For All That Tumblr Complains About The Writing For Female Characters On This Show, At Least These Female

Edward’s consort, Queen Isabella, is an enthusiastic book collector. She has many volumes of religious devotion, including a spectacular apocalypse; a two-volume Bible in French; a book of sermons in French; two books of Hours of the Virgin; and various antiphonals, graduals, and missals for use in her chapel. She also owns an encyclopedia (Brunetto Latini’s Tresor, in French) and at least two history books: Brut (bound with the Tresor) and a book about the genealogy of the royal family. She also owns at least ten romances. Among them are The Deeds of Arthur (bound in white leather), Tristan and Isolda, Aimeric de Narbonne, Perceval and Gawain, and The Trojan War.

Ten romances suggest that Isabella is keen on reading. But this is not the full story. Not only does she borrow books from her friends, she takes books from the royal lending library. This contains at least 340 titles and is housed in the Tower of London. As a younger woman, she borrows romances for herself and titles such as The History of Normandy and Vegetius’ text on warfare for her sons.

The Time Traveler’s Guide to Medieval England, Ian Mortimer

Richard help! I’ve fallen off the dashboard!!

It’s interesting looking at the series’ original outline and then comparing it to what the series eventually morphed into. There’s a huge difference between how Arya in book one is written versus how someone like Sansa, Daeneryes, Jamie, or Tyrion are written in later books. Arya in GOT initially comes across as the stereotypical girl-dresses-as-boy/girl-wishes-she-was-boy trope that we see waaaay too often in fiction, especially fantasy fiction (it was everywhere in the 80′s and 90′s to the point where anything feminine in fantasy was seen as unfemminist somehow). I’m so glad the series matured and the characters with it so that we got the complex and rich story that we have with complex and well rounded characters, the types you don’t always see in fantasy. 

When she opened the door to the garden, it was so lovely that she held her breath, unwilling to disturb such perfect beauty. The snow drifted down and down, all in ghostly silence, and lay thick and unbroken on the ground. All color had fled the world outside. It was a place of whites and blacks and greys. White towers and white snow and white statues, black shadows and black trees, the dark grey sky above. A pure world, Sansa thought. I do not belong here. Yet she stepped out all the same.

Its honestly sad that antis can’t understand that this line is Sansa’s character. They spend so much time debating the specifics of how spoiled, bratty, bitchy, selfish, and treasonous she is, when the reality of her character is so completely different.

She’s a young girl who, even after all these tragedies have happened to her, can look out upon a garden and be taken away by how completely beautiful it is. Despite how profoundly depressing her life has been for years at this point, despite seeing her family murdered in front of her, she instantly jumps to see how the snow has made a wonderland outside her door.

And then she thinks I do not belong here 

She sees all of this beauty around her, and doesn’t think she belongs; she doesn’t think she deserves something so perfect. A far cry from the narcissistic and power hungry bitch that her antis paint her to be, she can’t even include herself in the good she sees outside. 

Yet she stepped out all the same

That line says everything you need to know about Sansa. She thinks she doesn’t belong with beautiful things anymore; that she is too damaged, traumatized, or wrong to fit in with a world of whites and greys and blacks. But she steps out all the same. She so desperately wants to be a part of this world, to be a part of the beauty she sees in it. Her snow castle is her part of making something beautiful, of just being a part of the wonder she sees. 

It’s just amazing to me that you could read this chapter and miss so much of Sansa’s nature. The raw innocence in which she approaches the failed Godswood is so indicative of her character, and its a shame antis can’t see it. 

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

We cannot judge either of the feelings or of the characters of men with perfect accuracy, from their actions or from their appearance in public; it is from their careless conversations, their half-finished sentences, that we may hope with the greatest probability of success to discover their real characters.

Maria Edgeworth, preface to Castle Rackrent (Unitarian, author)

Life beyond Henry VIII

Christina of Denmark, most famous for sassily rebuffing Henry VIII’s proposal of marriage by saying she’d only marry him if she had TWO heads, lived as interesting a life as any of the Tudors.

Her father Christian II of Denmark was so hated in that country that history now calls him “Christian the Tyrant”. He was overthrown by his own uncle and exiled to the Netherlands, then ruled by his brother-in-law, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.  

Christina grew up an exiled princess without a kingdom, the daughter of a black mark on European royalty. 

