#sorry for rambling! | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

richmond-rex · 1 year

Note

It’s Henry VII’s deathday so I’m getting emotional about his marriage – which was, after all, one of the most important parts of his life.

Personally, I think Henry VII and Elizabeth of York probably had one of the most successful royal marriages in medieval England? They were heirs to two warring families and were meant to successfully unite them and they did; and in doing so, they literally began a new dynasty together. They had seven children and seemed to love them immensely. Across their 17-year marriage, there is no recorded estrangement or disagreement between them (apart from that very playful and funny ‘quarrel’ about Catherine of Aragon’s letter). He was faithful to her; they were faithful to each other(*more on that at the end of the ask). Literally every account we have (apart from those ambassadors who are applying generalized belief about the relations between a mother-in-law and a wife to Elizabeth and Margaret Beaufort’s evidently cordial relationship) indicate a harmonious marriage, and we know they comforted each other very gently after their heir’s death. He was utterly grief-stricken after her death and mourned her every year; his reaction was very visceral and shocking to his contemporaries and that speaks volumes.

Idk where the idea of their marriage being dissatisfying or him being “oppressive” (like you quoted in your post from a few days ago) comes from. I don’t think the view is very prevalent currently, thankfully, but it’s still very irritating. Personally, apart from Ricardian nonsense, I think part of it may come from the general idea that he married her to cement and unite their claims, which automatically gives one the general impression of a calculated alliance – which it was! It was arranged by their mothers and beneficial to both their families. Most medieval marriages were like that; Elizabeth’s parents & maternal grandparents and Henry’s paternal grandparents were rare exceptions. I think it’s very lovely that despite this, they managed to build such a solid partnership and loving family. I think people also tend to take the idea that he overthrew her dynasty in a negative context which is ridiculous because, as you’ve mentioned, her vaunted uncle was the one who usurped her brothers’ throne, bastardized her siblings, humiliated her mother, and tried his best to ruin her father’s memory. Henry VII, in overthrowing him, was allied with her father’s supporters to restore Elizabeth to the throne as his consort, and he got immense support because of that. Wouldn’t Elizabeth have been exceedingly well-disposed towards him; wouldn’t she have wanted him to win?

We can’t objectively say that any centuries-old marriage was happy or passionately romantic, of course, but it is clear that theirs was mutually fond, pleasant, respectful and dynastically beneficial. What more can one ask for? I read a quote about Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville (I can’t remember where, rip), and I think it applies for Henry VII and Elizabeth of York just as well: “A happy marriage? Who can say for certain. But it was undoubtedly a successful one”.

In my opinion, I think Elizabeth’s queenship may have been very bittersweet for her at times: by all accounts she loved her husband and children, and her queenship and marriage was a victory for her father and brothers’ supporters, but I think it’s reasonable to speculate if she sometimes mourned about what was taken from her family (by her uncle) and wondered/wished for what could have been (her little brother on the throne and the continuation of their dynasty). This has little to nothing to do with her relationship with Henry (he would sympathize! His uncle was also overthrown, although that’s obviously not the same as two 12-year & 9-year-old boys imprisoned and murdered by their own uncle and shouldn’t be treated as such) and I think that would be interesting and believable to explore in historical fiction rather than inventing random problems for Henry and Elizabeth’s marriage that, more often than not, are directly contradicted by evidence.

(*Personally, I really don’t think fidelity should be a major factor in judging success or love in medieval marriages, tbh, especially considering the fact that couples were meant to abstain from sexual relations during pregnancies, and at least in England, chastity & control were considered hallmarks of masculinity/kingship. I think individual personalities (and libidos, I guess) probably mattered a lot more. I’ve read about lots of medieval marriages which were loving and successful despite infidelities, and many which were faithful but not necessarily passionate or romantic. It depends. In Henry and Elizabeth’s case, though, taken together with everything we know, it’s one of the many reasons why their marriage was a success).

