betrothed to King Frederick I of Denmark. She would die the next year in 1482.

Anne of York was first suggested to marry Philip, the future Duke of Burgundy, in 1480 as a part of a tentative Anglo-Burgundian alliance against France that Burgundy desperately wanted but that Edward IV only toyed with to pressure France into honouring their marriage alliance and wed Elizabeth of York and the Dauphin Charles. In the words of Charles Ross, Edward IV's biographer:

Edward quite ruthlessly exploited the duke’s desperate need of English support to get Anne’s marriage on the cheap. Maximilian had wanted a dowry of 200,000 crowns with Anne; Edward, on the other hand, regarded paying no dowry as part of the price of signing an alliance with Burgundy. When Maximilian argued that it was quite unreasonable for the bride of one of the wealthiest heirs in Europe to have no dowry at all, he still had small success in persuading her father to release the purse-strings. The original marriage treaty, signed on 5 August 1480, was modified by supplementary agreements on 14 and 21 August, which effectively released Edward from paying any dowry on condition of releasing to the duke the first year’s instalment of the pension of 50,000 crowns which he was demanding from Burgundy.

Here we must remember that Edward IV wanted to marry Elizabeth of York without paying any dowry at all. On the contrary, France was to pay for Elizabeth's upkeeping until she was married to the Dauphin. Edward IV, whilst dealing with Brittany to marry his son Edward to Anne of Brittany, heiress to her father's duchy, established that if the Duke of Brittany had a son before their children married, one of his daughters was to marry the duke's new son, and that Brittany—not him—were to provide his daughter's dowry. Ross cites a Breton scholar that snarkily remarked that ‘to marry his daughters without dowries was the objective which this miser [Edward IV] set before himself in the last years of his life’. Harsh.

However, Edward IV did agree to pay Cecily's dowry! Although admittedly it was much cheaper (20,000 crowns) than Edward IV himself was asking for Anne of Brittany's hand in marriage to his son (100,000 crowns as the heiress of Brittany, 200,000 in case her father had a son). Cecily of York was first betrothed to James III's heir, the future James IV, in 1473 as part of a truce between England and Scotland that allowed Edward IV to go to war against France in 1475. The truce with Scotland fell through by 1480 and by 1481 Edward IV was committed to a war against James. The next year Edward was willing to back James III's brother Alexander against him, with the condition that Alexander was to marry Cecily ‘if the said Alexander can make hymself clere fro all other Women, according to the Lawes of Christian Chyrche’.

Alexander backed down after the English invasion of Scotland, and James III once again suggested Cecily marry his son and heir as part of the peace terms but Edward IV called off the betrothal for good later that year and demanded the repayment of the dowry portion he had already paid to Scotland. It seems Edward had decided to renew the war against Scotland by that time (November 1482) and back Alexander as king again. Amazingly, Alexander would go on to make peace with his brother yet again in early 1483. So by the time Edward IV died, Cecily's betrothal to Scotland's heir was cancelled for good. Richard III would wed her to Ralph Scrope, Baron Scrope's second son and a man that was part of Richard III's northern affinity.

I haven't found anything about Katherine of York's betrothal during her father's reign. She was probably too young, being born in 1479. EDIT: There was a plan for Katherine to marry Isabella of Castille's heir Juan as proposed in 1482. See reblog in the notes.

And that's it! Basically, Louis XI's peace treaty with Burgundy in December 1482 frustrated at least two of Edward IV's marriage plans. The Dauphin of France would marry Margaret of Austria (Mary of Burgundy's daughter) instead of Elizabeth of York. On the other hand, Burgundy, no longer in need of Edward IV's help, was under no obligation to go through with the marriage of Anne of York and the young Philip of Burgundy. Edward IV's falling out with Scotland also meant Cecily's betrothal was called out.

By the time Edward IV died the only betrothal that was likely to go through was Prince Edward's with Anne of Brittany, so whenever I see people saying that if it wasn't for Edward's death Elizabeth of York would be queen of France, Cecily queen of Scotland, Anne duchess of Burgundy etc I can only assume the person saying that doesn't know much about the upheavals of the 1480s — or Edward IV's own disinclination to pay dowries for the marriages of his daughters.

