Sansa With Littlefinger / Jon With Daenerys | [insp Post]

Character Deep Dive: Augusta Markham

Portrayed by: Eloise Webb Show: Sanditon Season 2

Although Sanditon already has more than its share of strong female characters wrestling with the various manifestations of Regency misogyny, the introduction of Augusta Markham in Season 2 provides a fresh look at the pressures on young ladies of the period.

We first discover Augusta bounding through a field behind a child. As she screams, “this had better be worth it,” we understand she is not chasing the child but instead following along to catch a glimpse of something. That something turns out to be the arrival of the army in Sanditon. Despite Augusta’s seeming exasperation with the eager child, her own interest in the arrival of the army is barely concealed. This tendency to mask her real feelings characterizes Augusta throughout much of the season.

In looking behind this mask, we come to understand Augusta as a young lady faced with the uncertainty and fear of coming of age with neither a nurturing home environment to sustain her nor a social outlet to supply marriage prospects as a means of escape.

Continue Reading

Hi! I'm really enjoying your blog, your predictions for S2 and how you analyse the characters! I apologize if you already did this but I'm curious about your thoughts regarding Edward (especially if you think he cares about Esther) and Clara as characters and about the nature of their relationship with each other. Thank you and happy holidays!

Hey, nonnie!

So sorry to take this long to answer your ask. I was so consummed with my fanfic in December and then so tired I didn’t manage to get to these meatier asks sooner. Hopefully, you’re still interested in my answer.

I haven’t actually talked about Edward Denham on my blog before, aside from a little comment in one of my first metas about him and Esther being Davies’ take on Mary and Henry Crawford from Mansfield Park. In fact at the start of the series the Mansfield Park connection is completed with Clara in the place of the innocent ingenue Fanny Price that is to be seduced by the rake with his sister’s support.

One of the coolest things Davies does with Sanditon is that he takes full advantage of our Jane Austen proficency by littering this world with all the familiar Austen archetypes. But just as soon as you begin to lament that this world offers too much of the familiar and not enough of the strange, he pulls the rug from under you and reveals these characters to be something else entirely.

And no one exemplifies this better than Esther. The cold, mercenary harpy bent on swindeling her aunt and ruining a poor girl’s reputation in the process is revealed to be the true victim of this little traingle. A girl who fell in love with a bad man without any chance of escaping him. And the innocent ingenue? Well … Clara is about as far removed from Fanny Price as one can get.

However, the one character that remains unaltered, in fact the character that holds the fewest surprises in the whole of Sanditon is Edward. He is exactly as advertised: the Henry Crawford bent on seducing virginal Fanny, Wickham planning to “whisk” Georgiana away, Willoughby playing with Marianne and then discarding her.

I actually think Willoughby might actually be the closest analog to Edward. Willoughby is, by far, in my mind the worst of Austen’s villians. A true, clinical case of narcisism if there’s every been one.

Willoughby and Edward aren’t dangerous simply because they will use you to get money the way Wickham does or because they want to saw wild oats. They are dangerous because they are perfectly willing to gaslight and use their victims for as long as they possibly can.

They aren’t content to simply go on their merry way once it becomes clear you’ve figured out their true character. They will come back and prod as many times as possible, searching for any weakness which might allow them entry back into your life. Their objective isn’t just material (although both Edward and Willighouby love luxuary when they get it without having to work for it) but emotional as well.

Everytime Esther relents to Edward, everytime she follows his lead, his influence over her grows.  Their relationship is all the more damaging and dangerous because she’s stuck in a house with him 24/7.

The worst part of it is, Edward doesn’t trick Esther by making her believe he is better than he is. She sees all his ugliness, his faults, his selfishness and ego. What he does is far worse: he makes her believe she is as bad as him.

He takes this naturally honest, compassionate and intelligent woman and twists her up into a shell of herself. He breakes down her selfesteem to such a degree that while she’s with him, she convinces herself of her own immorality and after she finally manages to leave him, she thinks of herself as worthless for having allowed herself to be manipulated by him. She is in a lose-lose situation either way.

Esther’s relationship with Edward is scary, sad and very, very real in a way that becomes all the more uncomfortable, the more you think about it so it’s hard to talk about love in this context.

The real question is: can someone who is inherently unhealthy love in a positive way? I do think Edward probably loves her but his way of loving is tained by his own twisted personality so it’s not something worth having in any case.

As for his relationship with Clara, on the surface it’s a classic cat and mouse game. But I do think beneath all that is some sort of twisted attraction probably born from selfloathing. They can recognize something of themselves in each other and they end up forming a bond, if their last conversation is any indication:

Edward: The vanquished enemy retreats.

Clara: I was never your enemy.

[…]

Clara: Look at you … Alone and unloved. Trust me. That’s not an easy placeto find yourself in. I will spare you a thought now and then. I know you will think of me.

I do think in a theoretical season 2, Edward and Clara would be back, possibly scheeming together.

