Dicks I Have Studied
bublog:

Whoa, sweet space cap, BUB. You look ready for SPACE CAMP!
Thanks to Catie Savage for making the hat, and donating all her kitty hat sales to Lil BUB’s Big FUND.

bublog:

Whoa, sweet space cap, BUB. You look ready for SPACE CAMP!

Thanks to Catie Savage for making the hat, and donating all her kitty hat sales to Lil BUB’s Big FUND.

dusknitemaren:

A comedy about a history teacher who specializes in Medieval history who gets sent back in time to Medieval times and has to survive based on what they’ve been teaching, called Knight School. Plot twist: dragons were real after all.

Who was Richard II named for? Richard was his father's namesake, but Richard II had no close relatives sharing his name.
Anonymous

I don’t know if Richard II was named for anyone so much as his parents selected a name that was part of the acceptable royal pantheon. I certainly would not say he was named after Richard I, but the Lionheart’s existence gave the name the stamp of approval.

Anyway, it’s not consistent but the name Richard was kicking around as a “younger son” name in the royal family for much of the middle ages. It is worthy of note that all three King Richards were initially younger sons. Chance made them kings, which marks Richard (sadly) as perhaps a lesser status royal name.

William the Conqueror might have started it. The Conqueror had four sons, although we usually only hear about three. That’s because his second son, named Richard, died rather young, before his father. Richard was the name of several Norman dukes, so that is almost certainly what made the name acceptable for the Norman-English royal family.

The Conqueror’s eldest son Robert had two illegitimate sons, one of whom was named Richard. Sadly, this young man also died rather young, like his uncle and probable namesake. William of Malmesbury writes that both of these Richards perished in the New Forest, which was a dangerous place for the Conqueror’s family!

Henry I also had a least one illegitimate son named Richard. One of the Richards perished in the White Ship disaster. Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine probably gave Richard I his name in keeping with Norman tradition of naming a son (often younger by the time the dukes had become kings) Richard.

John had two sons, Henry III and Richard, earl of Cornwall. This Richard was probably named directly for his uncle, although the name Richard had been popping up before. Henry III gave his sons the names of saints (Edward and Edmund), introducing some new names into the royal mix.

Edward I had an extremely large family. Even though he was succeeded by his namesake son, this was the result of multiple deaths. Edward and Eleanor of Castile had sons named Henry, John, and Alphonso (a Castilian family name) who were older than Edward II. Edward I did not end up with a son named Richard, but he almost did. There is a source (which I should find, sorry!) in which Edward mentions prayers for the safety of “Lord Richard” the child in the queen’s womb (this being his second wife, Margaret). The child turned out to be a girl and was named Eleanor instead.

Richard II is the next royal Richard. Perhaps the Black Prince and Joan of Kent didn’t want to have their second son share the name of any of his uncles, which ruled out quite a few choices. So my best guess is we have a revival of an older royal name.

Although you didn’t ask, I’m pretty sure we can trace Richard III’s name to Richard II. Richard II’s uncle, the Duke of York, named his younger son Richard. That Richard (the earl of Cambridge) named his only son Richard (I’m guessing after himself). That son was Richard, duke of York, the father of Edward IV and Richard III. Interestingly, Richard of York and his wife Cecily Neville didn’t name a son after his father until the bitter end. In order, their sons were named: Henry, Edward, Edmund,  William, John, George, Thomas, and Richard.* I’m forced to conclude the couple didn’t want to name a son after his father but eventually gave up. They just couldn’t think of a new, yet suitable, name : )

*This is if the couple had 13 children. Many sources list the number as 12, in which case one of these sons didn’t exist. I’m thinking Thomas, as I’ve heard of him the fewest number of times. But who knows?

xxsecretbookxx:

detenebrate:

0xymoronic:

shitarianasays:

theeyesinthenight:

the-sonic-screw:

platinumpixels:

volpesvolpes:

unseilie:

sarahvonkrolock:

gaysexagainstawall:

them-days-was-olden-as-fuck:

The spread of the black death.

Poland

Poland, tell us your secret.