Hi! Belated for his deathday but yeah, his marriage to Elizabeth of York was a major aspect of his kingship and I don't say it only in regard to the fact that her family supporters became his supporters or that her claim legitimised his claim in turn, all of which are true. In my opinion, his relationship with Elizabeth gave a very specific symbolic meaning to his kingship which we can see embodied in the family portrait he commissioned after her death: she was the princess to his St George, a saint he evoked as inspiration from the very first time he stepped back in Britain. Interestingly, Elizabeth seems to have thought of him in those terms too, going by the presents she created for him with her own hands, all related to knighthood and the Order of the Garter. It's so very interesting, especially if you include that poem she may have written!

Their marriage was very significant because it was not just the marriage of someone with Yorkist ancestry marrying someone with Lancastrian ancestry — I'm always saying 'Yorkist' and 'Lancastrian' were political positions of allegiance to Edward IV or Henry VI, respectively, not blood relations — but because their marriage involved people whose close relatives had actively tried to kill each other. Elizabeth's father executed Henry's grandfather and half-uncle. Henry's other uncle publicly swore to get revenge on Elizabeth's father. Their father figures (Jasper and Edward) literally fought against each other on the battlefield. Edward IV marrying Eleanor of Castile or Richard marrying Joanna of Portugal would not be unifying York and Lancaster because no matter their degree of ancestry from John of Gaunt, their families had never fought for Lancaster (Henry VI) in the first place.

Elizabeth's father was the cause of Henry growing up as a hostage in a Yorkist family and then spending his youth imprisoned in exile, surely their union was something else in personal terms? The very fact that he came to her and her family's 'rescue' so to speak was a thing in itself. That was a major movement of reconciliation and healing that dictated their relationship — and collective healing at that as the Crowland Chronicle thought of and that surely other contemporaries thought of too. They got along very well in public and I would say they got along very well privately too, judging by that account of the news of Arthur's death, and the presents they gifted each other. Their dynastic marriage was probably facilitated by this sort of mutual attraction and affection.

It's weird that people use Francis Bacon so much to talk about Henry VII. Bacon, the same person who said Henry didn't even have personal pastimes to amuse himself with (he did.... tennis, gambling, hunting, reading, court revels and music—it's all recorded in his account books), also claimed Henry truly was 'nothing uxurious' and was never able to love his wife because 'even though she was beautiful, gentle and fruitful', she was also a Yorkist and according to Bacon, Henry's aversion to Yorkists was so strong it was also present 'in his chamber and bed'. Bacon was the first one to put forward the theory that Henry didn't want Elizabeth to be crowned until she gave him a son because he disliked sharing the spotlight and didn't want people to think she was a sovereign ruler.... even though at no point did people actually raise her standard in that direction. There is literal evidence that Henry was planning her coronation from the beginning and we know plenty of reasons why she couldn't be crowned before 1487, but most historians still repeat Bacon's jealousy and distrust theory.

Nowadays the consensus seems to be that although affectionate, Henry was dynastically/politically oppressive with Elizabeth of York as though he didn't allow her to meddle in politics—which she did, especially in diplomatic matters and court affairs—denoting a lack of knowledge on what the office of a queen consort actually involved. Although we have voices such as Anna Duch and Michelle Beer who have emphasised Elizabeth's participation in politics, it still seems to be the norm to call Elizabeth of York a 'trophy wife' whose only role was to produce children, even though the very historians who call her a trophy wife also argue she was active in politics so like..... which is it.gif? Bacon said Henry could not 'endure any mention of the Lady Elizabeth' yet her symbols and her image were included extensively along his own so? That theory doesn't seem to ring true.

I think the most laughable arguments I've seen as to Henry's oppressiveness was Laynesmith's claim that he chose to crown Elizabeth on St Katherine of Alexandria's day to make people remember female rule was bad—not, mind you, because St Katherine was the most popular female saint in medieval England, a particular role model for women, or because of St Katherine's special role as the bride of Christ, symbols that were much likelier to jump to people's mind. Another laughable claim I've seen is that Elizabeth was never a patroness of Queen's College because Henry didn't allow her due to Richard's participation as a patron there—nevermind that the college's very founders were Henry's aunt Margaret of Anjou and Elizabeth's mother, Elizabeth Woodville. If there was someone who was associated with that college, it certainly was those two, not Richard! The fact that Elizabeth didn't become a patroness most likely had nothing to do with Henry's approval and was probably a personal choice, for example, to support monasteries and nunneries—which she did—instead of colleges.