I hope this answer was of some help, and once again, sorry for taking so long to reply.

[racefortheironthrone]

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.

[une-sanz-pluis]

What are the famous rumors about Margaret of Anjou and her son Edward? How exactly did house of york attack them?

The most famous contemporary rumours are:

She was an adulteress

She cuckolded the king

Her son was actually bastard

Her armies were full of violent, rampaging foreigners who had left a trail of devastation behind them

She had no loyalty to England itself, had promised Scotland Berwick-Upon-Tweed and France Calais

She was entirely responsible for the handover of Maine and Anjou to the French

We know that the Yorkists spread rumours of her adultery and the bastardy of her son. Georges Chastellain explicitly names Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick as the source of the specific story Margaret had an affair with a wandering player who was the father of Edward of Lancaster. The rumours about Edward of Lancaster's bastardy came at a time where Henry VI was within Yorkist hands and Margaret and the Prince were at liberty, i.e. the active threat against the Yorkist regime. When York had Henry VI disinherit Edward, it was in his best interest to denigrate Edward so to present him as an undesirable alternative to York.

The rumours of Margaret's adultery had a two-fold purpose. First, they presented Margaret as a subversive, untrustworthy, immoral figure who would not submit as a woman "should" and would foist a bastard on the throne, threatening the dynasty. Second, they attacked Henry VI by showing him as unable to control his wife. If he could not "rule" his wife, how could he rule the kingdom? He was a weak king who would raise another man's son to be king and thus was not fit to wear the crown at all. The reality is that beyond these rumours with clear propagandic and political value for the Yorkists, there is very little evidence that Edward of Lancaster was illegitimate or that Margaret had committed adultery. Certainly, around the time Margaret's pregnancy was confirmed, Henry VI and the nobility behaved as if she was pregnant with his son, and after his birth, there is no suggestion that nobility had suspicions of Margaret's adultery or Edward's illegitimacy. Indeed, he was almost immediately invested as Prince of Wales. Henry VI was unwell and unable to recognise his son immediately but did so immediately on his recovery. The story that he claimed Edward was the son of the Holy Spirit is a sceptically recorded rumour and we should treat it as such.

The accounts of Margaret's rampaging army of evil foreigners are exaggerated, unable to be backed up by surviving contemporary evidence according to B. M. Cron. Likely, the stories were exaggerated by those in the Yorkist camp to discourage various towns from admitting her. Her failure to gain admittance to London, which refused her entry on the basis of such rumours, was effectively the undoing of the Lancastrian effort to secure the throne after their initial victories. The stories she was going to hand over Calais and Berwick to the French and the Scots may have had some basis in truth but we must remember she was in little position to negotiate, and whether she intended to honour these promises is impossible to known. On a similar note, the hand over of Maine and Anjou was unlikely to have anything to do with her. This was an agreement made by William de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk during negotiations with Rene of Anjou, when Margaret was only 14. Any role she played in the negotiations beyond the symbolic is probably non-existent. We know she was asked to intercede with Henry to ensure that they were handed over, but there is no evidence that she did or what she thought of it. All of this presented as someone who was "not English" and was more loyal to England's old enemies (Scotland and France) than England itself, and thus hardly a suitable Queen of England.

The rumours have developed over time into new myths that have no contemporary evidence, including:

She was responsible for the murder of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (there is no evidence for this; she is not known to have any personal dislike of him)

She felt nothing but apathy or loathing for Henry VI (there is no evidence for this; there is some evidence of them working together).

She personally oversaw the horrors during the sack of Ludlow, where the child Richard III was so traumatised, and cackled evilly (she was not present)

She was personally present at the Battle of Wakefield and ordered Richard, Duke of York's head to be crowned with the paper crown and spiked above the gate, evilly cackling (she was in Scotland)

She raised her son to be a cold-blooded psychopath and rapist (very little remains of Edward of Lancaster's personality, most evidence of this alleged "psychopathy" comes from a source hostile to the Angevins (i.e. Rene of Anjou))

She personally terrorised Anne Neville and approved of her son terrorising Anne Neville (there is no evidence that Anne was terrorised at all, the particulars of her relationship with Edward are unknown)

She was the lover of [insert specific man's name here] (there are only two contemporary rumours that mention any specifics of her supposed lover, the first is the "wandering player" rumour mentioned above, the second is a sceptically reported and wild rumour that she was planning to murder Henry VI and marry the Duke of Somerset.)

