"Yorkist Pretender or Tudor ?" Topic

Hello all,
Which side do you prefer at the end of WOTR?

The Yorkist Pretender or the Tudor?

And why?

I'll take the winning side.

@advocate
Not me because my country was just like Burgundy allied to Richard III.

In 1477 the machinations of Louis XI caused the fall of Burgundy and after the death of Richards III, the machinations of the Beaujeu, children of Louis XI will cause the annexation of my country…

TMP link

Being American of mostly Irish descent, I'll cheer for whoever has the best lines in Shakespeare. You can't beat Richard III, particularly Olivier.

@john the OFM
There were many Irish fighters in 1487 in the army of the Yorkist pretender, but very few Americans I think? LOL

By that time who knows who really should be King.

For some reason my heart is Yorkist. I understand why Richard III claimed the throne vs having an underage king (murdered princes). By Bosworth Its a pox on all their houses

I would certainly not call Richard III a "pretender". He was a legitimate usurper.
Tudor became legitimate King by right of conquest. Much like William the Conqueror. Heck, it's even part of William's name!

Similarly, had the United States lost the War of Independence, it would have been illegitimate. But we won, so it's legal.

Had the Confederacy won the Civil War, secession would have been legal. But they lost, so secession is unconstitutional. So sayeth the Supreme Court. So there.

In Game of Thrones, Robert Baratheon was legitimate king by right of conquest. In the books, Stannis is very much alive, so he is legitimate heir to Robert. But he must assert his legitimacy through conquest. (I do not discuss the last two seasons of the show in polite company. 🤬)

A little clarity. By "the Yorkist pretender" do you mean Perkin Warbeck? Lambert Simnel? Or His Majesty King Richard III?

Oh, who am I kidding? ANY of them rather than those jumped-up Morton's Fork Welsh Tydders, whose claim to the throne, such as it was, was twice through the female line, and twice specifically barred from the royal succession. A Richard!! Loyaulte Me Lie!!

(Only don't tell the wife. She's a serious Tudor freak.)

hi EEE ya, all Irishmen are honorary Americans, just as Australians are like Americans, only more so.

just as Australians are like Americans, only more so.

E$#^&%$&!!!! @%&#O(^#R*(_(&*^%^%&*! ^$^%^&^$^%$%$(()_!!! With blowfies on it!

They do swear better than we do, I must admit. And I can have a potty mouth.

Doing family research of a limited nature, it would appear my ancestors managed to somehow avoid taking anyone's side (despite being of the nobility and rather well off).

Savvy bunch.

Confucius say "Man who sit on fence get splinters in arse".

They came out of the wars alright. Had a spot of bother with Henry VIII when he booted the Catholics and then made himself head of the Church of England. My family supported the Catholics, built a Catholic chapel, and hid priests.
Later another family member got in a tussle with Robert Cecil for eloping with his nephew's fiancé. (It did not end well.)
Then one (very young) head of the family sided with Charles I, then kept antagonizing the Cromwells by starting a not-all-that-secret secret society to bring back Charles II… unfortunately, long before it was feasible. But worst of all was his construction of a— shudder— fancy church with a painted ceiling, the altar on the east wall behind an iron gate, and a velvet altar tablecloth! The fiend! That got him put in the Tower. Four years later, Charles II took the throne, not that it did the family member any good… he was (probably) poisoned before it happened.
It appears that siding with shaky kings is not the best thing for my family…
At least my US of A branch doesn't have to worry about that!