268 posts
Latest Posts by ignorethisrandom - Page 4
Caption: How your day is actually going.
The Devils (Ken Russell, 1971)
Warner Bros--just release The Devils on Blu-ray already! Quit taunting us! This is just getting weird!
The weirdest inclusion in the new space jam movie is the cameo of the nun from the devils being part of the crowd
Out of all the movies you could select from the warner bros catalog - you select a character from one of the wildest and offensive movies to exist
All I have to say to that is good show.
when talking about sansa supposedly not being a sympatheic character in AGOT, I don't think antis really understand they're not making the point they think are (like those who think sansa is only kind because of courtesy rather than it being like Ned's "lord face" and seperate from her kindness as a person) a sympatheic character isn't necessarily someone who is good or to root for - one example is Tyrion. His backstory makes him a sympatheic but that doesn't make him a hero.
Yes, exactly. Sympathetic isn’t defined by whether or not you are a nice person, but by whether you are attracting the liking of others (in this case: The readers).
Tyrion is a villain, but he is clearly written for people to find him sympathetic in spite of this. My favourite example of is Glokta from Joe Abercrombie’s First Law who is a horrible, horrible person, but readers still sympathise with him because of his backstory, his painful disabilities and his dry sense of humor (... that sounded like a description of Tyrion too, actually).
If Sansa isn’t sympathetic in AGoT, it’s because GRRM didn’t write her to be someone the readers sympathize with - And he did that very deliberately by POV trapping her and pitting her against other characters that he clearly wrote to be immediately liked, and by giving her flaws that people don’t usually associate with fantasy protagonists (or really it’s just one of her flaws; the touch of snobbery).
The thing is, though, that GRRM seems to have taken great pains to write her in a way that doesn’t make most readers immediately fall for her, while at the same time never making her not nice. He didn’t have to use a POV trap in Arya I; he could have just made Sansa behave badly towards her. He could have included Sansa when Arya thinks of Jeyne calling her “horseface”. He didn’t have to make such an effort to show the Arya-Sansa conflict as so clearly rooted in society’s expectations and the teachings of Septa Mordane. He could have written Sansa taking Joffrey’s side at Darry Castle instead of having her pretend she forgot to avoid taking sides. He didn’t have to spend literally all of Sansa’s chapters dropping hint after hint about how nobody ever answers her critical questions, or how Ned’s interactions with Arya was teaching Sansa the lesson that disobedience wasn’t as big an offence as she thought.
He might have overdone it a bit, because even after 3 more books of Sansa clearly being written to be sympathetic, people are still refusing to believe that they were initially fooled, and are looking for signs that she was a horrible person all along, blowing every flaw that she has out of proportion to be right.
But the point is that GRRM might not have tried to write AGoT Sansa as sympathetic, but he never wrote her as not a nice person, or with any irredeemable flaws; clearly intending to develop her further in the following books.
The fact that a lot of us still found her sympathetic in AGoT in spite of this, I suppose says something about how much you related to her, or how much effort was put into analyzing the text and understanding Sansa’s motivations on the first read. I know that a lot more people who initially didn’t care for her found her sympathetic when they went back to read AGoT again, looking at Sansa with different eyes and trying to see past GRRM’s smoke screen.
So, no. They really aren’t making the point they think they are making. I also don’t really know why they are trying to make it in the first place tbh. Their point seems to be the usual stuff; that Sansa isn’t nice, isn’t a main character, is supposed to become a villain. But as I recall that quote, GRRM even goes on to say that Sansa becomes more sympathetic as the story progresses.
So I suppose I don’t really see how the point they are trying to make would get them what they want either.
“Rules are for children. This is war, and in war the only crime is to lose.”
— Joe Abercrombie, Last Argument of Kings
Inquisitor Glokta from The First Law trilogy.
I am somehow proud of this design <3
Season 2 New Characters
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/specialfeatures/sanditon-season-2-casting-news/?fbclid=IwAR2-2spEovIWBpjkfnTvqw9lydF6Bdgtn2kalCJdMUKKLFmgFspCSosa5x8#
Mordred is coming to Sanditon!
ok this is probably going to appeal to like. 5 people. but this is just what it is like to watch hbo Rome (2005-2007) AFTER watching Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World (2003)
We need another more mature adaptation, even if it’s clearly only for older kids/teens/adults with all of the details the TV series and family-friendly books choose to overlook or quietly sweep under the rug because it wasn’t family-friendly.
How Little House on the Prairie Butchered Almanzo Wilder
From Micheal Landon to Dean Butler, this list will explore everything wrong- and right- with the portrayal of Almanzo Wilder.
(In all fairness, I don’t think Butler has as much to do with this ghastly portrayal of his on-screen character as those who worked behind the scenes. He also admitted he tried his hardest to insure “the audience knew Laura would be safe with him” which came across well on screen.)
We never see his heroic act of saving De Smet
While Dean Butler saves the blind school by working two jobs, we never see Almanzo’s legendary journey to save the town. The real Almanzo Wilder and his brother Royal hoarded grain during the hard winter of 1880-1881 until Charles Ingalls, Laura’s father, confronted them about it. It was then that Almanzo and a close friend, Cap Garland, went in search of wheat to feed their starving town. They made the treacherous journey and managed to save the town, including Laura’s family.
It was a pivotal point in one of Laura’s novels, The Long Winter, and is ultimately the reason why Almanzo is deemed worthy of Laura. The audience sees him save the blind school and become seriously unwell because of that, but they never see his true defining moment.
We don’t see his second heroic act of taking Laura out of a volatile situation
In order to help support her family, Laura became a teacher. It meant she had to travel outside of her home town and board near the school. This meant she had to stay in the only homestead with enough space. The owners, the Bouchies, did not welcome her with open arms. Instead, Laura recalls Mrs Bouchie being sullen and being both aggressive towards her and Mr Bouchie. She also recalls Mrs Bouchie threatening her husband with a knife, proclaiming she wanted to go “back east”. In Laura’s books, she changes their surname to “Brewster”, but the story remains more or less the same.
To take her home each weekend, Almanzo would drive her home regardless of weather. For Laura, she was glad to leave the dangerous household, even if it meant braving Dakota blizzards.
This act of kindness continued for the entire time Laura taught at that school. She made it clear that she was only going with him to see her family, and that she did not reciprocate whatever he felt for her. He continued, and eventually she did fall for him.
He’s whinny, immature and acts like a petulant child
The real-life Almanzo Wilder was calm, persistent and reasonable. He never demanded anything of Laura, and even admired how independent she was. He never demanded anything from her, and remained patient when attempting to court her.
While we see this with Dean Butler’s portrayal in later seasons, he acts controlling and stubborn. This is particularly clear when Laura is forced to make a choice between her Pa and Almanzo, and he forces her to choose.