[justforbooks]

Best crime and thrillers of 2023

Given this year’s headlines, it’s unsurprising that our appetite for cosy crime continues unabated, with the latest title in Richard Osman’s Thursday Murder Club series, The Last Devil to Die (Viking), topping the bestseller lists. Janice Hallett’s novels The Mysterious Case of the Alperton Angels, which also features a group of amateur crime-solvers, and The Christmas Appeal (both Viper) have proved phenomenally popular, too.

Hallett’s books, which are constructed as dossiers – transcripts, emails, WhatsApp messages and the like – are part of a growing trend of experimentation with form, ranging from Cara Hunter’s intricate Murder in the Family (HarperCollins), which is structured around the making of a cold case documentary, to Gareth Rubin’s tête-bêche The Turnglass (Simon & Schuster). Books that hark back to the golden age of crime, such as Tom Mead’s splendidly tricksy locked-room mystery Death and the Conjuror (Head of Zeus), are also on the rise. The late Christopher Fowler, author of the wonderful Bryant & May detective series, who often lamented the sacrifice of inventiveness and fun on the altar of realism, would surely have approved. Word Monkey (Doubleday), published posthumously, is his funny and moving memoir of a life spent writing popular fiction.

Notable debuts include Callum McSorley’s Glaswegian gangland thriller Squeaky Clean (Pushkin Vertigo); Jo Callaghan’s In the Blink of an Eye (Simon & Schuster), a police procedural with an AI detective; Scorched Grace by Margot Douaihy (Pushkin Vertigo), featuring queer punk nun investigator Sister Holiday; and the caustically funny Thirty Days of Darkness (Orenda) by Jenny Lund Madsen (translated from the Danish by Megan E Turney).

There have been welcome additions to series, including a third book, Case Sensitive (Zaffre), for AK Turner’s forensic investigator Cassie Raven, and a second, The Wheel of Doll (Pushkin Vertigo), for Jonathan Ames’s LA private eye Happy Doll, who is shaping up to be the perfect hardboiled 21st-century hero.

Other must-reads for fans of American crime fiction include Ozark Dogs (Headline) by Eli Cranor, a powerful story of feuding Arkansas families; SA Cosby’s Virginia-set police procedural All the Sinners Bleed (Headline); Megan Abbott’s nightmarish Beware the Woman (Virago); and Rebecca Makkai’s foray into very dark academia, I Have Some Questions for You (Fleet). There are shades of James Ellroy in Jordan Harper’s Hollywood-set tour de force Everybody Knows (Faber), while Raymond Chandler’s hero Philip Marlowe gets a timely do-over from Scottish crime doyenne Denise Mina in The Second Murderer (Harvill Secker).

As Mick Herron observed in his Slow Horses origin novel, The Secret Hours (Baskerville), there’s a long list of spy novelists who have been pegged as the heir to John le Carré. Herron must be in pole position for principal legatee, but it’s been a good year for espionage generally: standout novels include Matthew Richardson’s The Scarlet Papers (Michael Joseph), John Lawton’s Moscow Exile (Grove Press) and Harriet Crawley’s The Translator (Bitter Lemon).

Historical crime has also been well served. Highlights include Emma Flint’s excellent Other Women (Picador), based on a real 1924 murder case; Laura Shepherd-Robinson’s story of a fortune teller’s quest for identity in Georgian high society, The Square of Sevens (Mantle); and SG MacLean’s tale of Restoration revenge and retribution, The Winter List (Quercus). There are echoes of Chester Himes in Viper’s Dream (No Exit) by Jake Lamar, which begins in 1930s Harlem, while Palace of Shadows (Mantle) by Ray Celestin, set in the late 19th century, takes the true story of American weapons heiress Sarah Winchester’s San Jose mansion and transports it to Yorkshire, with chillingly gothic results.

