A Slice of My Life, Part Two (Mel Brooks was Wrong)

Since someone asked if I had schoolwork to do, I thought I'd share this with you:

I have a thesis statement for my senior thesis. It is vague, of course, and will probably be refined, but it's a start. It is as follows:

"As a new monarch, Henry VII of England faced numerous challenges to the security of his throne. His reaction to these challenges, specifically his reaction to Perkin Warbeck, and the international ‘reaction to his reaction’ helped to secure his legacy and establish a Tudor dynasty."

I may have just bored you to tears, so I'll try a little rehash for the non-historically inclined among you:

Contrary to Mel Brooks, it is not always good to be the King, especially when you've just invaded a country and killed the sitting king to do so.

Kind of like how, oh, it's the middle of August, your name is Phil Hughes and you're starting instead of Mike Mussina in a potentially no-win situation...

Anyway, so you're the king/have got that spot in the rotation. Not everyone's happy with it. Some will go as so far as to take another random guy, in this case Perkin Warbeck/Ian Kennedy and try to sit him on the throne.

OK, so Ian's not really trying to usurp the throne, but it's the best I can do.

So imagine now that you're Henry/Phil. You've worked your bum off to get on the throne/mound, and now someone else is trying to take your place, but not the original guy because he's dead/demoted to the bullpen.

Trust me, you'd be pretty freaked.

So my thesis is about Henry's, like Phil's, establishment of himself as king/Phranchise.

However, Ian did get off a bit easier: Perkin tried invading and was eventually executed. Ian's just got married (congratulations!)

Right. Am off to complete bibliography. ALCS postgame notes after the game, if I am still awake.