We never see any of his gifts to Laura
The beautiful pantry he made for her in their little house remained absent throughout the television series. Not only this, but the little slay he made for their dog to pull for Laura was also missing. He made it so she could still ride about in the snow while pregnant, which she used every day. Laura, at eighteen, would tumble of the sled into the snow, laughing and acting like the young woman she was. In fact, the one day she didn’t he became concerned at her sudden need for rest. It turned out that Laura was in labour with her first child, and he soon called the doctor.
In the adaptation we don’t get to see any of this, but why?
We don’t see their relationships for what it was
For the most part the audience doesn’t see their 19th century relationship. Almanzo peruses Laura even though she makes it clear she only goes with him on sleigh rides to get to the Bouchie school and back. He continued the strenuous journey for her benefit, proving what kind of man he really is.
We never see the exchange they have, the night he drove her home from the Bouchie’s during a deathly blizzard. He makes the trip and brings her home, keeping her awake during the trip so she doesn’t fall asleep- as Laura puts it, if you fall asleep in those temperatures, you don’t wake back up. He even later admits to being in “two minds” about it, and how Cap Garland encourages him with the line “God hates a coward.” Laura asks him if he really went to get her on a dare, yet he tells her “”No, it wasn’t a dare,” Almanzo said. “I just figured he was right.””
The audience also never sees how their first house together burned to the ground, and how Laura was terrified of his reaction - “what will Manly say to me?” The relief that he isn’t furious with her, but instead finds her on the ground and comforts her is also absent, taking the heart of the story with it.
Dean Butler’s portrayal, in the early years, would have probably left Laura at the Bouchie school and later screamed at her for burning down their house (or maybe just stormed out of town.)
We don’t see his famous pancakes
A large part of the later Little House books is Almanzo and his brother and their perfect pancakes. Sure, it’s a minor detail, but we all wanted to try them. (Where’s the recipe, Laura?)
Or his elder brother, for that matter
Royal isn’t actually a part of the television series as he only shows up twice- two different actors with three different children. He’s simply an add-on to the Ingalls-Wilder storyline.
The real Royal Wilder was a bachelor for the entirety of the book series. He was supportive of Almanzo and Laura and went as far as to care for them when they came down with Diphtheria.
Laura’s bout of diphtheria is also absent
While the television series does show Almanzo’s sickness Laura doesn’t show any symptoms. Laura, in fact, was the one who first developed symptoms and their daughter was already born. While Laura was unwell, Rose was sent to her grandparents and Almanzo cared for her until, he too, became sick. It was then that Royal came to take care of them as he was a bachelor and had no family himself.
Laura, was in fact, the sickest. She describes it as “severe” whereas Almanzo only suffered mild symptoms. She wrote, “Laura’s attack had been dangerous, while Manly’s was light.”
Almanzo’s “stroke” was also not portrayed correctly. Instead, after his illness, he went to get up one morning and found his legs could not carry him. It was mentioned that after rubbing them, circulation returned and he was able to go into town to see the doctor. He was told it was “a stroke of paralyse” and was most likely a complication of diphtheria.
Almanzo’s encouragement
Laura was often encouraged by Almanzo, even if it was unintentional. He asked her to drive Barnum, instead of telling her to “go back to the kitchen”. When Almanzo went to his parent’s farm for Christmas, he lent her Lady and the buggy so she could go for rides still. He even let her buy her own colt, and is part of the reason why she wrote the series.
We don’t see him encourage Laura to be who she is. He strikes the word “obey” from their vows, and tells her about how no decent man would keep that word in there. Laura isn’t a suffragette, but it’s a feminist moment in its own right.
Michael Landon, why turn a perfectly reasonable pioneer into a controlling husband? Sure, he’s “protective” but why make him even more backwards than an actual pioneer?
He often acted impulsively, but not selfishly
The real AJ Wilder is boyish, ambitious and adventurous. He isn’t always wise- he’s a true hero when it comes to saving the town, but at the same time he is risking his own life. He drives Laura through a deadly blizzard even against better judgement, just because he can’t see anything worse than being labelled a coward. He encourages a young woman to drive a “runaway” horse through town. He lets his heavily pregnant wife play in the snow, with a dog and sled. He drives their baby and Laura to her parents’ house during the winter because she missed them, and her family are furious that they took the risk.
Instead, we see a farmer who carries out impulsive acts differently. Almanzo’s real acts were selfless, whereas the character’s actions are nothing short selfish.
Dean Butler just didn’t look like Almanzo
Finally, the real Manly had brown hair and couldn’t have been further from Dean Butler appearance. It’s a small thing, but it is a little bothersome for die-hard fans.
Let’s take a moment to appreciate David Benioff and Dan Wiess. I may not like everything about how Game of Thrones ended...but at least they finished something and completed the task they set out to do.
Errr Jonsa?
I’ve been reading a lot of posts about the field of fire recently. I don’t ship Jonsa and though you do, yours definitely seems like the voice of reason, mainly because you still appreciate and like Dany’s character even if you think her arc is going dark. What did you feel when you saw that scene? Because though it was dark and destructive I don’t think she was acting like a mad queen. Not yet...
Hello there! It doesn’t matter if you ship Jonsa or not. Any ask is welcome in my ask box as long as it is devoid of hate, lol. Also though I ship Jonsa, I am more a fan of the story, which is why I began watching the show in the first place.
SO, interesting question about the field of fire, because according to me, the black part of the grey in Dany’s character reached it’s pinnacle in that episode, before they redeemed her a bit with the white part of the grey of her character.
To begin with, Let’s take a look at this from Dany’s POV.
When season six ended, Dany was like this…
She had the unsullied, the dothraki - close to a hundred thousand men and a massive fleet of ships at her back, not to mention three dragons. I wondered, tbh if Cersei was even going to be a problem. No foreign invader had the might or the clout that Dany had when she was coming to westeros - Not even Aegon the conqueror. And if this was not enough, Tyrion Lannister - the man who has the best political acumen in all of Westeros and Lord Varys who is in all probability the best spy in the country is with her, at her side. I am sure, a lot of us asked this question…
What could possibly go wrong?
And then, she happened…
In three episodes Cersei, who was looking like the underdog all of a sudden with Dany coming to Westeros and Jon being declared the King in the north, showed us all why she is still sitting on the iron throne, didn’t she? Love her, hate her but you can’t deny that she upped her game by a million points.
You know how frustrating this was for Dany? She has bloody dragons, an army of savages and she ‘believes’ that she’s the rightful heir to throne and Cersei outsmarted her - not once, but twice. Though she was sorely tempted to take over King’s landing as soon as she entered Westeros, Tyrion’s counsel kept her from doing it. And now she’d lost allies, she’d lost strongholds and in general the Westerosi populace was not taking her too seriously. If she had to be queen, she had to do something.