The latest novel in Vaseem Khan’s postcolonial India series, Death of a Lesser God (Hodder), is also well worth the read, as are Deepti Kapoor’s present-day organised crime saga Age of Vice (Fleet) and Parini Shroff’s darkly antic feminist revenge drama The Bandit Queens (Atlantic).

While psychological thrillers are thinner on the ground than in previous years, the quality remains high, with Liz Nugent’s complex and heartbreaking tale of abuse, Strange Sally Diamond (Penguin Sandycove), and Sarah Hilary’s disturbing portrait of a family in freefall, Black Thorn (Macmillan), being two of the best.

Penguin Modern Classics has revived its crime series, complete with iconic green livery, with works by Georges Simenon, Dorothy B Hughes and Ross MacDonald. There have been reissues by other publishers, too – forgotten gems including Celia Fremlin’s 1959 holiday‑from-hell novel, Uncle Paul (Faber), and Richard Wright’s The Man Who Lived Underground (Vintage). Finished in 1942 but only now published in its entirety, the latter is an account of an innocent man who takes refuge from racist police officers in the sewers of Chicago – part allegorical, part brutally realistic and, unfortunately, wholly topical.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[sporadiceagleheart]

Sophie Hélène Béatrix de France, Marie-Thérèse Charlotte de France,Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun,Marie Antoinette with a Rose,Marie Antoinette,Louis XVI,Marie-Thérèse Charlotte,Louis Antoine of France, Duke of AngoulêmeLouis Joseph Xavier François,Louis XVII,Louis XVIII,Charles X,Maria Theresa of Savoy,Sophie d'Artois,Louis, Dauphin of France, Aubreigh Paige Wyatt, Ava Jordan Wood, Leiliana Wright, Star Hobson, Saffie-Rose Brenda Roussos, Lily Peters, Olivia Pratt Korbel, Elizabeth Shelley, Sara Sharif, Charlotte Figi, Jersey Dianne Bridgeman, Macie Hill, Sloan Mattingly, Audrii Cunningham, Athena Strand, Athena Brownfield, Leocadia Zorrilla, Francisco José de Goya y Lucientes, Josefa Bayeu, Francisco Javier Goya Bayeu,Charlotte Eckerman, Adolf Ulrik Wertmüller, La Belle Italienne, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Anne Isabella Noel Byron, Elizabeth Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, Lady Elizabeth Finch-Hatton, Queen Elizabeth II, Barbara Shelley, Percy Shelley, Lady Elizabeth Pilfold Shelley, Anne Neville, John Winthrop, Mary Forth Winthrop, Margaret Tyndall Winthrop, Thomasine Winthrop, Elisabeth of Denmark, Anna von Brandenburg, Elisabeth von Brandenburg, Sir John Talbot, Elizabeth Wrottesley Talbot, Richard III, Edward of Middleham, Margaret Plantagenet, Anne Plantagenet Saint Leger, Elizabeth of York Plantagenet de la Pole Duchess of Suffolk, Edmund Plantagenet, Richard of York 3rd Duke of York, Lady Cecily de Neville Plantagenet, Katharine of Aragon, Henry Tudor, Elizabeth I, Isabella de Aragon, Juan de Aragón, Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, Jacklyn Jaylen “Jackie” Cazares, Chief Thunder Cloud, Chief Yellow Thunder, Ernest White Thunder, Wa-Kin-Yan-Waste “Andrew” Good Thunder, Maggie Snana Brass,

[edwardslovelyelizabeth]

Who are the people attending Elizabeth Woodville's funeral?Are they all her relatives?

Hi! Yes, her three daughters - Anne, Katherine and Bridget as well as her only son Thomas Grey with his wife and their daughter (Elizabeth’s granddaughter), her nieces and nephews, Cecily’s husband - Elizabeth’s son-in-law, Edward IV’s closest male relative Edmund de la Pole.

