#you don't have to go to oxford to be a historian

[natalieironside]

So I finally got around to That Hideous Strength

The other day I was thinking about how the problem with being a Marxist historian is that nobody reads Marxist historians except for other Marxist historians, so liberals can just make crap up about it and ppl just go with it; one of the classics courses I've been auditing included the absolutely bazonkers assertion that "Marxist historians say the Roman empire fell because the bourgeoisie oppressed the workers," which....no tf they don't? For one thing, it would be a hell of a neat trick for a pre-industrial society to even have an industrial bourgeoisie. But you can just say whatever because nobody who isn't a communist is reading Engels so who's gonna know.

All that is to say that the political landscape presented here by my friend Mr. Clive Staples Lewis is such a phantasmagorical fever dream that I have to assume neither he nor his target audience had much experience speaking to or interacting with human beings who weren't Oxford dons. He posits a unified coalition of people who in real life not only cannot work together but are known to make a habit of murdering one another. But conservative-minded folk who don't spend an outsized amount of their time actually dealing with the issues the book brings up on the ground prolly wouldn't even think about that.

Makes no damn sense. Compels me, though.

#natalie reads

[sarahmaclean]

when did people start saying "sexy"? this feels like a thing you would've researched before giving sesily that nickname and my own googling has been unfruitful

oooh! this is a GREAT question, and making me think that I should bring my favorite Twitter thing, Foul Language Etymology with Sarah, to Tumblr!

So! Those of you who have read Bombshell know that much of London calls Sesily Talbot "Sexily Talbot" which is supposed to shame her and only makes her more committed to f*cking things up. Fun writing fact, this happened because every time I typed Sesily while writing the first book she appears din--her sister Sophie's book, The Rogue Not Taken--autocorrect would correct Sesily to Sexily. And I was delighted. (Sometimes you just write where the universe leads you.)

BUT...you can't just let autocorrect from 2015 tell you what to write in 1830, so...you have to go to the source! The source, in this case, being the Oxford English Dictionary which is amazing and provides etymology on every word in the English language (at least the ones that have been around for a while). Fun additional fact: if you have a library card, you very likely have free access to the OED online. Get a library card. Libraries are the literal best.

So. To the tape!

"Sexily," as an adverb, meaning "In a sexy manner," is first seen in print in 1929 with the following line in New Statesman: Simply I will say—slowly, sinuously, but not, I hope, sexily, ‘Welcome, Miss Bumfiddle! welcome, Alimony!’ Which...well...I'm not quite sure what to say about that, except to say that I needed another explanation for her name.

"Sexy," as an adjective, meaning "Containing or characterized by explicit sexual content; erotic, risqué; bawdy, saucy," is an American word from the 1890s, first spelled seksy (Come on, America, Really?) in a text by Enoch Arnold Bennet that reads "Lane had decided..not to handle your work of genius, on the score that it was seksy & America didn't want no seks-problems." Now. I don't know if "work of genius" is a euphemism or what, but I can say America, in fact, has a fair share of seks-problems, so Lane is a dirty liar.

Now, an important thing to note is that words like this (foul language, words relating to sex, and slang), are often in common language for years before they end up in a dictionary. So it would be reasonable to suggest that "sexy" might have been around since the 1860s or 70s. But my book was in the 1830s, so I needed something earlier.

"Sex," as a noun, to describe male or female has been around for what historians refer to as "a long ass time." It's in the Bible. But that doesn't really work. What's worse? "Sex" as an action -- touching butts, if you will -- isn't in print until 1900! HOW! Literally HOW! Honestly, I don't know. Language is nonsense.

BUT. A writer who is procrastinating really will not be thwarted. Because there, way down on the list of OED references to "sex" is:

"Sex: slang or euphemistic. A person's genitals."

1664. T. Killigrew Princess  ii. ii, in  Comedies & Trag. 22 Another ha's gon through with the bargain... One that will find the way to her Sex, before you'le come to kissing her hand.

And there it is. The winner. Historical romance novelists have been referencing his or her sex for literal decades, and this is why! Even better, calling someone "Sexily" is even more slut-shamey than before now that it's literally referring to a body part. Perfection. Sexily can laugh in the face of society, Caleb can come absolutely unhinged, and on with the show.

Read all about it in Bombshell.

Also, as always when I talk about the way we police language, please accept this: Words are not inherently dirty. They are just words. When we police language--especially language used by marginalized groups--we are often policing something else entirely. If you're interested in how smashing the policing of language can also smash the patriarchy, please read Mona Eltahawy's The Seven Necessary Sins for Women & Girls.

#etymology #Foul Language Etymology with Sarah #Language is nonsense #words are not bad people are bad #bombshell #the rogue not taken #sexy sexily sex

[heartofstanding]

best idea ever starter kit.

dysentery: it (probably) killed them both, 7 years apart, so it's surest way to split this ship up and make it tragic and reunite them.

