Double or triple checking something -
During a missed opportunity paralogue, that opens up after the Miklan chapter in FE16 and the discovery that is actually common knowledge, that relics given to someone without the matching crest is supposed to turn them in black beasts, we have this from Hilda :
But I'll use it if you tell me to, Professor. Or you can get somebody else to wield it, if you like.
Talking about Freikugel.
The Relic.
When the only person with a crest of Goneril in the group (and we know of) is her.
Is she... asking Billy to turn someone in a Black Beast?
Or it's her usual MO, she actually wants to use the weapon even if she goes "this scary axe is not my thing" and gives Billy the illusion of choice instead of asking for the axe, give it to me or give it to someone else ("and we both know how it'll end teehee")?
Me too Billy.
this game doesn't really seem to know what to do with its own lore :(
11 notes
·
View notes
This whole situation with Howleen not being related to Clawdeen in G3 lowkey reminds me of the whole fiasco with the new Tiny Toons reboot regarding Babs & Buster Bunny, except inversed.
To explain it: In the original Tiny Toons show, there's a running joke where Babs & Buster aren't related, despite them having the same last name. They're also shown to have romantic crushes on each other.
However, in the reboot (Tiny Toons Looniversity), Babs & Buster are now related, as twins.
So, Clawdeen & Howleen are not related now, but Babs & Buster are....Feels like the people in charge of these reboots haven't seen the OG or only looked at it on a surface-level understanding.
Ooh interesting! Honestly that can make things so uncomfortable. I imagine a lot of older fans probably shipped them, and have now been put into this unfair position where it now feels problematic to do so, and given how toxic fandom spaces can be, I imagine there's a lot of new fans of the reboot who might hound them about it. Yikes!
I have to say tho, I think it would be kinda wild if the current writers didn't know that Howleen is supposed to be Clawdeen's little sister, it's kinda like the main thing about her character. The fact that it was a conscious choice (assuming they don't backtrack in some way in the future) makes it even harder to accept.
It also reminds me of Strawberry Shortcake, the generation I grew up with (the best one) and how Apple Dumplin' was her baby sister, but come the reboot (the absolute worst version) is instead her cousin who's the same age, or just a tad younger. Idk, in both cases the decisions just seemed kinda random, but I suppose in Clawdeen's case her family dynamic is so different it would be hard to fit Howleen in. Hell, look how much reaching they had to do to bring Clawd back as her older brother.
35 notes
·
View notes
Yeah I like to see some quotes please. I can't really get my head round people believing in Mary's bona fides when the law didn't even exist in England. It's like Americans obsessing over a law only Canadians have. But I guess loyalty/sentiment/status quo was a big part of it.
Well, I don't think most noblewo/men were deeply well-versed in succession/inheritance laws of England and all their precedents, unless they'd happened to also study law...the assumption was probably that what was the law in most of Christendom was for England as well, understandably. But, then, that's not even a subject that seems to be well-understood in 21c historiography:
“[Henry VIII] now argued she would would be barred by illegitimacy. This contention puzzled continental contemporaries because elsewhere in western Europe those children born to couples who in good faith believed themselves validly married were treated as legitimate. Nevertheless, Henry was right. After a period of some uncertainty, by the late fourteenth century England had opted out of the bona fides principle. As Sir John Baker notes, 'succession problems were usually debated in legal terms and in accordance with the common law canons of inheritance.’ A successful challenge to his marriage would thus automatically bastardise Mary and leave Henry no direct heir… [although] Mary could have been legitimated by statute.”
- JF Hadwin, Katherine of Aragon and the Veil, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History
... so that's, for the 16c, like I said, an understandable assumption. (Also, their source was probably Chapuys, who was familiar with both secular and church law, but espoused many misunderstandings of their precedents, too...so did Fisher, they're enumerated in another article by the same historian, titled Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Henry VIII, I will post those relevant quotes too, if they're of interest to you, asw).
Yeah, the bona fides element was... an interesting one, nevertheless...like, all the interrogations I mentioned, everyone says they've heard Mary was bona fides but won't really explain what it meant, they admit their ignorance on the subject, and won't name the source of where they've heard it (although, like I mentioned, they are willing to point fingers to deflect suspicion off themselves of their former friends in other regards), just assert that they all sort of mindlessly (lol) repeated what they'd heard, all, understandably, to maintain plausible deniability and get themselves out of the hot water they've landed themselvves in.
For the Exeter conspiracy, I've posted one relevant in the past, I'll see what else I can scrounge up from my notes of excerpts.
It was, but I don't think courtier opportunism should be underestimated. Just one example, but I always remember that the Marquis of Exeter was one of the delegation of nobles HVIII sent to pressure CoA to relinquish her rights as Queen, tell Charles V to stop interfering in the matter, and one of the conspirators named by Chapuys in the Boleyn downfall. Granted, his wife had been one of Mary's supporters from very early on, so I think that element is there.
Elitism is probably an overestimated element, like while it's true the Boleyns were not born of royalty (neither were the Seymours, tho, so like...); I think what was going on beneath the surface was more intricate. Take Nicholas Carew, for example: originally, he'd been of the Boleyn faction, understandably, since they were cousins (he also, initially at least, seemed to favour a French alliance, so there's that). But I think what began as , well, the King needs a son, and if he's going to marry another wife, it might as well be a woman of my family as anyone else, to my benefit as much as anyone else...well, I think the shine came off this as matters unfolded. The thrust of their expectations were probably that AB was going to have as much, or less, influence as her predecessor with Henry, and her influence and power quickly outstripped those expectations. As the Boleyns gained power, wealth, and influence, and as men like Carew felt their own influence ebb in favour of say, George Boleyn (and I use him as an example, because by early 1536, it's evident many noblemen hated George, Lancelot de Carles' report of those events really crystallizes this)...well, resentment only grew, and their desire for the return of the status quo was thus kindled.
4 notes
·
View notes