Mourners were soon arriving, however, three of her unmarried daughters arrived on Tuesday 12 June, Princesses Anne (born 1475), Katherine (born 1479), and Bridget (born 1480) and her daughter-in—law, Cecily Bonville, the wife of her eldest son and marchioness of Dorset. With them was an unmarried niece, Elizabeth, the daughter of Katherine Woodville, sister to the dead queen and dowager duchess of Buckingham, a grand-daughter, one of the daughters of her son the marquess of Dorset and yet another niece, Elizabeth, Lady Herbert in her own right as the only child of William Herbert, Lord Herbert and Earl of Huntingdon and Pembroke; and his first wife, Mary, another sister of the dead queen — the herald-narrator is apparently not aware that the sixteen year-old heiress had just been married in the king's presence on 2 June to his favourite, Sir Charles Somerset. There also arrived Lady Egremont, Dame Katherine Grey, and Dame Guildford, either the wife of Sir John Guildford or his son, Sir Richard, a family closely linked to the Woodvilles and Hautes. Part of the narrative seems to be missing at this point; it probably reported that these ladies knelt around the hearse according to their rank, while Dirige was sung. On Wednesday 13 June a mass of requiem was held while the three daughters knelt at ‘the hed’, their gentlewomen behind them. That same morning arrived Thomas, Marquess Dorset, the queen’s son, and Edmund de La Pole, son of the duke of Suffolk, the closest living male relative of Edward IV, Henry Bourchier, Earl of Essex, a nephew of the dead queen by her sister, Anne, John, Viscount Welles, who had married Cecily, the second surviving daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville, Sir Charles Somerset; the brand-new husband of Elizabeth, Lady Herbert and, last of the seculars, Sir Roger Cotton, Edward Haute, her second cousin through their common grandfather, Richard Woodville, Master Edmund Chaderton also came, once treasurer of Richard III and now chancellor to Queen Elizabeth of York.

from “The Royal Burials of the House of York at Windsor: II. Princess Mary, May 1482, and QueenElizabeth Woodville, June 1492.” by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs

[natequarter]

Henry [VII] spared Richard's nephew and designated heir, John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, and made the Yorkist heiress [from 1499] Margaret Plantagenet Countess of Salisbury suo jure.

unless i'm very much mistaken... wrong henry

[toreii]

Requiem of the Rose King: The Queen and the Rose Knight Volume 1 is now on sale!!✨❤️

ROTRK Gaiden are stories that Aya Kanno could not fit in the main story. With this first volume, she focuses on the story of Queen Margaret of Anjou, her political marriage to England’s King Henry VI, and their relationship with William de la Pole, the Duke of Suffolk. Based on William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2. (The cover makes sense now😭😭)

There is also a side story, “White Gaiden”, with Richard and Buckingham.

I hope I can get my hands on a physical copy, but I’m also relieved to know the digital version exists!! Thank you, Akita Shoten! And a huge thank you to Aya Kanno for giving us more ROTRK content!🙇‍♀️💗

[blackboar]

had edward v reigned, what would happen to henry vii? could you ever see him allowed back and allowed to live like a normal nobleman with a family?

Sorry for answering 8 months late, I had a lot on my plate.

I can see Henry VII being granted safe asylum in England because Edward V would neutralize him as a threat and a tool of foreign powers in that way. However, we have to point out that:

He would probably not be granted back his father's lands who are in the hand of Richard, duke of Gloucester, in this alternative universe. Also, Edward V wouldn't give such big estate to a probable foe

Jasper would probably not get a pardon and even partial restoration of estates.

With those two aspects in mind, and the fear that offers of returns could be a trap from either Edward V or third parties, it could also not happen and Henry VII would live a life of exile in the ways of the de la Poles

[dynastymusesarch]

now you're just a page torn from the story I'm building  

selective, mutuals only indie rp blog. i am over 25, so anyone under 21, i prefer not to interact with 

all I gave you is gone tumbled like it was stone

canon divergant pirate based colin bridgerton @pirtecolin edits blog @dynastymusesedits resources such as gifhunts, psds, and templates blog: @dynastymusesresources

thought we built a dynasty that heaven couldn't shake

as such all muses are over 18 (some have been aged up) 

thought we built a dynasty like nothing ever made

i am very open to crossovers, as well as oc’s, but plotting must be done.  if i am not following you, please do not send me in character memes. i am mutual only! 

thought we built a dynasty forever couldn't break up  

fandoms include: bridgerton, various period drama, star wars, lord of the rings/rings of power, wheel of time, shadow&bone/gisha verse. 