Here’s where everything begins to go spiraling down. Her arc changes, almost visibly and we begin to notice the cracks in her ‘I am here to break the wheel’ agenda. Mind you, she truly believes in it.
Mistake no. 1 - Her unnecessary tirade at Tyrion, in front of Jon and Ser Davos
She’s angry and rightfully so. But then she says this…
She says this to the man who is plotting his family’s defeat, going against his blood, his beloved brother because he believes in her cause. So here arises an important question. What does this tell about her leadership?
1. She’s more upset about the death/capture of her allies - in relation to HER quest for the iron throne. She doesn’t mourn Olena nor asks even once after Yara.
2. She questions the loyalty of a man who’s not just bent the knee but is also serving as her hand for crying out loud in front of Jon - who has neither bent the knee and is a perfect stranger to her.
The she goes on to do this.
She asks Jon what she should do, completely/ purposefully ignoring Tyrion. Would you just look at Tyrion’s expression.
We know for a fact that Jon and Davos are visibly uncomfortable with this whole scene. One can most definitely argue that her planning to attack the Lannister army, was necessary for her to maintain power in Westeros. I’ll come to the how and why of that later on. But imho, her behaviour with Tyrion is what shows her darker side more than anything else.
It is in moments, when you’re the weakest, that your true personality shines through. In Dany’s case she resorted to suspicion, blame and harsh words meant to inflict hurt - fueled by her insecurity, at the very man who had dedicated himself to her service. This is not how a good leader behaves.
And so Dany decides…
Enough with the clever plans.
To be fair to Daenerys, nothing was working in her favour. She had to act and act fast, and I believe herein lies all the difference.
Dany is restless; she wants to sit on the iron throne as soon as possible. There is an urgency in her quest for the throne. Her attention however is not focussed on the people of Westeros or the troubles that concern them. She is more occupied/obsessed with the person occupying the chair that she thinks belongs to her by birthright.
She merely assumes that by occupying the iron throne she will be able to solve all the problems in Westeros. She doesn’t wait for earning the people’s love and respect, before laying claim over them. She doesn’t know anything about their problems nor does she take an active interest in finding out.
In fact, her behaviour is the exact opposite of that which made her so loved in Essos. She broke the chains ‘before’ she came to be called Mhysa. She freed the unsullied ‘before’ they decided to serve her. She offered Missandei her freedom ‘before’ Missandei decided to dedicate her life to her. She does something selfless before she rises in power in Essos. She ‘earns’ the love of the people who choose to follow her as is informed to us and Jon by Tyrion and Missandei.
Unfortunately, she doesn’t use the same approach once she enters Westeros.
Look at this scene again…
This is the first time the people of Westeros get a glimpse of her -
What do you think they would’ve felt when they saw her clad in all black riding a monstrous black drogon?
One word - Fear
Now a lot has already been talked about why her burning spree was not such a good idea, so I am not going to talk about that aspect. I am just going to talk about what ‘the show’ was trying to tell us.
Fear, destruction by fire was the central theme around which this entire scene was shot. I know i cant capture the music but there is a point of time after Dany yells dracarys, as drogon swoops down on the Lannister soldiers…
After this moment ….
During this moment…
Go back to the scene and listen to the music/drogon’s sound carefully - It sounds exactly like the prelude to the launch of a weapon of mass destruction. Which is exactly what it was supposed to look like. Also, we see the soldiers quivering before this scene (Again, fear)
Then the music changes. It’s not a good music. In the entire field of fire the camera angle is always shown from the POV of the Lannister Army, Jamie, Bronn and Tyrion. There are a few shots from Dany’s angle but it’s mostly to show the burning happening from an ariel view. We are viewing Dany like the people of Westeros, i.e the people on the other side are viewing her. Unlike in the BotB where the camera is placed behind the Stark side making the Bolton army the opponents or the Fight beyond the wall, where the camera is panning from behind Dany, Jon and Co - making the others - the opposite side.
So where was I? After the initial dracarys, we are shown an extended cut of the burning and screaming of the soldiers as a horrified Dickon Tarly looks on.
After that the dothraki attack. They are clearly at an advantage with their horses but the lannister soldiers also manage to kill a few of the dothraki.
Then we are shown the food wagons stationed behind the army and Dany looking at it.
And then this happens…
And this…
And this…
We’re shown not once, but twice and thrice how dany specifically targets the food wagons.
I tried to come up with an explanation for what was her logic behind this and failed miserably at coming up with one. What exactly was she trying to achieve by doing this??
1. Was it scare tactics? She needn’t have bothered. The Lannister soldiers were already pissing in their pants.
2. Was she scared that some of them would try and smuggle some food back to king’s landing? Back to Cersei?
Possible but un-bloody-likely. Come on, if that’s your argument, she had an Ariel view. Even if one wagon tried to escape, she could’ve more than easily burnt one to scare the others from doing the same.
3. Did she think if she lost the battle, the Lannisters would manage to smuggle the food out of the Reach into King’s landing??
I am laughing at this suggestion. It mine, I know. But it’s hilarious. If Dany thought even for a moment that she was going to lose this battle, then she doesn’t know the first thing about battles. The Lannister army was outnumbered, outsmarted and outweighed by the very presence of Drogon. The battle was lost, the second Dany yelled Dracarys and she must’ve known that.
So if she knew that she and her army was going to come out on top, why would she waste tonnes and tonnes of food which she could have easily procured for her own army? Which also goes to indicate one more thing. She knows nothing (pun intended) about Westeros or the winter that has come.
We see Jamie watching in horror as his men burn to death. He shouts ‘take cover’ as drogon breaths a fresh round of fire, turning to dust many of his men. He asks Bronn to fetch the weapon Qyburn has made.
Then as more destruction occurs, Tyrion enters the scene. I think this was a very important aspect of the whole battle. What was the purpose of making Tyrion a spectator to the battle? What are we as audiences supposed to see from Tyrion’s POV?
The music turns silent to give way for us to hear the cries of suffering and the destruction that Tyrion (and us) can see from where he is standing. Then the rude Dothraki comments “Your people can’t fight”
And the Tyrion gets a sad look on his face. And if his expression wasn’t enough, a sad violin music plays in the background with the cries of terror and suffering.
Also the next scene is Tyrion looking at a single burning food wagon. It is a summary of the destruction we’ve witnessed and also a reminder.
Now Jamie looks at the same burning food wagon from a different angle
He watches as some of his soldiers run towards the water to douse their burning bodies. He sees the pain and suffering he’d wanted to stop - a cause for which he sacrifised his honour. He’s motivated enough to do it again.
I asked myself a simple question. If it had been Jon in Tyrion’s place, how would he have reacted, if Jamie felt the above was justified? But anyway, that’s a question for another time, another season.