Biting. Henry V will bite.

omg they were tomb mates: probably not but there's a story that's Courtenay's body was actually found within Henry V's tomb. just two dudes sharing a tomb...

Oxford university: Courtenay was chancellor of Oxford and had a fairly... interesting career that included fleeing from Lollard students attacking his lodgings and being threatened by the Archbishop of Canterbury with excommunication by resisting his attempts to root heresy out (he also threatened to excommunicate the Archbishop of Canterbury in turn). He also started efforts to establish a library at Oxford that was assisted by Henry. Also, there's a story that Henry V studied at Oxford that's still perpetuated by Oxford but historians don't think that's true.

booty shorts. In Lenten purple with a Lenten message. Courtenay is a bishop, after all.

The hottie and the nottie. Richard Courtenay was reputedly pretty, Henry V was not.

Money problems. Henry V was pretty broke for most of his time as Prince of Wales, probably because his father was pretty broke as king. Things did not really improve when Henry was in charge of the finances but at least he had experience in living life on a shoe-string. Courtenay was the treasurer of Henry's household as king. Courtenay also had money problems. He died owing Henry money. He owed Oxford money for his room rent. He spent so much while on embassy in France (on vases! and planetary calculators!) that he had to borrow money to go home.

Herbert. Is a weird little dog on the tomb of William Courtenay, Archbishop of Canterbury and Courtenay's uncle and foster-father. He probably had nothing to do with Courtenay/Henry but we felt like he had to be involved. (n.b. I made up his name.)

Monster cans. Sadly, Henry and Courtenay died before they could discover coffee or energy drinks but I like to think in a modern AU, they would be the Eldritch beings whose coffee orders terrify baristas and would drink Monster and only Monster when they weren't terrifying baristas.

Out of a most tender love... here's the anonymous author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti on Courtenay's death and Henry's order for him to be buried in the shrine of Edward the Confessor.

The Prick of Conscience. A serious medieval religious text. Why are you laughing.

Ottery St Mary. Courtenay granted a manor to the church at Ottery St Mary so that they would celebrate a mass daily for his and Henry's good estate and for their souls after death. He granted this three months before he died. 🥺

astrology. Courtenay was into it (or used it as a cover for his spying on the French), Henry was suspicious of it.

Swans. Both of them were descended from the de Bohuns and both appear to have used the swan badge for themselves.

face hole. Henry took an arrow to the face (to the depth of 6 inches) at the Battle of Shrewsbury.

embracing in the fires of hell. so, yes, they were medieval Catholics which probably means they had a medieval Catholics understanding of sin. Still, at least when you're burning in the fires of hell, you're still cuddling your bestie <3

matching rings. On the left, the gold relic ring that was found in Courtenay's grave set with an oval ruby. On the right, a detail of Henry V's hands in the earliest known copy of his portrait in which he wears a gold ring set with an oval ring. Is it the same ring or did they just have matching rings? Who knows.

Tomb of Henry V. see above, re: tomb sharing. Courtenay is buried under the steps up to the chantry chapel so his grave is also in this picture.

Patron saints. It's a picture of St Sebastian (gay icon) and St George (Henry's patron saint). I like to think that Henry had a lot of thoughts about St Sebastian given the whole arrow to the face thing.

One of the most loving and the dearest of the king's friends. The author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti on Courtenay.

Tennis balls. The tennis ball incident, or something like it, probably did happen and given Courtenay was closely involved in Henry's embassies in France, he probably knew All About It.

Bad hair. Henry's got the bowl cut, Courtenay probably had the bowl cut with tonsure. I like to think Courtenay made it work but lbr who did.

Two idiots, one hole. It them ❤️

Matching t-shirts. Henry is the cheetah that's threatening to go crazy, Courtenay the dog that's keeping him from going crazy in captivity. You wouldn't separate them, would you?

#richard courtenay #henry v #oh my god they were tomb mates #my stuff #the graphic could be a lot better but in my defence #the graphics program i made it in started refusing to load it so i had to leave it alone

[catilinas]

I'm currently reading lattimore's iliad, and I'm planning to read an oresteia translated by Anne Carson. What are some other works you'd recommend/love? And the translation you like. I want to read up on the classics as I didn't really go to school past 14, and I love how passionate you are about them, so I thought I'd ask, thanks either way!

hi! sorry for taking one million years to reply to this :/ every time i try to make a Brief list of my fave texts i explode. also please bear in mind that this is a list of Texts I Personally Really Like and not a list of Texts That Are The Hashtag Classical Canon.