It all fell down, it all fell down, it all fell down 

all of my characters as of now (🍊 is high muse) (🌊muses i want plots for) (🧁new muses) starter calls

Bridgerton Verse

anthony bridgerton 🍊

benedict bridgerton 🌊

colin bridgerton🍊

daphne bridgerton🌊

francesca bridgerton🌊

gregory bridgerton🍊

penelope featherington🍊🌊

philip crane🍊🌊

michael sterling🍊

brimsley🌊🧁

sophie beckett🌊

kate sharma🍊

gareth st.clair🍊

prince freidrich hohenzollern🍊🌊

king george freidrick 🍊

lady agatha danbury🌊🧁

queen charlotte of mecklenburg-strelitz 🍊🌊🧁

felicity featherington🌊🧁

posy reiling🌊🧁

shadow&bone/grishaverse

alina starkov 🍊🌊

kaz brekker🍊🌊

inej ghafa🌊

nina zenik🌊

wylan van eck🌊

genya safin🌊🧁

nikolai lanstov🌊

tolya yul bataar🌊🧁

matthais helvar🌊

lord of the rings/rings of power

galadriel🍊

elrond🌊🧁

bronwyn🌊🧁

aragorn🌊🧁

samwise gamgee🌊🧁

wheel of time

rand al’thor🍊🌊

lan mandragoran🍊🌊

siuan sanche🍊

egwene al'vere🍊

elayne trakand🍊

Star Wars

luke skywalker🍊🌊

qui gon jinn🌊

obi wan kenobi🍊🌊

padme amidala🍊🌊

finn🌊

poe dameron🌊🧁

han solo🌊

the musketeers

d’artagnan 🍊

athos

aramis

queen anne of austria🌊

Marvel

Yelena Belova

Kate Bishop

Tandy bowen

Karolina Dean 🍊

Marcos Diaz 🍊

Esme Frost 🍊

John Proudstar🌊

Chase Stein 🍊

Scott Summers 🍊

Charles Xavier🌊

Jennifer Walters

Sersi 🍊

DCEU

Barry Allen 🍊

Beth Chapel🌊

Barbara Gordon 🍊

Dick Grayson🍊

Mary Hamliton 🍊

Virgil Hawkins 🍊

Pamela "Poisin Ivy" Isley 🍊

Kate Kane🌊

Clark Kent 🍊

jenny kord🌊🧁

Selina Kyle 🍊

Dinah Lance 🍊

Gar Logan🍊

M'gann M'orroz 🍊

Tommy Merlyn🌊

Sophie Moore🌊

Yolanda Montez

James Olsen 🍊

Anissa Pierce🌊

milagro reyes🌊🧁

Donna Troy 🍊🧁

Bruce Wayne🍊

Courtney whitmore  🌊

Jinx🌊

Komand'r🌊

TVD Verse

Marcel Gerald 🍊

Elena Gilbert 🍊

Jeremy Gilbert🌊

Tyler Lockwood🌊

Elijah Mikealson 🍊

Hope Mikealson🌊

Lizzie Saltzman 🍊🌊

Shadowhunters

Magnus Bane 🍊🌊

Clary Fray 🍊🌊

Simon Lewis🌊🧁

Alec Lightwood🌊

Fate:The Winx Saga

Terra Harvey🌊

Bloom Peters 🍊🌊

Flora🌊

Musa🌊

Riven🌊

Sky🌊

Stella🌊

Narnia

Edmund Pevensie 🍊🌊

Lucy Pevensie🍊🌊

Peter Pevensie🌊🧁

Jill Pole🌊

Eustance Clarence Scrubb🌊

the umbrella acaddemy

Deigo Hargreeves🌊

Five Hargreeves 🍊🌊

Klaus Hargreeves 🌊

Sloane Hargreeves 🍊🌊

Lila Pitts🌊

one tree hill

Julian Baker

Jake Jagelski

Nathan Scott 🍊

Clay Evans

Degrassi

Sav Bhandari 🌊

Fiona Coyne🌊

Clare Edwards 🍊🌊

Jake Martin🌊

Drew Torres🌊

Wednesday/Addams Family

Wednesday Addams🌊

Enid Sinclair

what we do in the shadows

colin robinson 🌊🧁

Guillermo de la Cruz🌊🧁

nadja of antipaxos🌊🧁

lazslo cravensworth 🌊🧁

nandor the relentless 🌊 🧁

the boys/gen v

hughie campbell🌊🧁

annie january / starlight 🌊🧁

other period drama muses

francis valois (reign with some historical influences) 🍊

Sebastian de poitiers (reign)