Which now brings us to a very important aspect of the field of fire - The next episode or the one with Dany’s justice.
Look at the way this scene has been shot. We don’t see Dany first. We see her dragon. And then when she comes on screen, note how similar the colour of her clothes are to Drogon’s scales. In my opinion, this shot is very telling. I think there is a scene somewhere in the finale when she says - We’re ordinary without our dragons or something of that sort.
Dragon first, Dany second implying in no uncertain terms that she is a dragon and the dragons are the very source of her power. And if this shot alone was not enough to explain this, the dialogue that follows clarifies this a little more.
I know what Cersei has told you. That I have come to destroy your cities, burn down your homes, murder you and orphan your children. (Tyrion looks uncomfortable)
That’s Cersei Lannister, not me. I am not here to murder. And all I want to destroy is the wheel that is rolled over rich and poor. To the benefit of no one but the Cersei Lannisters of the world. I offer you a choice. Bend the knee and join me. Together, we will leave the world a better place than we found it.
Again the angle of the camera shifts from Dany to Tyrion. We’re forced to look at her from Tyrion’s POV once again as she says the following words
Or Refuse and Die
Now Tyrion is positively squirming, frustrated even
PAY ATTENTION - This is the magic of this scene.
In spite of Dany’s speech - Only ‘10′ or less soldiers bend the knee.
Do we realise how significant this scene is?
I would remind you that these are the soldiers who have witnessed fear and destruction like they’ve never ever seen before. Hell, most of them have never heard of a dragon before, leave alone seen one!!! Yet, the very woman who had wrought havoc upon them, killed their friends offers to spare their lives if they bend the knee - and YET their first instinct - IS TO DEFY HER.
Imo, this was the most significant moment of the entire show, with regards to Dany’s changing arc. Her speech which has before today inspired millions of people, has absolutely no effect on the Westerosi soldiers. They put their chest out and stand their ground unyielding.
Seeing their defiant stance … Drogon screams, advancing menacingly towards them.
Almost all of them bend the knee instantly. And just like that, once again we’re reminded of the theme of the field of fire.
FEAR
They don’t bend the knee because they believe in her, they’re inspired by her or because they love her. They bend the knee because they fear her power - and the source of it - her dragons.
But Lo and Behold! Even the dragon’s fear cannot scare the Tarlys and some other brave soldiers. I don’t think many of us see the underlying contempt for Dany that these people seem to have, to defy her in this fashion, even if it means their death.
And then we have this beautiful boy step forward. I don’t think it was a coincidence that they went out of their way to let us know that Dickon was a nice chap. Again, Randall Tarly, you can argue about what a dick he was and that he probably deserved to die - I mean he spoke about flogging as a means to get the men to walk faster for heaven’s sake.
He probably didn’t bend the knee to Dany, because he was a proud, arrogant man. But Dickon? Why did he offer himself up for slaughter?
‘You’d have to kill me too.’ He tells Daenerys. He’s not an egotistic fool. He is brave, gentle and strong (Sorry, fellow shippers). He’s just a lad. He defies Dany because he wants to stand up to her. Tell her that he doesn’t believe in her. He decides to give his life because he wants the world to know, that he was in open rebellion to Daenerys Targaryen. He’s making a statement, mind you. A silent one, but a strong one.
“I will not” says Dickon Tarly, when asked to bend the knee.
Of course, Tyrion Panics. BIG TIME. By now, he understands Daenerys better.
He starts thinking on his feet. He is distressed. He wants to avoid more bloodshed. Of course, at this point he foolishly assumes that she’s going to behead them.
She has other plans.
Dickon dies a hero’s death. He scarifies himself, the future of his house for letting Westeros know that he stood up to Daenerys and refused to bend the knee. He chooses to reject fear. So if he’s the hero of this part of the narrative, who is the villain?
Tyrion actually looks away. Unable to bear it. I don’t even have to say how dark the music sounds at this point. And the music is very important - it’s supposed to make us feel something.
I also thinks this was a significant call back to the burning of a father and son in past, but I won’t dwell on it.
Also it is important to note here, that Jon sees Daenerys doing the exact opposite of what Dickon sees her doing. She risks herself to save their lives (Ok Ok I know they are there beyond the wall because her obsession with cersei, but still), she single handedly destroys the wights and loses her dragon in the bargain. You also don’t see her say ‘dracarys’ in that scene for a reason.
I know this got a little too long, but this is what I read from the whole field of fire scene. We were being shown in the prelude to it and post it, in no uncertain terms, all the Dark shades in dany’s arc. Emilia of course, plays this beautifully. You can see the lack of remorse or attachment in her eyes when she executes the Tarlys. You can see the panic in Tyrion’s eyes and you can see the defiance in Dickon’s.
This is what I concluded from the whole scene. Thanks for the ask!!
It’s like a bunch of annoying teenage girls are telling us this story... Damn you Reign - lazy historical writing strikes again!
What level of Evul™ TV Henry VIIIs are you on a scale of Damian Lewis getting drunk and talking about his sex life in Wolf Hall to Mark Stanley growling “YOU PROMISED ME SUNNNSSSS” like an actual demon in the new Anne Boleyn trailer
A solitary maiden, whose only friends are birds and flowers and her companions - books.
~ Lorna Doone (1922)
I wasn’t so sure if I wanted to see this movie. Then I saw the third screenshot. Well I’m sold.
“Then I would leap over these logs!” Boooooiiiiiiiing!
Here's the best part of 1995's Jefferson in Paris
The Lair of the White Worm (1988)
I’d watch a TV series staring these two actors. I don’t care what the show is about, I’d watch it. Especially if it featured Littlefinger and Varys as Westeros’s odd couple...just saying.
Fun Fact:
I learned this while researching for my Prince Hamid essay. Naturally reading about the Ottoman Empire leads you to learning about the Sultans and then by extension the Harem. I can’t find a place for this fact in my essay, but it left me absolutely hysterical with laughter for some time so here it is…
Prior to 1861, all artist renditions of the harem at the Ottoman palace had been done by men. Now I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the penalty for a man seeing a woman of the sultan’s harem was death. However, all these paintings were created and they resulted in so much romanticizing of the harem all throughout the western world. Beautiful women, dancers, lithe bodies, all generally partially naked just there and hanging out together. It was the college dorm fantasy of the time.
Enter Henriette Browne, a French painter, with royal and diplomatic ties, who travelled to Constantinople (among other places). She would paint there and usually favored eastern subjects. She enjoyed school scenes and scenes with women especially. Anyhow, she’s given access to the harem. Henriette is the first painter who sees the harem because she’s a woman and she was allowed by law to be there. She paints the harem, among other subjects, and returns to Europe.