She married young and was widowed soon after.

Her cousin was Philip II, who later married Mary Tudor...then Elisabeth de Valois (the French princess)...then his niece Anna of Austria...

Christina actually met Mary Tudor, who was jealous of Christina’s closeness to Philip, a closeness her own marriage to the Spanish prince and future king was lacking.

After refusing to marry Henry VIII, Christina married the Duke of Lorraine and had several children with him, including Charles III. Her husband died after four years of marriage, leaving Christina to fight with the other nobles over the regency for young Charles. Christina won the regency...and then lost it. But she wasn’t going to give up without a fight, not even when France invaded the duchy of Lorraine and demanded that Christina hand young Charles over to the French king, Henri II, to raise in France. 

She went to King Henri in person to beg him not to separate her from her son, but he wouldn’t relent and took her son anyway. Charles would later marry Henri’s daughter Claude in one of the few happy and loving marriages in the Valois family history. Charles and Claude later named one of their daughters after Christina.

Also, Henry VIII wasn’t the only person Christina turned down. She also turned down one of Mary Queen of Scot’s uncles, a member of the Guise clan. She blamed the Guise for Henri’s invasion of Lorraine. 

Funnily enough, Charles wasn’t the only member of his family to marry into the Valois family. Charles’s cousin Louise married Henri de Valois, known in history as King Henri III...aka, the possibly gay French king...(who history buffs on Tumblr should embrace as their bisexual goth problematic fave, just saying). 

According to writer Brantome, Christina also met Mary Queen of Scots after the young queen was widowed by her beloved, the young King Francis II. Mary’s uncle warned her ahead of time about Christina’s theatrical antics and her need to be the center of attention, behavior the Guise party found both annoying and amusing. I wonder what Christina would have thought of the Scottish queen, daughter of ANOTHER woman who turned down Henry VIII with a sick burn. 

Christina may not have attended her son Charles’ wedding to the Princess Claude, but she did attend the coronation of the new king of France, ten-year-old Charles IX...who could barely keep his large crown still on his little head. Brantome wrote that Christina showed up in her finest velvet gown with a carriage drawn by Turkish horses (her favorite type of horses). When she arrived in this pomp and splendor, even Catherine de Medici remarked: “There’s a proud woman!” 

Christina tried to offer every piece of advice to her son Charles while he was Duke of Lorraine, while her daughter-in-law Claude listened to her mother’s every advice on what to do with Lorraine. The poor couple probably never caught a break from two very nosy and very opinionated mothers and mothers-in-law. 

It’s a pity that Reign never mentioned Lorraine, or Christina, her son, and tons of other colorful personalities from France during the 1550s and 1560s. I feel like the writers would have had so much fun featuring a sassy smack down between Catherine de Medici and Christina of Denmark. 

Reign really failed to show how important the Guise family was to Mary. There’s a whole goldmine of storylines from history that the show sadly skipped over.

Ep 4 Spoilers

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

Nope, I still think Jon is an idiot and an awful leader. For a military “genius,” who “cares” about his men, he sure as hell made another boneheaded mistake by not listening to Sansa, AGAIN, and sending out exhausted, recovering men on a long road journey in the cold where they will be expected to fight a battle where they’re outnumbered. And if his decision was to do that because he just wants to keep Dany happy, that doesn’t help his case.

And why do these people never consider there might be an ambush? Honestly, what do they think Cersei was doing all this time? Like wasn’t preparing? Didn’t Cersei destroy Dany’s fleet once before? I can’t take ANY talk about Jon or Dany being rulers simply because they’re so incompetent.

And they all but wrote in yellow highlighter, “Dany’s paranoid!”

I’m not sure I have much to say about this episode beyond that. I feel awful for Brienne. But not really surprised. I will admit the Bronn scene was pretty funny.

I do think Sophie Turner just brought it when Sansa was mourning Theon and I think Emilia Clarke did a nice job too. Varys was incredibly interesting to watch. His reminder that it was about the people was I think a reminder to the audience as well in that it’s not just about these handful of characters, but millions.

But you’re in trouble if the queen you’re following us thinking it’s okay to kill a couple of thousand people to get what she wants.

Der Golem, wie er in die Welt kam (Carl Boese & Paul Wegener, 1920).