if you enjoy(ed. it's been a while) the iliad and An Oresteia then probably try the odyssey? i like emily wilson's translation and also ive said this before but her introduction is soooooo good. she has a translation of the iliad coming out next year and i'm probably more excited to read her introduction to it than like. the actual translation

also in the genre of epic (the best genre) i actually prefer latin epic so. definitely the aeneid (post on different translations here!) which is also very uhhh foundational for so so much of subsequent latin literature. including my other favourite epic poem, lucan's pharsalia (post on translations again!) which is a historical epic about the civil war between caesar and pompey.

this is where the list gets very much into things i personally like. the pharsalia is so cool to me because it's not a history/historiography but it Does do weird things To history and gets away with them because of its genre. veryyy similarly, aeschylus' persians is a tragedy (the only surviving tragedy based on historical events!) about the persian response to defeat at the battle of salamis. i don't have a preferred translation for this one just read whatever! but definitely read some sort of introduction or the wikipedia page because it's weird for a Lot of reasons. also necromancy happens. and there's boats. what more can anyone want!

i've also been really into livy's ab urbe condita atm. it's a history of rome but the first 5 books especially are very. well i just don't think that actually happened. BUT the early roman like. political myth making is cool actually! (if only because if you read it then when lucan is like oh and the ghost of curius dentatus was there you can be like oh i know who that guy is! a Lot of latin lit involves invoking historical exempla and livy is a major source for a Lot of those.) i actually care very little about greek myth (and the take that the romans just 'stole' greek religion. like what) because i think the romans' mythologisation of e.g. lucius junius brutus is way more fun. but ALSO livy was writing a history starting from the Foundation of rome at a time when augustus was 'ReFounding' rome so you're always a bit like. hmmmmmm. or like you read about coriolanus in livy and you're like oh wow foreshadowing of the political situation that would later lead to the civil wars! but then you remember that livy was writing it After the civil wars and then you fall into the livian timeloop and then you explode.

ok now ignore livy because my favourite historian is actually sallust. would recommend william batstone's translation of (and introduction to) the bellum catilinae. Catilina Is There. sallust's catiline is soooooo sexy like his countenance was a civil war itself! enough eloquence but not enough wisdom! animus audax subdolus varius! he's haunted by sulla's ghost! he's didn't cause the fall of the republic so much as he was a symptom of it! he's an antihero! he's cicero's mimetic double! he probably doesn't drink blood! he would have died a beautiful death IF it had been on behalf of his country (except that quote is actually from florus maybe via livy lol)! He Did Nothing Wrong. you want to read the bellum catilinae soooooo bad. also it is v fun to read alongside with cicero's catilinarian orations (the invective speeches against catilina). i think i read the oxford world's classics translation of those but i Cannot remember who it is by.

also you know what i really like what i've read of florus' epitome of roman history which is maybe kind of a summary of livy but also florus is totally doing his own thing (he is sooo influenced by lucan! nice!) highly recommend the (relatively brief) section on the first punic war. it does cool things with boats.

i also love plutarch's life of cato the younger!!! one of my favourite ancient texts of all time ever. like a) it's plutarch and he is fun. would recommend the life of alexander the great as well tbh. and b) it's cato the younger and he is so so so fucked up.

finallyyyyyy bcs this is getting long. the poetry of catullus (and a post on translations is here!) like It's Catullus. the original poor little meow meow. what more can i say

#please be aware also that i made this list via What Came Into My Brain and in a few hours i'll probably be like #how the fuck did i forget like. idk. seneca's thyestes #actually real and true. senecan tragedy does also slap. emily wilsons translations are good also. #book list #beeps

[qqueenofhades]

To bounce off the previous anon's ask, what is your favorite literary genre? Have you read/re-read any good books recently? What is a book (fiction and/or non-fiction) you feel everyone should read?

I am currently reading The Light Ages by Ian Macleod, which I swear up and down that I read as a teenager and spent a long time trying to find again, but which I don't actually remember at all. I'm pretty sure that this was one of the books which first got me into social-commentary steampunk as a genre, so yes. The books next on the list are The Stardust Thief by Chelsea Abdullah, The Inheritance of Orquídea Divina by Zoraida Córdova, and Perdido Street Station by China Miéville.

Books that I have on pre-order and are both scheduled to be released in August include Husband Material by Alexis Hall (sequel to Boyfriend Material which is one of my favorite books, a gay fake-dating romcom that always makes me laugh my ass off), and Babel: Or The Arcane History of the Oxford Translators' Revolution by R.F. Kuang (author of the Poppy War trilogy), which could not possibly be more up my alley if they had designed it in a lab. It is set in a magical 19th-century Oxford and incorporates aspects of The Secret History by Donna Tarrt and Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell by Susanna Clarke, both of which are also some of my favorite books, while featuring a Chinese protagonist and exploring racism, linguistic and cultural imperialism, and why the British Empire sucks. It comes out on August 23, which is the day before my birthday, so yes, happy birthday to me.