Cue all of Europe’s collective gasp when she unveils her Une visite, interior de harem, Constantinople to the eagerly awaiting public. Her painting shocked and stunned them because she had actually been inside and painted no partially clothed women.
But where’s all the naked ladies?!
History Edits: Jean Stewart, Countess of Argyll
Perhaps best known as the only sister of the infamous Mary, Queen of Scots, Jean Stewart had her own adventurous life, occupying the various roles of king’s daughter, honoured lady-in-waiting, unhappy spouse, outlaw, and excommunicant over the decades. Born in the early 1530s, she was the only certainly acknowledged* illegitimate daughter of King James V. Her mother was probably Elizabeth, a member of the sprawling, yet influential and ambitious Beaton family. On her father’s side, Jean’s numerous half-siblings included James Stewart, Commendator of St Andrews who was also the future earl of Moray and Regent of Scotland; his older half-brother and namesake James Commendator of Kelso (d.1558); John Stewart Commendator of Coldingham; and Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, as well as her younger half-sister, Mary Stewart, who became queen of Scots at no more than a week old upon the death of their father in 1542.
As the king’s daughter she was raised at court in considerable comfort, and the Treasurer’s Accounts record various payments for her clothing, nurse, and upbringing-including payments for gowns, a canopy for her to travel under, massbooks, and mourning clothes after the death of her grandmother Margaret Tudor in 1541. Her brothers often travelled between court and St Andrews where they were being educated, but Jean was more permanently associated with the royal court. When her father married his second wife Mary of Guise, the new queen apparently took Jean under her wing, and brought her step-daughter into her own household. Jean briefly moved to the household of her first legitimate brother Prince James, who was born in 1540, but when the infant prince died the next year she returned to the queen’s household. After 1542, when her father died and the succession of the infant Mary ushered in a new period of strife, references to Jean are less frequent. However, we at least know that when her royal sister sailed for France in 1548, Jean did not travel with her, unlike several of her brothers and at least two of her cousins, (Mary Fleming and Mary Beaton). Instead, in 1553, by which time Jean was in her early twenties, Mary of Guise and the Regent Arran arranged for her to marry Archibald Campbell, Lord Lorne, and the wedding took place in April the following year. Her new husband succeeded his father as 5th earl of Argyll five years later in 1558. By that point, both Argyll and his close friend James Stewart, Commendator of St Andrews- Jean’s half-brother- had converted to Protestantism. Though her own religious views are more of a mystery, the ideals of the new reformed faith, which was formally established in Scotland in 1560, were to play an important role in her life.
When Queen Mary returned to Scotland in 1561, she soon re-established links with her birth family, and several of Mary’s half-siblings regularly attended on her at court, though their relationships with the queen varied. The Countess of Argyll quickly renewed ties with the younger sister whom she had not seen since Mary was five years old, and though she is not as well-known as the infamous Four Maries, Jean served as one of her sister’s chief ladies-in-waiting for several years. “Ma soeur” received gifts of clothes and jewels from the queen, along with an annual pension of £150 pounds. Along with Agnes Keith (who married Jean’s brother James and became Countess of Moray in 1562) and Annabella Murray, Countess of Mar, Jean was one of the ladies Lord Darnley later blamed for causing a rift between himself and his wife. At the christening of Queen Mary’s only son, the future James VI, in June 1566, Jean and the Earl of Bedford stood proxy for Elizabeth I of England as the child’s godmother. A few months earlier, on the fateful night of 9th March 1566, Jean had been the only other woman in the room when David Rizzio was murdered, though among the men present at the dinner were her half-brother Robert Stewart and her kinsman Beaton of Creich. Jean is supposed to have caught a candelabra when the table was knocked over in the struggle, preventing the room being plunged into complete darkness. Though both her half-brother the Earl of Moray and her husband the Earl of Argyll must have been aware that there was a plot to murder Rizzio, it is unclear whether Jean was forewarned. In any case it seems unlikely that her husband would confide in her, since by 1566 the couple had been estranged for years.
Jean was a proud and determined yet often stubborn woman, and does not appear to have relished having to leave the Lowlands and court life for mountainous Argyll. Her husband was unfaithful on several occasions but does not appear to have been willing to tolerate his wife’s own infidelity, if the accusations of adultery levelled at her in the late 1550s are at all truthful. Relations steadily worsened between the couple, and Jean later alleged that, in the summer of 1560, she had been held prisoner and intimidated by several of her husband’s Campbell kinsmen. Though Jean was briefly reconciled with Argyll through the intervention of mutual friends, including the reformer John Knox, by 1563 things had deteriorated again. This time Queen Mary and John Knox made a rare collaborative effort in an attempt to reconcile the warring spouses. Mary considered Argyll a close friend and important ally and could not risk offending him, yet at the same time she was fond of her sister, and in any case their public feuding was considered an embarrassment to both the reformed faith and the royal family. While Knox gave Argyll a thorough dressing down for his infidelity and refusal to patch things up with his wife, the queen warned Jean that should she ‘behave not herself as she ought to do, she shall find no favour of me’.
In 1567, Argyll joined with many other Scottish nobles, both Catholic and Protestant, in imprisoning Queen Mary, but baulked at the idea of deposing her. He later commanded the Queen’s Men at the Battle of Langside in 1568 and subsequently became one of her chief lieutenants in Scotland after she fled to England in the same year. Meanwhile, by 1567 his marriage had completely broken down. After Jean escaped yet another bout of imprisonment in one of her husband’s retainers’ castles, refusing return to her husband, the earl finally initiated divorce proceedings. In order to settle the matter quickly, Jean was offered 10,000 merks in return for agreeing to a divorce on the grounds of her husband’s adultery. But although she certainly had no intention of reuniting with Argyll, she refused to cooperate in the divorce- whether this was due to personal morality or because she wanted to protect her status as countess is unclear. In this she was supported by her half-brother the Earl of Moray, now Regent of Scotland for the young James VI. Moray had also fallen out with Argyll over politics by this point and, though both men remained Protestant, Moray seems to have been very opposed to divorce (like Knox, who also berated Argyll for his behaviour). Moray publicly backed his sister and occasionally offered her financial support, as did other members of his extended family and Jean’s friends, like Annabella Murray (Moray’s aunt and another of Queen Mary’s former ladies-in-waiting). Frustrated over her refusal to grant him the divorce he needed, Argyll now attempted to compel his wife to return to him through the courts, but she refused to do so, leaving both spouses, the Kirk, and the political community in a bind. After Moray’s assassination in early 1570, Jean lost an important source of support from a close family member, and though her distant cousin the earl of Atholl attempted to intercede for her with Argyll, a reconciliation still never materialised. Holding out for a much more substantial settlement from her husband, whom she described as ‘that ongrait man’, Jean, took up residence with her friend Annabella Murray (Countess of Mar and James VI’s ‘Minnie’) at Stirling, with the household of the young king James. At this time she seems to have been acutely aware that she lacked a network of support, being described as ‘very angry and in great poverty’, and her situation worsened over the next few years.