charlotte heywood (sanditon)🌊

lord babington (sanditon)🌊

young stringer (sandtiton)🌊

tom jones (tom jones 2023)🌊

henry tudor (7th) (the white queen/the white princess/the spainsh princess with some historical influences) 🍊

richard plantagent  (the white queen with some historical influences)🍊

elizabeth woodville (the white queen/the white princess with some historical influences)

anne shirley cuthbert (anne with an e) 

marie antoinette( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊

(king) louis bourbon (16th) ( marie antoinette (itv/pbs 2023) with some historical influences) 🍊

captain henry ossroy  (mr malcom’s list)🌊

selina dalton  (mr malcom’s list)🌊

dido elizabeth belle (belle 2013)🌊🧁

camlia dunne (daisy jones&the six) 🌊🧁

tim laughlin (fellow travelers) 🌊🧁

Other Scifi/Fantasy

Lucy Caryle- Lockwood&Co🌊

Anthony Lockwood-Lockwood&Co🌊

Wendy Darling-Peter Pan/Disney 🍊🌊

Elinor Fairmont-First Kill🌊🧁

Juliette Fairmont-First Kill🌊

Kat Harvey-Casper🌊

Harvey Kinkle-Sabrina The Teenage Witch/Archie comics🌊

Wyatt Logan-Timeless🌊

Arthur Pendragon-Merlin🌊

Scott mccall-teen wolf 🌊

david nolan/prince charming-once upon a time 🌊🧁

graham humbert/the huntsman-once upon a time 🌊🧁

mary margret blanchard/snow white-once upon a time 🌊🧁

other medias

Alexander Clearmond Diaz-red, white, & royal🌊

Clare Devlin-Derry Girls🌊

Gregory Eddie-Abbott Elementary🌊

Jim Halpert-The Office🌊

Ben Wyatt-Parks and Recreation 🌊

Lacey Porter-Twisted🌊

Janine Teagues-Abbott Elementary🌊

Henry Stuart Fox -red, white, & royal🌊

Glimmer-She Ra🌊

Rapunzel (various media)🌊🧁

Haley Dunphy (modern family)🌊🧁

Alex Dunphy (modern family) 🌊🧁

original characters

elisabeth barlowe 🍊🌊🧁

jacquetta covington 🍊🌊🧁

maxwell danbury 🍊🌊🧁

[minervacasterly]

“Whatever the judgment of a merciful God on Henry VII, that of historians has not always been complimentary. What are most often recalled are his last years and the accusations of avarice. Was he a better King than Richard III might have been had he survived Bosworth? Richard’s abolition of forced loans to the Crown … his protection of the church, promotion of justice for the rich and poor alike, are in stark contrast to Henry VII’s latter years.” -Tudor by Leanda de Lisle

However, Henry VII did try to do enough to limit the powers of the nobility and also promote for a better church system. Much like his female counterpart in Castile, the Queen Regnant, Isabella I; he tried to regulate church leaders and promote those who had earned their position through hard work and were earnest in their devotion. Unfortunately, England was not Castile and the church and the Crown had always been at odds with each other over matters such as this one. The image of the miserly Henry came into play after the loss of his son, wife and newborn daughter, in which his tax policies became more aggressive and started targeting members of the surviving Yorkist family such as the de la Poles. By using a system of bonds and recognizances "by which wealthy and influential individuals were forced to agree to pay the king exorbitant sums in the event of his displeasure, as a means of guaranteeing their good behavior", Dan Jones writes, Henry squeezed the nobility dry. These policies were nothing new, but the manner in which he was implementing them was and his two main enforcers, Empson and Dudley became very hated.