Poland is the old new Madagascar. 

If I remember correctly, Poland’s secret is that the jews where being blamed all over europe (as usual) as scapegoats for the black plague. Poland was the only place that accepted Jewish refugees, so pretty much all of them moved there. 
Now, one of the major causes of getting the plague was poor hygiene. This proved very effective for the plague because everyone threw their poop into the streets because there were no sewers, and literally no one bathed because it was against their religion. Unless they were jewish, who actually bathed relatively often. When all the jews moved to Poland, they brought bathing with them, and so the plague had little effect there.
Milan survived by quarantining its city and burning down the house of anyone showing early symptoms, with the entire family inside it. 

I reblogged this tons of times, but the Milan info is new.
Damn Italy, you scary.

Poland: “Hey, feeling a bit down? Have a quick wash! There, you see? All better”
Milan: “Aw, feeling a bit sick are we? BURN MOTHERFUCKER, BURN!!!!!”

Also, this might have something to do with it: from what I understand, O blood type is uncommonly… common in Poland. Something to do with large families in small villages and a LOT of intermarriage. The black plague was caused by a bacterium that produced, in its waste in the human body, wastes that very closely mimic the “B” marker sugars on red blood cells that keep the body from attacking its own immune system. Anyone who has a B blood type had an immune system that was naturally desensitized to the presence of the bacterium, and therefore was more prone to developing the disease. Anyone who had an O type was doubly lucky because the O blood type means the total absence of ANY markers, A or B, meaning that their bodys’ immune system would react quickly and violently against the invaders, while someone with an A may show symptoms and recover more slowly, while someone with B would have just died. Because O is a recessive blood type, it shows in higher numbers when more people who carry the recessive genes marry other people who also carry the recessive gene. Poland, which has a nearly 700 year history of being conquered by or partnering with every other nation in the surrounding area, was primarily an agricultural country, focused around smaller, farming communities where people were legally tied to, and required to work, “their” land, and so historically never “spread” their genes across a large area. The economy was, and had been, unstable for a very long period of time leading up to the plague, the government had been ineffective and had very little reach in comparison to the armies of the other countries around for a very very long time, and so its people largely remained in small communities where multiple generations of cross-familial inbreeding could have allowed for this more recessive gene to show up more frequently. Thus, there could be a higher percentage of O blood types in any region of the country, guaranteeing less spread of the illness and moving slower when it did manage to travel. Combine this with the fact that there were very few large, urban centers where the disease would thrive, and with the above facts, and you’ve got a lovely recipe for avoiding the plague.
Interestingly enough, as a result from the plague, the entirety of Europe now has a higher percentage of people with O blood type than any other region of the world. 

WHY IS THIS ALL SO COOL

When Tumblr teaches you more about the plague than 12 years of school ever did.

Just to throw a nod in, as a medieval historian, this is all credible, and is the leading theory as to the plagues effectiveness at this point. So. Enjoy your new knowledge!

how come we never learned this is school?

Fun map.
Can I just point out that this is untrue: “literally no one bathed because it was against their religion.” It was not against the rules for medieval Christians to bathe! Christianity did not have any ritual washing requirements, so Christians might not have bathed as often, but it was not against their religion. And people did bathe. Medical manuals often discuss baths as being good for your health, so richer people probably bathed a decent amount. When you don’t have running water and have to cart in your own bath water, bathing is a pain. Naturally, people won’t do it as much unless you have a reason to (but rich people who can make other people cart in their water will bathe more often). Not having a reason to bathe often is very different from being told not to bathe at all.
Some medieval moralists were against bathing in public bathhouses because they felt it might lead to sin. There were some church regulations against excessive public bathing and mixed-sex bathing, but those were based on a fear of sexual sin rather than disapproval of cleanliness. This is a pretty good website for some info and references to other books. As the site notes, this is a somewhat fraught topic among historians, although it would actually seem that it is fraught because we have been taught for so long that medieval people were filthy that we have a hard time accepting evidence to the contrary.
This is a good quote from the site linked above: “Like the nonsensical idea that spices were used to disguise the taste of rotten meat, the idea that bathing was forbidden and/or wiped out between the fall of Rome and the Enlightenment has been touted by many gullible writers, including Smithsonian  magazine.”*
The idea that a coating of dirt protects you from disease and you should never wash is not medieval. Strangely enough, it is an idea that post-dates the plague. Early modern/ Renaissance doctors sometimes thought bathing opened the pores to disease.
Yes, medieval Jewish people had a higher standard of hygiene, but Christians were not forbidden to wash.
Here’s another fun fact: medieval people did not call this the “Black Death.” They referred to it as the Great Pestilence or Great Plague. This little Wikipedia blurb is actually pretty good.
*Spices were expensive while meat was cheaper. If you could afford spices, you could afford to toss out rotten meat. If you were so poor you had to eat rotten meat or go without meat, you would not be able to afford spices. See Paul Freedman, Out of the East: Spices and the Medieval Imagination (2009)