In the early 1570s, the balance began to shift in favour of Argyll, who had turned to the church courts for a solution. Kirk officials repeatedly censured Jean for non-adherence to her husband: she ignored all of these warnings. When she continued to disobey the direct orders of the Kirk, she was put to the horn (outlawed), and not long afterwards, with nowhere else to turn, she took refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The castle was then undergoing the ‘Lang Siege’, with William Kirkcaldy of Grange and his men holding the castle on behalf of Queen Mary against the Regent Morton, who then governed Scotland on behalf of Mary’s son the young King James VI. This siege has gone down in Edinburgh’s history as infamous, and forever changed the shape of the castle itself. The garrison held out for three years, taking potshots at both the supporters of the young King James and the capital city at large, minting coins in Mary’s name, and housing numerous members of the Queen’s Men, including Mary’s former secretary the ‘machiavellian’ William Maitland of Lethington, as well as many other dissidents who had entered the castle for various reasons, Jean included. Though her sentence of outlawry was briefly relaxed to allow her to appear in court, Jean refused to leave the castle and was excommunicated by the Kirk in April 1573.
By this time the Earl of Argyll had finally been won over by the ‘King’s Men’ and had exchanged his allegiance to Queen Mary for a position as chancellor in the government of James VI. This enabled him to get an act of parliament passed that allowed divorce for desertion and, finally, in June 1573, Argyll legally divorced his wife. This was a landmark decision in the history of Scots law, and while Jean never accepted the divorce, her tumultuous personal life did result in the emergence of the concept of ‘divorce by desertion’ and one of the first, and certainly most famous, divorces granted by the new reformed Church of Scotland. In desperate need of an heir, her ex-husband Argyll quickly remarried, but died only three months later in September 1573, with his posthumous son by his new wife dying at birth the next year.
Only a few weeks before Jean’s divorce was announced, Edinburgh Castle had finally surrendered, having been so thoroughly bombarded by English troops that David’s Tower and the Constable’s Tower, both roughly two hundred years old, collapsed in to the main entrance of the castle. Though most of the garrison were allowed to leave freely, Kirkcaldy of Grange and his brother were hanged at the mercat cross of Edinburgh along with the jewellers who had minted the coinage in Mary’s name. Maitland of Lethington died suspiciously in prison not long afterwards, possibly by his own hand. Jean, still afraid that she would be handed over to her husband, had written to Elizabeth I of England beseeching her protection, and in the meantime crossed the water to Fife, her mother’s native county. In time though, with her husband preoccupied with his remarriage and then dying soon after, Jean actually emerged in a stronger position. For the next decade or more she harassed her brother-in-law, the new earl of Argyll (who had married the Regent Moray’s widow Agnes Keith), for a settlement which would give her financial security, claiming her right as the late earl’s widow over his ‘pretendit’ second wife. She eventually won this case, receiving a handsome pay-out which supported her to the end of her life. She seems to have spent her later years living comfortably in Edinburgh, still describing herself as the Countess of Argyll. She was legitimated by the Crown in 1580, some decades after several of her half-brothers. She lived just long enough to hear of the execution of her younger sister Mary in 1587, but her thoughts on that infamous event must remain a mystery. By this point only Jean and her half-brother Robert, Earl of Orkney remained of James V’s acknowledged children: James of Kelso had died young in 1558, John Stewart succumbed to illness in 1563, the Regent Moray was shot in 1570, and now Mary had been beheaded. In January 1588, possibly aged about 55, Jean herself died in Edinburgh, ending her dramatic career a wealthy widow. She was buried in the royal vault at the Abbey of Holyrood, next to her father King James V.
Sources below cut or, since that ‘read more’ thing isn’t showing up much, you can access them at the bottom of this page
Keep reading
History Edits: Jean Stewart, Countess of Argyll
Perhaps best known as the only sister of the infamous Mary, Queen of Scots, Jean Stewart had her own adventurous life, occupying the various roles of king’s daughter, honoured lady-in-waiting, unhappy spouse, outlaw, and excommunicant over the decades. Born in the early 1530s, she was the only certainly acknowledged* illegitimate daughter of King James V. Her mother was probably Elizabeth, a member of the sprawling, yet influential and ambitious Beaton family. On her father’s side, Jean’s numerous half-siblings included James Stewart, Commendator of St Andrews who was also the future earl of Moray and Regent of Scotland; his older half-brother and namesake James Commendator of Kelso (d.1558); John Stewart Commendator of Coldingham; and Robert Stewart, Earl of Orkney, as well as her younger half-sister, Mary Stewart, who became queen of Scots at no more than a week old upon the death of their father in 1542.
As the king’s daughter she was raised at court in considerable comfort, and the Treasurer’s Accounts record various payments for her clothing, nurse, and upbringing-including payments for gowns, a canopy for her to travel under, massbooks, and mourning clothes after the death of her grandmother Margaret Tudor in 1541. Her brothers often travelled between court and St Andrews where they were being educated, but Jean was more permanently associated with the royal court. When her father married his second wife Mary of Guise, the new queen apparently took Jean under her wing, and brought her step-daughter into her own household. Jean briefly moved to the household of her first legitimate brother Prince James, who was born in 1540, but when the infant prince died the next year she returned to the queen’s household. After 1542, when her father died and the succession of the infant Mary ushered in a new period of strife, references to Jean are less frequent. However, we at least know that when her royal sister sailed for France in 1548, Jean did not travel with her, unlike several of her brothers and at least two of her cousins, (Mary Fleming and Mary Beaton). Instead, in 1553, by which time Jean was in her early twenties, Mary of Guise and the Regent Arran arranged for her to marry Archibald Campbell, Lord Lorne, and the wedding took place in April the following year. Her new husband succeeded his father as 5th earl of Argyll five years later in 1558. By that point, both Argyll and his close friend James Stewart, Commendator of St Andrews- Jean’s half-brother- had converted to Protestantism. Though her own religious views are more of a mystery, the ideals of the new reformed faith, which was formally established in Scotland in 1560, were to play an important role in her life.