Thanks for the ask!

historicwomendaily celebration week: Favourite Sisters

Elizabeth of York (11 February 1466 – 11 February 1503) was the eldest daughter of king Edward IV and his wife queen Elizabeth Woodville. Elizabeth was the Queen Consort of England from 1486 until 1503 as the wife of Henry VII and the first Tudor queen. She married Henry VII in 1486 following the latter’s victory at the Battle of Bosworth Field, which started the last phase of the Wars of the Roses. Uniquely, Elizabeth of York was a daughter, sister, niece, wife and mother of English monarchs - Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII, respectively.

Mary of York (11 August 1467 – 23 May 1482) was the second daughter of Edward IV of England and his queen consort Elizabeth Woodville. In May 1480, Mary was named a Lady of the Garter along with her younger sister Cecily. There were reportedly plans to marry her to John, King of Denmark, bit nothing came of it as Mary died aged 14 at Palace of Placentia in Greenwich on 23 May 1482.

Cecily of York, Viscountess Welles (20 March 1469 – 24 August 1507) was an English princess and the third, but eventual second surviving, daughter of Edward IV, King of England and his queen consort Elizabeth Woodville. In 1474, Cecily was betrothed to the son of James III of Scotland and In 1482 - to the Duke of Albany, who had recently allied himself to Cecily’s father, who he died before a marriage to Cecily could take place. Cecily lived at court with her family through the autumn and winter of 1485-1486. She served as her sister’s chief lady-in-waiting once Henry and Elizabeth married that January, and she attended upon her sister throughout the spring and summer while she was pregnant with her first child. When Prince Arthur was born in September 1486, Cecily carried the infant during his christening. At some point in December 1487, when Cecily was 18, she married John, Viscount Welles, Margaret Beaufort’s younger half-brother. After his passing some years later, Cecily married without royal permission a commoner Sir Thomas Kyme, for which her estates were confiscated by Henry. One hopes that this final marriage enabled Cecily to find happiness away from court, but the record of her fades before her death at age 38 in 1507

Anne of York (2 November 1475 – 23 November 1511) was born in the Palace of Westminster, London, as the fifth daughter of King Edward IV of England and his wife, Elizabeth Woodville. On 5 August 1480, King Edward IV signed a treaty agreement with Maximilian I, Archduke of Austria for Anne to marry his son Philip, duke of Burgundy, but the treaty was repudiated after Edward’s death and never took place. In 1484 Anne had been betrothed to Thomas Howard by Richard III. This was one decision that Henry seemed to agree with, and the two were married in 1495 when Anne was nineteen years old. She spent some time at court serving her sister as lady-in-waiting, but little else is known of Anne of York. She found favour under Henry VIII, as evinced by gifts of estates made to her, but she died shortly after his ascendancy, leaving no surviving children.

Catherine or Katherine of York (14 August 1479 – 15 November 1527) was the ninth child and sixth daughter of King Edward IV by his wife Elizabeth Woodville. Catherine was one of many English princesses considered for a Scottish match before she was married to William Courtenay. He spent significant amounts of time in the Tower for his traitorous words regarding Henry VII’s reign before his death in 1511, shortly following his reinstatement as Earl of Devon by Henry VIII. Catherine and her husband were present at court on various important occasions, including the wedding of Arthur Tudor and Katherine of Aragon.  Catherine seems to be a favourite aunt of Henry VIII and was enjoying great favour and gifts from him occasionally visiting court. The Courtenay family held great power in the west of England. Catherine, who had taken a vow of chastity after William’s death outlived the remainder of the children of Edward IV dying in 1527.

Bridget of York (10 November 1480 – 1517) was an English princess, the tenth child and seventh daughter of Edward IV of England and Queen Elizabeth Woodville, born less than three years before her father’s death. Bridget entered the Dartford Priory in 1490 at the age of 10, though it is unknown if this was to honour a plan of her father’s, her own wishes, or due to other reasons. Evidence of Bridget’s study of Catholic saints exists, and she spent the remainder of her life as a nun. She died in 1517, never foreseeing the dissolution of the priory that would occur under her nephew, Henry VIII.

pictured: Elizabeth Woodville and her five daughters (left to right): Elizabeth, Cecily, Anne, Catherine, and Mary. Royal Window (c.1482), Northwest Transept, Canterbury Cathedral.

Jenny would dance with her ghosts, with the ones she had lost and those she had found and the ones who loved her the most…They spun her around on the damn cold stone, spun away all her s o r r o w and pa i n 

And She n e v er wanted to leave.

                     She never wanted to l e a ve.

                                     Never wanted to leave. 