xxsecretbookxx:

detenebrate:

0xymoronic:

shitarianasays:

theeyesinthenight:

the-sonic-screw:

platinumpixels:

volpesvolpes:

unseilie:

sarahvonkrolock:

gaysexagainstawall:

them-days-was-olden-as-fuck:

The spread of the black death.

Poland

Poland, tell us your secret.

Poland is the old new Madagascar. 

If I remember correctly, Poland’s secret is that the jews where being blamed all over europe (as usual) as scapegoats for the black plague. Poland was the only place that accepted Jewish refugees, so pretty much all of them moved there. 

Now, one of the major causes of getting the plague was poor hygiene. This proved very effective for the plague because everyone threw their poop into the streets because there were no sewers, and literally no one bathed because it was against their religion. Unless they were jewish, who actually bathed relatively often. When all the jews moved to Poland, they brought bathing with them, and so the plague had little effect there.

Milan survived by quarantining its city and burning down the house of anyone showing early symptoms, with the entire family inside it. 

I reblogged this tons of times, but the Milan info is new.

Damn Italy, you scary.

Poland: “Hey, feeling a bit down? Have a quick wash! There, you see? All better”

Milan:Aw, feeling a bit sick are we? BURN MOTHERFUCKER, BURN!!!!!”

Also, this might have something to do with it: from what I understand, O blood type is uncommonly… common in Poland. Something to do with large families in small villages and a LOT of intermarriage. The black plague was caused by a bacterium that produced, in its waste in the human body, wastes that very closely mimic the “B” marker sugars on red blood cells that keep the body from attacking its own immune system. Anyone who has a B blood type had an immune system that was naturally desensitized to the presence of the bacterium, and therefore was more prone to developing the disease. Anyone who had an O type was doubly lucky because the O blood type means the total absence of ANY markers, A or B, meaning that their bodys’ immune system would react quickly and violently against the invaders, while someone with an A may show symptoms and recover more slowly, while someone with B would have just died. Because O is a recessive blood type, it shows in higher numbers when more people who carry the recessive genes marry other people who also carry the recessive gene. Poland, which has a nearly 700 year history of being conquered by or partnering with every other nation in the surrounding area, was primarily an agricultural country, focused around smaller, farming communities where people were legally tied to, and required to work, “their” land, and so historically never “spread” their genes across a large area. The economy was, and had been, unstable for a very long period of time leading up to the plague, the government had been ineffective and had very little reach in comparison to the armies of the other countries around for a very very long time, and so its people largely remained in small communities where multiple generations of cross-familial inbreeding could have allowed for this more recessive gene to show up more frequently. Thus, there could be a higher percentage of O blood types in any region of the country, guaranteeing less spread of the illness and moving slower when it did manage to travel. Combine this with the fact that there were very few large, urban centers where the disease would thrive, and with the above facts, and you’ve got a lovely recipe for avoiding the plague.

Interestingly enough, as a result from the plague, the entirety of Europe now has a higher percentage of people with O blood type than any other region of the world. 

WHY IS THIS ALL SO COOL

When Tumblr teaches you more about the plague than 12 years of school ever did.

