Just to minimize my chances of being genuinely misunderstood OR deliberately misinterpreted, and crucified for something I don't think, How Dare You Say We Piss on the Poor website etc...I'm gonna say this right up top. I absolutely understand why people don't like Thessaly as a character, if anyone does completely unironically stan her as some kind of feminist hero who Did Nothing Wrong uwu, I personally see it as a bit of a red flag. I don't like terfs real or fictional. In a vacuum, I could even completely sympathize and agree with the people who want her cut.
HOWEVER.
It's really something to me to see people clamoring for her to be cut, because she carries and expressed an ugly indefensible prejudice (transphobia) in words towards (1) person. Meanwhile Hob fucking Gadling enacted one of the most violent forms of antiblack racism I can even think of against thousands no, millions of people, the ripple effects of which still affect billions more today. Just a little light idk, profiting off the fucking slave trade and had to be told by someone else that it was bad...and he's a fan favorite.
People are saying Thessally being Dream's love interest reflects badly on him or is somehow endorsement by the narrative (?!?!?!?!?!? Didn't she (SPOILER ALERT AS IF IT MATTERS BY NOW) help participate in his extended assisted suicide? She's not painted as a great person to me just another character what are y'all SMOKING whatever fine. It's fine this is fine.) But shipping Dream with Mr. Former Slaver is not only not verboten or frowned on widely in the fandom but its THEE most popular pairing by far. So...why the difference?
Like where are the same fans who are saying Thessaly shouldn't just be more clearly shown to be wrong, she shouldn't even be in the show at all when it comes to Hobert's crimes??? Yes, transphobia is indefensible. Isn't racism?
And I hear the cries of "it's fiction!!!" Already rallying (if anyone who needs to hear this even sees it lol) to which I say:
HORSESHIT. I KNOW you don't, deep down, really agree because if you did, why get upset about Thessaly being included??? Why does what she said to one person matter if it's Just Fiction You Guyze. Fictional characters are allowed to do bad things and fiction isn't reality sweaty....except when you only apply that standard to fictional racists you like and simp for, but fictional transphobes you don't are SO HARMFUL they shouldn't even be portrayed in fiction.
Like. Give me a big fat BREAK. This looks like bullshit, no? I'm sorry, but I'd love for someone to try and give any other explanation besides one personally offended you or hit home for you, and the other doesn't.
And if that bothers you or you feel like it says something negative about you...idk what you want me to say??? You can't control how other people perceive you and that's how people outside this majority-of-the-fandom bubble see it. You don't need to respond, I just wish and genuinely hope this gives you a moment to think about why fans who ARE bothered by both (and not just paying lip service to being bothered by the one but railing against the other) are so frustrated with people saying everyone is welcome but in practice only bending over backwards for the comfort and emotions of themselves, and people they can easily relate to.
You don't have to like Thessaly (I don't. I find her an interesting antagonist, I don't stan her. And frankly that's not the point of her character) but you'll pardon me for feeling more than a bit cynical and side eying people's motivations for what seems a...pretty obvious double standard, on what fictional crimes related to real world issues matter to y'all, and which clearly don't. Either actually bring the same energy to the table for fictional people who committed atrocities, even if against a group you're not part of and thus don't feel the need to empathize with, or just carry on, but accept that you don't have the SLIGHTEST room to talk about cutting characters who do immoral things. And you also need to accept that you look like a hypocrite when you do.
34 notes
·
View notes
*Froths at the mouth* Almost papatello....... 😮* Looks longingly into the distance as tears well up in my eyes* almost papatello...... :( *closes eyes as the wind blows my hair gracefully* almost papatello..... 😞 *curls up into a ball on the floor letting me tears run* almost papatello..... 😭
21 notes
·
View notes
🎹again, we know Trump is objectively worse than Biden in every way. It’s j-just… if they lose then I have to blame the Democratic Party for being such mask off fascists with Palestine th-that people en masse no longer feel confident voting for them. W-we have these arguments every time when the situation can be summed up by how they’re simply a terrible group to be confident in.
26 notes
·
View notes
Hi, what exactly did the royal charter excluding the Beaufort family from the throne say?
Hi! So in February 1407, John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset requested that the act legitimatising him and his siblings be confirmed by Letters Patent, which he duly received. At the same time, the royal charter that legitimised the Beauforts was modified by the insertion of the words excepta dignitate regali ("except to royal dignity"). I believe the royal charter is in the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England which I don't have access to but a 19th century historian published a transcription:
Be it remembered, that on Tuesday the fifteenth day of Parliament, the Chancellor, by the King's command, declared how our Holy Father the Pope had, in reverence of the most excellent person of the King, and of his honorable uncle the Duke of Guyenne and of Lancaster, and of his blood, enabled and legitimatized Sir John de Beauford, his brothers and his sister, and that therefore our Lord the King as entire Sovereign of his Realm of England, for the honour of his blood, wills, and hath of his full royal power enabled and of his own proper authority made the said John, his said brothers and sister, muliers, and also pronounced and published the ability and legitimatization according to the form of the King's charter thereof made. The which charter was read in full Parliament and delivered to the said Duke, father of the said John, and his said brothers and sister, the tenor of which charter ensueth. Richard by the grace of God, King of England and France, and Lord of Ireland, to our most dear cousins the noble men, John the Knight, Henry the Clerk, Thomas 'Domicello,' and to our beloved the noble woman Joan Beaufond 'Domicelle,' the most dear relatives of our uncle the noble John Duke of Lancaster, born our lieges, greeting, and the favour of our royal majesty. Whilst internally considering how incessantly and with what honours we are graced by the very useful and sincere affection of our aforesaid uncle, and by the wisdom of his counsel, we think it proper and fit that, for the sake of his merits, and in contemplation of his favors, we should enrich you (who are endowed by nature with great probity and honesty of life and behaviour, and are begotten of royal blood, and by the divine gift are adorned with many virtues,) with the strength of our royal prerogative of favour and grace. Hence it is, that, yielding to the entreaties of our said uncle your father, we do, in the fullness of our royal power and by the assent of Parliament, by the tenor of these presents empower you, who as it is asserted suffer from the want of birthright, (notwithstanding such defect, which, and the qualities thereof, we take to be in these presents sufficiently expressed) to be raised, promoted, elected, assume, and be admitted to all honours, dignities, [except to the royal dignity] pre-eminencies, estates, degrees and offices public and private whatsoever, as well perpetual as temporal, and feodal and noble, by whatsoever names they may be designated, whether they be Duchies, Principalities, Earldoms, Baronies or other fees, and whether they depend or are holden of us mediately or immediately, and to receive, retain, bear, and exercise the same as freely and lawfully as if ye were born in lawful matrimony, and you and every of you do restore and legitimatize : any statutes or customs of our realm of England to the contraiy thereof made or observed (which we consider to be herein fully expressed) in anywise notwithstanding.
(Source: Samuel Bentley, Excerpta Historica, Or Illustrations of English History (1831))
Wars of the Roses historians generally credit this addition to Henry IV, historians of Henry IV to Thomas Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury who was no Beaufort fan and in a powerful position during this time due to Henry IV's illness.
4 notes
·
View notes