Do you see what I'm talking about when I mention Henry's historical reputation as a miserly and oppressive husband? Facts, big or small, are read under that light to corroborate the idea.

Elizabeth's queenship might have been bittersweet at times, such as the times she rewarded one of her late brother's former servants, but it was also a very personal victory that put her into an enviable position compared to other queens consort. She never had to leave the places she grew up in, she was surrounded by her own family, old servants and people who spoke her native tongue. Unlike so many queens who had to say goodbye to their personal retinue after their marriage, which happened, in varying degrees, to Anne of Bohemia, Joan of Navarre, and even her own daughter Mary Tudor in France, Elizabeth increased the number of positions her personal servants could occupy, including the Prince of Wales' own household. She was able to support her sisters to a degree that would be impossible if she had not become queen of her own birth country. I think Elizabeth would very much be aware of that, that her life in France for example would have been much more isolating, as Charlotte of Savoy's was.

Those are all political aspects that were also personal ones, and when we compare them with other personal aspects such as her own intimate relationship with the king, I think it's safe to say she got a good deal in the end, even though her husband's reign was not an easy-breezy time either. She, of course, was not shy to show her support for him, from vouching for him with the pope and other sovereigns to personally consoling him in difficult times. As one historian said, Henry seems to have drawn great strength from her support. In my opinion, their marriage is quite an extraordinary story of love (from duty-bound to familial to romantic) in difficult times.

P.S.: yes, Henry was nothing special in not taking mistresses—that was the default option for medieval English kings who were moulded on St Edward the Confessor's example, and Henry would have been very much aware of the expectations involved in the office he sought. He seems to have blended his performance of kingship with his personal piety, bringing back public acts associated with sacred kingship such as the touching for the king's evil. Henry would have been aware that kings of England were expected to be chaste, and again, politically speaking would know it was not in his best interests to disrespect his wife. All of that not counting his personality, which might indeed have been genuinely monogamic.

#sorry for rambling!#ask #henry vii #elizabeth of york #anon

48 notes · View notes

nalyra-dreaming · 1 year

Note

what WAS up with the mirrors??? the one in her bedroom looked like it shattered for no reason. like the obvious interpretation was that she distorted or misunderstood what happened but the next episode depicted the events exactly as she recorded them.

Hey there! That is the question :) I first thought they would backtrack, but I'm now actually glad they didn't... it does come across as a dissociative hint, but I actually think it's more trust issue. Here's my two cents: Claudia shattered the bedroom mirror with her scream, symbolizing her shattered trust in her guardians... her parents. They read her journal(!) and though only Lestat admits to fully reading them, we see Louis open her diary. We know that he read them, later (at least). She must have felt pretty violated, I know I would have. And... she must have known they would continue to. It's a line that's been eviscerated, never to come back. Trust was almost impossible after this. And I do not think she trusted Louis a lot more than Lestat, but she could read his thoughts. She could... reach him (manipulate him), whereas Lestat is waaaaaay too much like her, which is also why they butt heads so viciously. He calls her "Evil of my evil" in the books, and yes, she is. The mirror at the end of episode 5 is a callback to that scene imho. Again, something shatters that cannot be repaired. Trust, a sense of self and safety. They had problems, Lestat may have held her, both may have yelled at her, but their home was always safe. Up until that point she was bodily safe there. Now, I have written about how Lestat was, totally apart from the DV parts that were to follow (I am NOT taking away from that here, please don't misinterpret me here) a soft coven master. He has tried to keep them as human as possible. If they had been made (i.e.) by the coven under Les Innocents (before, ironically Lestat came along and upended it), she would have been locked in a coffin, put into the wall until she would have been strong enough in madness to claw herself out of it. Just... imagine. (Lestat was absolutely right to just... flip them the proverbial bird, tbh). But for the two vampires he's sired in the New World... this burst of violence was a life-shattering experience. And they had nothing to put it into relation to, nothing, which in and by itself, had been Lestat's intention. Not only to be confronted with the fact that Lestat kept things from them. And massive things. (Flying? Hello?) No, but also that they could de-facto do nothing about it if he didn't let them. There was no scratch on him, nothing, though both went at him. And a part of me wonders if that is why Louis kept charging him, too, because it must be horrifying to realize you have no chance. In hell. Literally. And we know Louis hates being powerless. (It is also quite the testament imho that Lestat lets himself get hurt by Louis in the next episode, but that is another subject and a beast in and by itself.) So when Claudia sits there, upstairs, and sees herself hurt... she sees the bloodshed. The destruction. Her physical and mental integrity got compromised by those supposed to protect her. The mirror ties it back to the initial violation. And she breaks. And the pieces of her are never fully healed ("there's a darkness in her that wasn't there before"). One more thing, others have said it as well - but from the moment that her parents read her diaries... Claudia's diaries were also a tool. She knew they would read them. She knew she could use them to manipulate. If (!) and when she actually used them like this may be up for debate, but for someone as clever as she was...