Just to throw a nod in, as a medieval historian, this is all credible, and is the leading theory as to the plagues effectiveness at this point. So. Enjoy your new knowledge!

how come we never learned this is school?

Fun map.

Can I just point out that this is untrue: “literally no one bathed because it was against their religion.” It was not against the rules for medieval Christians to bathe! Christianity did not have any ritual washing requirements, so Christians might not have bathed as often, but it was not against their religion. And people did bathe. Medical manuals often discuss baths as being good for your health, so richer people probably bathed a decent amount. When you don’t have running water and have to cart in your own bath water, bathing is a pain. Naturally, people won’t do it as much unless you have a reason to (but rich people who can make other people cart in their water will bathe more often). Not having a reason to bathe often is very different from being told not to bathe at all.

Some medieval moralists were against bathing in public bathhouses because they felt it might lead to sin. There were some church regulations against excessive public bathing and mixed-sex bathing, but those were based on a fear of sexual sin rather than disapproval of cleanliness. This is a pretty good website for some info and references to other books. As the site notes, this is a somewhat fraught topic among historians, although it would actually seem that it is fraught because we have been taught for so long that medieval people were filthy that we have a hard time accepting evidence to the contrary.

This is a good quote from the site linked above: “Like the nonsensical idea that spices were used to disguise the taste of rotten meat, the idea that bathing was forbidden and/or wiped out between the fall of Rome and the Enlightenment has been touted by many gullible writers, including Smithsonian magazine.”*

The idea that a coating of dirt protects you from disease and you should never wash is not medieval. Strangely enough, it is an idea that post-dates the plague. Early modern/ Renaissance doctors sometimes thought bathing opened the pores to disease.

Yes, medieval Jewish people had a higher standard of hygiene, but Christians were not forbidden to wash.

Here’s another fun fact: medieval people did not call this the “Black Death.” They referred to it as the Great Pestilence or Great Plague. This little Wikipedia blurb is actually pretty good.

*Spices were expensive while meat was cheaper. If you could afford spices, you could afford to toss out rotten meat. If you were so poor you had to eat rotten meat or go without meat, you would not be able to afford spices. See Paul Freedman, Out of the East: Spices and the Medieval Imagination (2009)

whitepeoplesaidwhat:

cosbyykidd:

It’s worked for white people, I figured I might as well give it a shot.

We are getting you to Disney world damnit


He made it!

whitepeoplesaidwhat:

cosbyykidd:

It’s worked for white people, I figured I might as well give it a shot.

We are getting you to Disney world damnit

He made it!

siddharthasmama:

2damnfeisty:

thoughtsofablackgirl:

Victims of sexual assault expect privacy. But 16-year-old Jada was violated all over again once explicit images from her rape surfaced on Twitter. So Jada decided to take her story public.

“There’s no point in hiding,” the Houston teen tells KHOU. “Everybody has already seen my face and my body, but that’s not what I am and who I am.”

I’m sharing this because certain people on twitter  NEEDS TO BE STOP! Specially the ignorant side of black twitter! Every time something bad happen to a young black women or black girl twitter is quickly to explode it into something bigger! And Jada story is one of them! She’s a 16 yearls high school student she could be your sister,cousin, neighbor, or classmate! This tragic thing happened to her and these ignorant people on twitter looking for followers exploit this to point where the disgusting hashtag was created #jadapose. People tweeting pictures of themselves in the pose in which Jada was found! What I find even worse about this its that a lot of the people doing these poses are young black men and women. Something like this happen to someone who could possibly be your sister and instead of asking for justice you rather create a new meme? And some of them even argue “oh how do you know she got rape?” Does it matter? a picture of an underage girl laying on the floor looking like she’s passed out is not something be laughed at EVER! Like ”A rape victim’s trauma is not grounds for a new internet meme. Pls do not partake in such ignorance. Report pictures.”

I’m happy and proud of Jada for speaking and not letting this disgusting thing becoming any bigger

Which brings me to what I’m trying to ask or say here when will sexual assault towards black girls and young black women will be taking serious by young black people?

i truly don’t understand what kind of world we live in.