When Queen Mary returned to Scotland in 1561, she soon re-established links with her birth family, and several of Mary’s half-siblings regularly attended on her at court, though their relationships with the queen varied. The Countess of Argyll quickly renewed ties with the younger sister whom she had not seen since Mary was five years old, and though she is not as well-known as the infamous Four Maries, Jean served as one of her sister’s chief ladies-in-waiting for several years. “Ma soeur” received gifts of clothes and jewels from the queen, along with an annual pension of £150 pounds. Along with Agnes Keith (who married Jean’s brother James and became Countess of Moray in 1562) and Annabella Murray, Countess of Mar, Jean was one of the ladies Lord Darnley later blamed for causing a rift between himself and his wife. At the christening of Queen Mary’s only son, the future James VI, in June 1566, Jean and the Earl of Bedford stood proxy for Elizabeth I of England as the child’s godmother. A few months earlier, on the fateful night of 9th March 1566, Jean had been the only other woman in the room when David Rizzio was murdered, though among the men present at the dinner were her half-brother Robert Stewart and her kinsman Beaton of Creich. Jean is supposed to have caught a candelabra when the table was knocked over in the struggle, preventing the room being plunged into complete darkness. Though both her half-brother the Earl of Moray and her husband the Earl of Argyll must have been aware that there was a plot to murder Rizzio, it is unclear whether Jean was forewarned. In any case it seems unlikely that her husband would confide in her, since by 1566 the couple had been estranged for years.
Jean was a proud and determined yet often stubborn woman, and does not appear to have relished having to leave the Lowlands and court life for mountainous Argyll. Her husband was unfaithful on several occasions but does not appear to have been willing to tolerate his wife’s own infidelity, if the accusations of adultery levelled at her in the late 1550s are at all truthful. Relations steadily worsened between the couple, and Jean later alleged that, in the summer of 1560, she had been held prisoner and intimidated by several of her husband’s Campbell kinsmen. Though Jean was briefly reconciled with Argyll through the intervention of mutual friends, including the reformer John Knox, by 1563 things had deteriorated again. This time Queen Mary and John Knox made a rare collaborative effort in an attempt to reconcile the warring spouses. Mary considered Argyll a close friend and important ally and could not risk offending him, yet at the same time she was fond of her sister, and in any case their public feuding was considered an embarrassment to both the reformed faith and the royal family. While Knox gave Argyll a thorough dressing down for his infidelity and refusal to patch things up with his wife, the queen warned Jean that should she ‘behave not herself as she ought to do, she shall find no favour of me’.
In 1567, Argyll joined with many other Scottish nobles, both Catholic and Protestant, in imprisoning Queen Mary, but baulked at the idea of deposing her. He later commanded the Queen’s Men at the Battle of Langside in 1568 and subsequently became one of her chief lieutenants in Scotland after she fled to England in the same year. Meanwhile, by 1567 his marriage had completely broken down. After Jean escaped yet another bout of imprisonment in one of her husband’s retainers’ castles, refusing return to her husband, the earl finally initiated divorce proceedings. In order to settle the matter quickly, Jean was offered 10,000 merks in return for agreeing to a divorce on the grounds of her husband’s adultery. But although she certainly had no intention of reuniting with Argyll, she refused to cooperate in the divorce- whether this was due to personal morality or because she wanted to protect her status as countess is unclear. In this she was supported by her half-brother the Earl of Moray, now Regent of Scotland for the young James VI. Moray had also fallen out with Argyll over politics by this point and, though both men remained Protestant, Moray seems to have been very opposed to divorce (like Knox, who also berated Argyll for his behaviour). Moray publicly backed his sister and occasionally offered her financial support, as did other members of his extended family and Jean’s friends, like Annabella Murray (Moray’s aunt and another of Queen Mary’s former ladies-in-waiting). Frustrated over her refusal to grant him the divorce he needed, Argyll now attempted to compel his wife to return to him through the courts, but she refused to do so, leaving both spouses, the Kirk, and the political community in a bind. After Moray’s assassination in early 1570, Jean lost an important source of support from a close family member, and though her distant cousin the earl of Atholl attempted to intercede for her with Argyll, a reconciliation still never materialised. Holding out for a much more substantial settlement from her husband, whom she described as ‘that ongrait man’, Jean, took up residence with her friend Annabella Murray (Countess of Mar and James VI’s ‘Minnie’) at Stirling, with the household of the young king James. At this time she seems to have been acutely aware that she lacked a network of support, being described as ‘very angry and in great poverty’, and her situation worsened over the next few years.
In the early 1570s, the balance began to shift in favour of Argyll, who had turned to the church courts for a solution. Kirk officials repeatedly censured Jean for non-adherence to her husband: she ignored all of these warnings. When she continued to disobey the direct orders of the Kirk, she was put to the horn (outlawed), and not long afterwards, with nowhere else to turn, she took refuge in Edinburgh Castle. The castle was then undergoing the ‘Lang Siege’, with William Kirkcaldy of Grange and his men holding the castle on behalf of Queen Mary against the Regent Morton, who then governed Scotland on behalf of Mary’s son the young King James VI. This siege has gone down in Edinburgh’s history as infamous, and forever changed the shape of the castle itself. The garrison held out for three years, taking potshots at both the supporters of the young King James and the capital city at large, minting coins in Mary’s name, and housing numerous members of the Queen’s Men, including Mary’s former secretary the ‘machiavellian’ William Maitland of Lethington, as well as many other dissidents who had entered the castle for various reasons, Jean included. Though her sentence of outlawry was briefly relaxed to allow her to appear in court, Jean refused to leave the castle and was excommunicated by the Kirk in April 1573.
By this time the Earl of Argyll had finally been won over by the ‘King’s Men’ and had exchanged his allegiance to Queen Mary for a position as chancellor in the government of James VI. This enabled him to get an act of parliament passed that allowed divorce for desertion and, finally, in June 1573, Argyll legally divorced his wife. This was a landmark decision in the history of Scots law, and while Jean never accepted the divorce, her tumultuous personal life did result in the emergence of the concept of ‘divorce by desertion’ and one of the first, and certainly most famous, divorces granted by the new reformed Church of Scotland. In desperate need of an heir, her ex-husband Argyll quickly remarried, but died only three months later in September 1573, with his posthumous son by his new wife dying at birth the next year.