So from that first mirror on - she was no reliable narrator anymore either. Which makes the fact that this was from her diary... and under Armand's influence confirmed by Louis later on... it just makes it all very suspicious. (Why would Louis not remember Lestat flying/floating during sex? It's even repeated that they float a bit in episode 6, such a weird little detail to include. For example. I know, there's this joke as to it being too good to remember, but... seriously? And this getting thrown off heights is something both Lestat and (supposedly) Amand experienced (at Lestat's hand). Where is the truth here?) I do think the fight happened, I do think Lestat got carried away, to put it mildly, because in order for the events to have happened that everyone agrees on that happened... well. Something must have happened. And... imho - it is something that Louis isn't particularly keen on remembering. OR Armand thinks it's better he doesn't, as he so likes to do.

#asks #thank you nonny #sorry for rambling!#I hope I make sense #iwtv #interview with the vampire #iwtv meta #amc's interview with the vampire #amc's iwtv #claudia de lioncourt #lestat de lioncourt #louis de pointe du lac #just some thoughts #book spoilers #mirror #armand #ask nalyra

67 notes · View notes

waymond-wang · 1 year

Note

"A coloniser in chains. Now I have seen everything." Loved that moment! Also I understand where Namor is coming from, but I think Shuri was WAY too forgiving considering what he took from her. I'd have put a vibranium bullet in his head

i have so many thoughts about shuri in bpwf!!!! thank you for giving me an opportunity to dribble this out

Shuri's choice to stay her hand against namor was imo, a deliberate choice to 1. draw a parallel between shuri and t'challa -- how they both grappled with their pain, blinded by grief, and wielded their power with zero responsibility in pursuit of personal revenge (cue Ben parker quote) , and 2. to further highlight shuri's decision to reject following namor's path of destruction despite how alike shuri and namor really are (their isolation, the love for their people, their cultures, their duty to protect their countries, the anger that fuels them, etc.) shuri and m'baku's argument is a great peek into the two sides of shuri's internal debate. she is royalty -- daughter of two rulers of wakanda, sister of another. the smartest woman in the country and heir to the throne. and the people of her country, people she loves, look to her for guidance, for protection. and throwing them into war (a war that would not be easily won by either side) would tear her world apart. would killing namor be worth all that? the coming bloodshed would drown her. the generations of fear and death that would cascade out from her decision to kill namor to satiate her own hungry grief would be irreversible. a moment of gratification in exchange for an eternity of war, that is what shuri faces down as she stands over namor. at the council meeting, shuri festers, demanding an eye for an eye, but m'baku can see -- with the privilege of distance -- that ramonda was not only a mother but a queen, and starting a war in her name would be a disgrace to her love for her people. he's right, but it falls on deaf ears. it's only later when shuri is nearly broken into something monstrous, pinning namor on the beach, spear to his throat, that she understands. show him who you are, right? shuri first dons the black panther suit out of selfishness: to be stronger, capable of bringing down the great k'uk'ulkan. but the black panther has never been a person, never been something that is beholden to human impulses. they are a symbol, a myth, a duty. the great black panther is the Protector of wakanda. and now, this is shuri. on the precipice of that yawning decision, her family's love for their countrymen, and for her, carries her back from grief's edge. coaxes her to put down the knife. to help namor up. to show him who she is. not an animal out to hunt, but a woman of mercy, sheathed claws and steel backbone.

the black panther lives, not when shuri recreated the heart shaped herb or when she put on the suit, but when she refused to let her grief guide her hand and instead chose to do right by those she loves and who loved her in return. to do right by her family, both her mother and father and brother, and every man, woman, and child that set foot in wakanda before her and after her. this is how she protects her people.