I don’t really get the Jonsa/Jonerys fights because Sansa and Dany are such interesting characters to me while I find Jon so boring (that’s just my taste, nothing against people who like Jon). Why are people fighting over which of these women gets his boring ass lmao. I personally don’t like Jonerys because it feels like a boring arc for Dany - especially if she’s pregnant. And Sansa has grown so much into herself as a politically savvy ruler that it would make me sad to see her ending up as Jon’s Queen or w/ever. A lot of Jonsa fans keep comparing Jon and Sansa to Ned and Catelyn, which is fine I guess. But I don’t want Sansa to be Catelyn 2.0. I thought the whole point of the story was that they learnt to be better and smarter than their parents. Jon and Ygritte was really the only pairing that I liked for Jon, because she made up for his broodiness and made his character more relaxed and human to me. I’m not sharing my opinion just to hate on these pairings, I guess I wanted to know if there were other Sansa or Dany stans who felt this way.

Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire and other heroines of the French wars of religion

Between 1562 and 1598, France was torn by civil and religious conflicts between the Catholics and the Protestants. During this period, women distinguished themselves as spies, propagandists, political leaders or negotiators. Some of them even fought weapons in hand.

Agrippa d’Aubigné tells in his Universal history of Marie de Brabançon, widow of Jean de Barres, lord of Neuvy. In October 1569, the lady found herself besieged in her home by the king’s lieutenant who had 2,000 men and two cannons. She personally defended the most dangerous breach with a pike in her hand. Shamed by her example, her soldiers fought bravely. Observers recounts that they saw her defending the breach several times with her weapon. She nonetheless had to surrender in mid-November, but was allowed to walk away freely by the king’s command. Another lady noted for her military acumen was Claude de la Tour, dame de Tournon who defended her city against the protestants in 1567 and 1570. They couldn’t, however, breach her defense and had to leave.

Ordinary women also found themselves on the frontline. The city of La Rochelle was besieged between 1572 and 1573 and the townswomen fought in the defense. Brantôme tells that the besiegers saw a hundred women dressed in white appearing on the walls. Some of them performed support functions while others wielded weapons. Their bravery was confirmed by another account who tells that the women acted as “soldiers or new amazons” and that their courage led a street in La Rochelle to be called the “Ladies’ Boulevard”. Agrippa d’Aubigné similarly shows the women fighting with sword and gun. Brantôme adds that he heard that one of these women kept at home the weapon with which she fought and that she didn’t want to give it to anyone.

Another valiant lady was Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire (c.1528/30-1588) who came from a prestigious military family. She married the lord of Miremont, gave birth to three daughters, but was widowed and had to defend her lands. Agrippa d’Aubigné tells that Madeleine led a troop of 60 cavaliers against her enemy Montal, lieutenant of the king. When she fought, Madeleine charged ahead of all others, with her hair unbound in order to be recognized by both friends and foes. In 1575, Montal lured Madeleine and her troops away from the castle and planned to seize the place. The lady returned, charged at the enemy and routed their cavalry. Montal was wounded in the ensuing fight and died a few days later.

Letters written by Madeleine have been preserved and reveal another aspect of her character. They show a modest, polite woman, who cared for her husband’s illegitimate children and treated them like her own. 

Bibliography:

Arnal J., “Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire”

Bulletin de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de la Corrèze

D’Aubigné Agrippa, Histoire universelle

Lazard Madeleine, “Femmes combattantes dans l’Histoire universelle d’Agrippad’Aubigné”

Pierre Jean-Baptiste, De Courcelles Julien, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France

Viennot Elianne, “Les femmes dans les « troubles » du XVIe siècle”

Hercule de Valois

Hercule Valois, aka Francois Duke of Anjou and Alencon, would like to challenge (former) Prince Harry to a literary duel.

If Anjou could write a memoir about his life as the “spare” brother, it would be far more entertaining than Harry’s “Spare.” 

Elizabeth II seems a much nicer grandmother than Catherine de Medici was a mother to her youngest two children. 

{Megan and Harry fans, please disregard this post, this post is for people who know a lot about the Valois family and Catherine de Medici’s children. I don’t know (or care) enough about Megan and Harry to have an opinion on them. I do, however, love to learn about 16th century royal scandals.} 

the lone wolf dies             but the pack survives

They probably will in later seasons. She did NOT get on well with her youngest daughter Marguerite or her youngest son Hercule (also called Francis). Both children went on to rebel against her. So much family drama!

Sure she had to run the country while these two were growing up, but still...things got tense between them. 

i wish they expanded on catherine being a deadbeat mother. this is where series bias in her favor is showing imo (or is it catherine storytelling bias? either way it's unsatisfactory.) because none of her scenes with her children explain why francis is so bitter and untrusting with her. i believe he had strong reasons to act that way and him leaning on mary who was always here for him makes complete sense. unlike his mother who i suspect secretly liked to spent time busy with court intrigues instead of wasting her lively brain energy on clueless little kids. she's like one of those fathers who prefer to only acknowledge their kid when they are old enough to hold adequate conversation not bothering to form any kind of bond with them beforehand. but i am sure catherine will fix that mistake with little charles.