This is absolutely horrific and abhorrent. Look at how few notes this has. Now watch as the so-called feminists and defenders of women on this site stay silent. The black woman’s body has no value to this society except for how it can be exploited and dehumanized. This is straight up misogynoir. This is an egregious act. This shows how sick our culture is. Rape culture is so pervasive and normalized that many will see nothing wrong with this new meme, much like as was the case with ‘Trayvoning’ (though that was white and non-Black POC racialized violence). This is also why I stay off of twitter.
Tumblr has helped me identify racial, sexual and cultural biases that I wasn’t aware I needed to work on

theotherscottpeterson:

2am-poetry:

Thank you for that. 

Has it ever. 

yellowcape:

prokuon:

same

This is my life.

yellowcape:

prokuon:

same

This is my life.

frasierfan:

evilsoutherngentleman:

theblogthatneversleeps:

Barack Obama has attained a level of sassiness one can only dream of.

Holy shit it’s real.

Here’s the other side of that.  Obama care requires me, a postmenopausal female to pay for birth control, which I obviously do NOT need….so a man has made a decision about MY healthcare….only this time it’s someone you think it’s doing a good thing…..well, I DON’T.

I don’t understand your complaint. No one is making you buy birth control for yourself, are they?If not, I fail to see how your complaint has much to do with Obama or the ACA. As it was before and is now, the point of insurance is that my premiums help pay for the needs of other people. I am healthy, but I still pay. My premiums help insurance companies pay for cancer treatments or blood pressure medicine or c-sections. If I am not mistaken, as I understand your point, I am paying for some wrinkly old dude’s Viagra and an old woman’s Boniva. Obama didn’t force me to. It’s the point of insurance. It’s the same thing with school levies. I support them because I want kids to be educated. If people learn, society benefits. It’s the same principle with the ACA. We all benefit from a healthier society. So unless you are being forced to purchase medicine you don’t need for yourself, I don’t think the ACA has changed your circumstances in that situation. You have always been paying for medicine you personally do not need. It is inherent in the nature of insurance.

frasierfan:

evilsoutherngentleman:

theblogthatneversleeps:

Barack Obama has attained a level of sassiness one can only dream of.

Holy shit it’s real.

Here’s the other side of that.  Obama care requires me, a postmenopausal female to pay for birth control, which I obviously do NOT need….so a man has made a decision about MY healthcare….only this time it’s someone you think it’s doing a good thing…..well, I DON’T.

I don’t understand your complaint. No one is making you buy birth control for yourself, are they?

If not, I fail to see how your complaint has much to do with Obama or the ACA. As it was before and is now, the point of insurance is that my premiums help pay for the needs of other people. I am healthy, but I still pay. My premiums help insurance companies pay for cancer treatments or blood pressure medicine or c-sections. If I am not mistaken, as I understand your point, I am paying for some wrinkly old dude’s Viagra and an old woman’s Boniva. Obama didn’t force me to. It’s the point of insurance.

It’s the same thing with school levies. I support them because I want kids to be educated. If people learn, society benefits. It’s the same principle with the ACA. We all benefit from a healthier society.

So unless you are being forced to purchase medicine you don’t need for yourself, I don’t think the ACA has changed your circumstances in that situation. You have always been paying for medicine you personally do not need. It is inherent in the nature of insurance.

fuckyeahbitchardiii:

scribblesincrayon:

jimmythejimjim:

grand-duchessa:

I tried to ignore this, but we all know I was not able to do that for long. 
It is ridiculous that the Tudors felt the need even more than 100 years after his death to villify the man who held the throne before them. It is ridiculous the Tudors felt their own claim to the throne was so tenuous they needed to villify Richard and destroy every member of the House of York they could. 
Richard has been villified for over 500 years. There is no conclusive evidence that he killed the Princes in the Tower (just as there is no conclusive evidence he did not). Perhaps it is past time for him to be rememebered for the man he likely was, not the villianous Shakespearan bastardization of him. 
As for Elizabeth Woodville, Henry VII, and Margaret Beaufort, there are things within their individual histories which can destroy their reputations. Their reputations do not need to be destroyed to make Richard look like a saint. None of these people were saints.  