#ask #sorry for rambling!#i have many thoughts.#marvel #black panther: wakanda forever

5 notes · View notes

story-book-sillies · 1 year

Text

“Lookie, lookie, mama/papa/baba! I drew you a picture! See it? It’s of me and you playing together! I’m so glad you love it! Can we hang it on the fridge? Yay! Let’s go!”

#Here’s one of those POV thingys I said I was going to make #hopefully it’s good lol #I’m not the greatest at this sort of thing #but I’m happy with it!#I just want to show the caregivers in this community that I appreciate them!#so much of agere content is just for littles #I want to make sure caregivers get something too!#anyways #sorry for rambling!#sfw interaction only #prompt suggestions are open #just send in an ask!#sfw age regression #sfw agere #age regressor #age regression #agere blog #agere positivity

6 notes · View notes

munknights · 2 years

Text

The argument against precogging the world could’ve been better than “You’re willing to kill a kid?”. I personally think the more interesting argument is “How do you judge someone on their current path when there’s an infinite number of directions their life can take?”. Just taking a wrong turn could cause their life to veer into something better or worse than what it currently is. Some people are trying to atone for the bad things they’ve done in their lives. That’s why you’re supposed to be judged at the NATURAL END of your life. It’s easier to look back to see what path you took than look forward and figure out what direction your life is going to take.

#moon knight #sorry for rambling!#and sorry if it doesn’t make sense #i’ve been thinking about this all day

14 notes · View notes

teaboot · 3 months

Text

On of the less intuitive things about love, I've found, of any kind, is the importance of needing things.

I didn't realize it until recently, but I've always seen love as something requiring sacrifice, selflessness, patience, and generosity- to ask for nothing is to be the best person I can be, small and quiet and never in the way, always happy and helpful, self-sufficient and present when desired.

It's only as an adult, now, that I'm beginning to see the selfishness of wanting nothing.

I cut my friend's hair in my kitchen the other day. They wanted a trim and I had the skills, so I offered, and was genuinely excited when they stopped hesitating over "bothering me" and took me up on it. It was a peaceful afternoon, and we had tea and chatted for an hour or more.

My brother and I shared popcorn at the movies a while ago. When I came time to pay, I pulled my card out like a wild western sheriff and slapped it on the machine before he could fight me for it first. The satisfaction was delightful.

Someone called me crying on the phone the other day. Kept apologizing for disturbing me at work, talking about how they were bothering me on my lunch break. I was telling the truth when I told them that really, I was flattered and honored and relieved, knowing that if they were hurting I would know, that I didn't have to worry in silence. It felt good to hear them slowly come down, and to know that they knew it would be better soon, and to hear them laugh wetly on the other end. We're getting together for a visit next week.

It's hard to need things, if you've trained yourself not to. It's hard to want things, when you don't know how to want anymore. Trusting people is difficult, and so is relying on them, but I don't know where I'd be without the people who rely on me.

I've heard a lot of people say, "Nobody will love you unless you love yourself". I've had a lot of thoughts about it. It's not right, but it's not wrong, either, I think.

"Nobody will love you unless you love yourself"... I've always taken that to mean, "You will not be lovable until you develop a positive view of yourself as a person".

Now, I think it's sort of inside-out.

"Nobody will love you unless you love yourself"... because nobody can show their love to you in a way that you can accept until you treat yourself kindly, and learn what you need, and what you want, and how to ask for it, and then give that vulnerability away.

Love, for me, is someone I ask for a ride to the airport. Whether they end up doing this or not is irrelevant.

It's not needy, or selfish, or taking up energy. It's giving the gift of being wanted, and needed, and thought of. It's giving someone the security of being part of someone's life.

#Ramble #Sorry I just took my sleeping pills lol #Seepy

30K notes · View notes