Only a few weeks before Jean’s divorce was announced, Edinburgh Castle had finally surrendered, having been so thoroughly bombarded by English troops that David’s Tower and the Constable’s Tower, both roughly two hundred years old, collapsed in to the main entrance of the castle. Though most of the garrison were allowed to leave freely, Kirkcaldy of Grange and his brother were hanged at the mercat cross of Edinburgh along with the jewellers who had minted the coinage in Mary’s name. Maitland of Lethington died suspiciously in prison not long afterwards, possibly by his own hand. Jean, still afraid that she would be handed over to her husband, had written to Elizabeth I of England beseeching her protection, and in the meantime crossed the water to Fife, her mother’s native county. In time though, with her husband preoccupied with his remarriage and then dying soon after, Jean actually emerged in a stronger position. For the next decade or more she harassed her brother-in-law, the new earl of Argyll (who had married the Regent Moray’s widow Agnes Keith), for a settlement which would give her financial security, claiming her right as the late earl’s widow over his ‘pretendit’ second wife. She eventually won this case, receiving a handsome pay-out which supported her to the end of her life. She seems to have spent her later years living comfortably in Edinburgh, still describing herself as the Countess of Argyll. She was legitimated by the Crown in 1580, some decades after several of her half-brothers. She lived just long enough to hear of the execution of her younger sister Mary in 1587, but her thoughts on that infamous event must remain a mystery. By this point only Jean and her half-brother Robert, Earl of Orkney remained of James V’s acknowledged children: James of Kelso had died young in 1558, John Stewart succumbed to illness in 1563, the Regent Moray was shot in 1570, and now Mary had been beheaded. In January 1588, possibly aged about 55, Jean herself died in Edinburgh, ending her dramatic career a wealthy widow. She was buried in the royal vault at the Abbey of Holyrood, next to her father King James V.
Sources below cut or, since that ‘read more’ thing isn’t showing up much, you can access them at the bottom of this page
Keep reading
I don’t usually talk about my personal life here, but I really need to vent.
I have misophonia and it’s ruined my life. I have left jobs, schools, limited contacted with family members, considered suicide, self-harm, etc. due to certain triggers, the main one being throat clearing. It might sound ridiculous to someone who doesn’t understand what misophonia is, but I want you to try a little experiment: count how many times your co-workers clear their throats in a single work day. If you work in an office, it’s a lot. In one of my jobs, it’s constant.
One of the worst parts of it is the feeling of helplessness and complete and utter rage that comes with each trigger. I’m a 10 out of 10. I feel physical and mental pain when I hear my triggers. It’s like having someone stabbing my brain and my ears over and over again, sometimes all day long.
There is no cure.
I’ve tried to get certain family members to care and understand, but many still insist on making the triggering sounds whenever I’m around over and over and over agin. If I can’t even get my own family to listen and understand, how can I possibly explain this situation to co-workers?
At this point, I’m seriously considering giving up one of my dream jobs because of my misophonia. I know quitting is a dumb decision during these uncertain times, but I physically and mentally need to get away from people.
Are there any jobs out there (besides I.T.) that involve rarely interacting with people? I’ve tried doing online jobs, but people are so demanding and rarely pay you any money, plus there are tons of scams out there.
I’m at the end of my rope here. All this pressure and pain has been building for years. I think I’d be better off living as a hermit, but even hermits have bills to pay.
The four children of Count Fredrik Axel von Fersen and Hedvig Catharina de la Gardie. All siblings held high positions within the swedish court, due to their father’s position as leader of the aristocratic party.
Hedvig Eleonora (von Klinckowström) von Fersen, 1753 - 1792, was described as reserved and disliked the court life, but accepted a position as lady in waiting to queen Sofia Magdalena for her husband’s sake. She was close friends with king Gustav III, but was one of few who dared to disobey his orders. It’s said that the king demanded everyone at court to partake in the gambling games, but when Hedvig refused he did not object.
Hans Axel von Fersen, 1755 - 1810, is without a doubt the most famous of the siblings. Predestined to inherit his father’s titles and goods, he made a name for himself during his Grand Tour in Europe, as well as during the American Revolution, Gustav III’s Russian War and later, the French Revolution, where he struggled to rescue Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, who he is rumoured to have had an affair with. He was brutally murdered by a mob following a false accusation that he assassinated the swedish crown prince.
Eva Sophie (Piper) von Fersen, 1757 - 1816, is perhaps the second most famous of the four. Her affair with the swedish prince Fredrik Adolf was ended by her disapproving parents when she was unhappily married to Adolf Fredrik Piper. Over the years she formed an intimate (perhaps sexual) relationship with queen Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotta, who would dedicate her memoirs to her. Sophie was accused for the same assassination as her beloved brother Axel, but was protected from the mob by Charlotta.
Fabian Reinhold von Fersen, 1762 - 1818, became officer and politician at the swedish court. Just like his brother and sister, Fabian also had an intimate relationship with queen Hedvig Charlotta, and is rumored to have fathered a child which she miscarried. And just like his siblings, he was accused of involvement in the death of Crown Prince Karl August in 1810, but managed to escape the funeral procession where his brother was murdered. He resigned from his court position that same year, most likely in respect to his brother.
The von Fersen- line ended with Fabian’s two children, Axel and Hedvig, in 1839 and 1879.
the fact the new series of hypothetical isn’t allowed to talk about the pandemic just in case people forget it happened is genuinely the funniest thing i’ve ever heard
Anti-blackness in 19th century England, why Queen Charlotte wasn’t black, and why it doesn’t matter in Bridgerton
I’d like to start by saying Bridgerton is a very amusing piece of absolute fiction. From the dresses to the music to the fanfic tropes it uses and the books it’s based on. It doesn’t even start to pretend it’s realistic. And being a piece of modern historical fantasy made by a woman born in this age, it is alright for the showrunners to give it a modern vibe. If you want, you can trace the lineage of every duke of Hastings there has ever been and know exactly who they were and what they looked like. Everyone knows there was never a black duke of Hastings, meaning there is no harm nor a deliberate attempt at “changing history” by the showrunners. They’re not pretending they’re portraying real events and real people of 1813. Therefore I accept that in this “alternative reality regency” it is fine for people of all ranks, including Queen Charlotte, to be black. I loved Golda Rosheuvel’s portrayal, I loved her looks, her acting and I tollerate her – indeed, be surprised – half-ishly accurate outdated wardrobe (for those interested in fashion history: look up “regency era court gowns”, old styles were worn but Charlotte would wear normal dresses day-to-day). I’m thrilled to watch her in the second season as well.
However, I will screech if I see people claiming Charlotte was black in real life. There were black people in Europe during all periods of history. They could be very influential and wealthy, and yes, they could even be nobility in some rare cases. There is a growing field of research tracing the steps of black people in Europe throughout time, revealing the often overlooked presence of black people. However, Queen Charlotte isn’t one of them. And I say this being I believe claiming her to be black, would mean the British Monarchy, way ahead of its time, was accepting of black people, and the British people, who were more than a bit racist, generally accepted a (partially) black woman. Rather than Charlotte being black leading to her being described as black, I believe the confusion about her being black comes from people back in the day using racially ambiguous terms to describe people as being ugly and bad, because of racism and colonialism.
Being a historian, I do believe I have to give evidence for my claim. I’ll be using her ancestry, written descriptions and paintings. However, buckle up because you’ll be getting a lot of side information on other people of colour in art and literature. So if you’re interested in learning a bit about the relationship between the concepts of race and beauty in the 18th and 19th century, here we go. (note: if I use any offensive terms without direct citing someone, do let me know I will change them as soon as possible)
Keep reading