Actually, it’s 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% likely that Richard did kill them.

No, it’s not. More importantly, who cares? There’s more to a king than the nephews he maybe possibly kinda sorta had someone kill. *shrugs*

Couple of truth-bombs here:(1) the Tudors didn’t actively contribute to the vilification of Richard’s character after his death. “Tudor propaganda” is a myth. H7’s PR theme essentially boiled down to: “I’m a Lancastrian king. I don’t need no stinkin’ Yorkist bride to legitimize my reign. My ancestry isn’t up for discussion. We do not talk about Richard III. We do not talk about murdered princes. That’s cool, Polydore, if you want to write your history thing. Actually no, fuck that, Imma throw your ass in jail and only let you out when the Pope asks me too.”(2) the widespread concept of Elizabeth Woodville as a greedy, grasping, manipulative, and ruthless social climber, and Ed4 as thoroughly debauched at the end of his reign demonstrates the resounding success of the use of character assassination as a political weapon. And the king who pulled this off — so well that a lot of legit historians *still* buy into it — was Richard III himself. Ross writes that he was the first English monarch to use slander and character assassination as a political tool. For real those acts of the 1484 Parliament are HARSH.

I’m with you on Elizabeth Woodville, but not the Tudors. I’m not saying it was all Henry VII but the Tudors are more than one man. There is propaganda you pay for and propaganda you create an environment for. Henry IV reinforced that latter kind in regards to Richard II.The Tudors helped create that atmosphere for Richard III.

fuckyeahbitchardiii:

scribblesincrayon:

jimmythejimjim:

grand-duchessa:

I tried to ignore this, but we all know I was not able to do that for long. 

It is ridiculous that the Tudors felt the need even more than 100 years after his death to villify the man who held the throne before them. It is ridiculous the Tudors felt their own claim to the throne was so tenuous they needed to villify Richard and destroy every member of the House of York they could. 

Richard has been villified for over 500 years. There is no conclusive evidence that he killed the Princes in the Tower (just as there is no conclusive evidence he did not). Perhaps it is past time for him to be rememebered for the man he likely was, not the villianous Shakespearan bastardization of him.

As for Elizabeth Woodville, Henry VII, and Margaret Beaufort, there are things within their individual histories which can destroy their reputations. Their reputations do not need to be destroyed to make Richard look like a saint. None of these people were saints.  

Actually, it’s 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% likely that Richard did kill them.

No, it’s not. More importantly, who cares? There’s more to a king than the nephews he maybe possibly kinda sorta had someone kill. *shrugs*

Couple of truth-bombs here:

(1) the Tudors didn’t actively contribute to the vilification of Richard’s character after his death. “Tudor propaganda” is a myth. H7’s PR theme essentially boiled down to: “I’m a Lancastrian king. I don’t need no stinkin’ Yorkist bride to legitimize my reign. My ancestry isn’t up for discussion. We do not talk about Richard III. We do not talk about murdered princes. That’s cool, Polydore, if you want to write your history thing. Actually no, fuck that, Imma throw your ass in jail and only let you out when the Pope asks me too.”

(2) the widespread concept of Elizabeth Woodville as a greedy, grasping, manipulative, and ruthless social climber, and Ed4 as thoroughly debauched at the end of his reign demonstrates the resounding success of the use of character assassination as a political weapon. And the king who pulled this off — so well that a lot of legit historians *still* buy into it — was Richard III himself. Ross writes that he was the first English monarch to use slander and character assassination as a political tool.

For real those acts of the 1484 Parliament are HARSH.

I’m with you on Elizabeth Woodville, but not the Tudors. I’m not saying it was all Henry VII but the Tudors are more than one man.

There is propaganda you pay for and propaganda you create an environment for. Henry IV reinforced that latter kind in regards to Richard II.

The Tudors helped create that atmosphere for Richard III.