I think Sharon Tate was there to show the new wave of young actors and actresses that were up and coming in Hollywood at the time. Her husband was one of the most celebrated new directors at the time. While she wasn’t a star in her own right, she symbolized the young actresses of the late swinging sixties, in the way that Leonardo diCaprio’s character represented the old Hollywood that was dying out. 

As for Charles Manson, there’s the Tate connection and the Hollywood connection. He and his followers lived at Spahn Ranch, which used to be a movie set for movies and TV Westerns a few decades earlier, the same time Rick Dalton was on Bounty Law (clearly loosely inspired by Lancer, Gunsmoke, Bonanza, etc). Spahn Ranch is the symbol of broken dreams and abandoned sets from old Hollywood. It also represents death and decay in the film (I mean, look who’s living there--an old, blind, dying man and a sinister group of fake-hippies that would go on to produce some of the most infamous and grisly murders in Los Angeles history--literal bringers of death). 

Also, member of the Manson family threatened different Hollywood actors like Steve McQueen (who feared for his life so much he didn’t show up at his friend Sharon Tate’s funeral), Richard Burton, Frank Sinatra, etc. 

Another important thing to connect Manson to the main plot of the movie is that he and a couple other male members of his “family” killed movie/tv stuntman Donald Jerome Shea, called Shorty, who they believed ratted on them to the police when the ranch was raided by police a few weeks after the murder (police at the time didn’t connect Manson and his followers to the murders, it was a drug bust). Manson, Tex (Charles Watson, who is in the film), Clem (Steve Grogan, the blond guy Brad Pitt beats up at the ranch), and Bruce Davis brutally murdered Shorty and hid his body near the ranch. Throughout the movie, up until the very end, I thought Brad Pitt was going to be this movie’s stand-in for Shorty, which is part of what made the scene at Spahn Ranch so intense. 

The Manson family and Sharon Tate are a part of this movie because they add to the film’s idea that this is the end of an era for Hollywood and for America--the end of the sixties, which started out full of hopes and dreams (like actors who first make it to Hollywood) only to end in cynicism and violence.

Once upon a time in Hollywood

This movie came out about a week ago in Australia; 15th August 2019.  I wanted to see the movie when it came out but due to uni, I had to make Once upon a time in Hollywood my last priority. One of my lecturers recommended seeing it, saying “Use it as a celebration movie for getting through tri 1.”

Quentin Tarantino’ s 9th movie and rumoured second last movie of his to be done. Starring amazing talent; Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie and Al Pacino just to name a few.

This movie follows Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stunt double, Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) in 1969 and 1970,where Rick goes through a career crisis. With tie-in’s to Sharon Tate and Charles Manson.

I’ll be honest all this was before my time. Charles Manson’s cult was in jail by the time I had grasped a concept of who they were. I may have grown up on Bruce Lee movies but my non-martial art movie knowledge of him is unknown nor do I know who Sharon Tate is. Seeing this movie is more from an outsiders point of view, looking into a team that I don’t know.

Some have said to take Once upon a time in Hollywood with a grain of salt; few say this is a work of fiction while few say this is true. While Quentin Tarantino has admitted this is, he love letter to Hollywood.

I hadn’t heard much about Once upon a time in Hollywood except that no one was allowed to spoil the ending due to it being a huge thing that needs to be seen first-hand.

Once upon a time in Hollywood has limited sessions in Australia due to the run length of the movie but if you do see it than you’ll find that time flew by even if you didn’t like it.

Once upon a time in Hollywood is an interesting story, I want to say I hated it but as a film student it was fantastic, I absolutely loved it. The way a dolly was put to use, jump cuts well and countless other things I’ve been studying; the cinematographer, Robert Richardson seems like someone a film student can use as inspiration. Unfortunately, if I wasn’t a film student, I would have found this movie incredibly boring except for the last ten minutes where it shows gruesome yet somehow hilarious ending.

My issue with this movie was why get Sharon Tate and Manson’s cult involved? The movie would’ve have been fine without those two.  I sort of understand why a Bruce Lee impersonator was used but after his fight scene with Cliff there wasn’t a reason to why Bruce was needed any more.

Once Upon a time in Hollywood is a movie that will show a different perspective of the late 60’s and early 70’s but not quite how you’d think. Even I’m not sure what to think of it.

A view of Edinburgh in 1560, the year Scotland formally adopted Protestantism as the national religion.