As you can probably tell, therefore, my favorite genre is well-written literary fiction, feminist, queer, racially and culturally diverse fantasy and sci-fi, space operas and sprawling speculative-fiction sagas, historical fantasy (especially written by women of color, since I almost never read straight white male fantasy authors for, uh, many reasons) and reimagined classics. I will try almost anything if it looks interesting and/or funny (one of the quickest ways to make me lose interest is for a book to have no sense of humor at all and/or take itself way too seriously), but I have too much stuff on my list to stay with it if it doesn't grab me.

A few books not already mentioned that I think more people should read, whether because they are Serious Literature that is worth experiencing, they are good and I enjoy them, they were formative for me as a youth, or some combination of all these things, include:

The Odyssey, trans. Emily Wilson

Midnight's Children, Salman Rushdie

The Historian, Elizabeth Kostova

Reamde, Neal Stephenson

Circe, Madeline Miller

The Bartimaeus Trilogy (The Amulet of Samarkand, The Golem's Eye, Ptolemy's Gate), Jonathan Stroud

The Priory of the Orange Tree, Samantha Shannon

Red White and Royal Blue, Casey McQuiston

The Mask of Mirrors and The Liar's Knot, M.A. Carrick

These are all fiction (much of my nonfiction reading is related to historian work), but I also tend to enjoy narrative nonfiction such as that of Erik Larson or Rachel Maddow. Overall, I read between 50-100 pages every night, occasionally more, but rarely less. I had a long period where I could afford neither the books nor the brainpower, as a broke and overworked PhD student, so I have been going a little hog-wild ever since.

#anonymous #ask #bookblr #book recs

[kckenobi]

hellooooooooo!! i’m going to ask 32, 34, and 37 for the writer’s asks!

hiiiiiiiii!!

32. What is a line from a poem/novel/fanfic etc that you return to from time and time again? How did you find it? What does it mean to you?

Bold of u to assume I could pick just one!! (And I could've picked 100 more but here's the first 3 that came to me):

— hope is a thing with feathers that perches in the soul, and sings the tune without the words and never stops at all (Emily Dickinson): I have loved this poem since I first heard it in 5th grade, and I had a little wooden block with that specific line on my desk in college (I don't know what happened to it, now that I think about it :() But recently, I listened to The Anthropocene Reviewed by John green as an audiobook, and there's a part where he's reading that poem slowly, and I read it aloud with him and just,,,,started to cry?? In the car like 5 minutes from work at 6 am, because of Emily Dickinson lol

— "my work is loving the world" (Mary Oliver): sometimes I just stop in the middle of walking outside or of laughing at something a kid said, and this line pops into my head

— "I want to be famous in the way a pulley is famous, or a buttonhole, not because it did anything spectacular, but because it never forgot what it could do." (Naomi Shihab Nye): there are so many I could've picked from her, but I found this one sometime in college, and now it's in the rotation of poems I teach, and it's just a special one. Like, the impact I have might be small, but it is an impact, it isn't wasted, you know? You have a little job to do and there is meaning in it

34. Thoughts on the Oxford comma, Go:

It is very necessary!!! "I saw my parents, a stripper and an ax murderer" does NOT mean the same thing as "I saw my parents, a stripper, and an ax murderer" !!!!!!!

37. If you were to be remembered only by the words you’ve put on the page, what would future historians think of you?

Well first of all, that I really liked Star Wars sksjsks. But assuming we're also talking about words I've written that never got posted anywhere: probably that I thought a lot about a lot of things, and tried (with varying results) to be a good person, and wondered a lot about whether I was, and that I enjoyed making lists, and tried to do brave things even when they were scary, and wrote a lot of bad poems sksjs, and met a lot of really awesome people who I was lucky to know :'))

Writing asks

#sksjsks when I was a kid I used to imagine that future historians would find my journals and be like 'huh. what was it like to be a teenage #girl during this time period' #lolllllll #asks #kasey ramblings

[sergeantsporks]

Hey! How are you? For the writing asks: 1, 2, 4, 16, 19, 25, 34, and 37! (I'm just hitting up all the questions.)

Whoa, you certainly are! I'm doing pretty good, actually, all of the classes have wound down to a couple of projects, so! Feeling good.

1. What font do you write in? Do you actually care or is that just the default setting?

Calibri. I don't really care, it's just the default

2. If you had to give up your keyboard and write your stories exclusively by hand, could you do it? If you already write everything by hand, a) are you a wizard and b) pen or pencil?

I'd hate it. I'd loathe it. Updates would be incredibly slow because 1) the amount of time it takes me to write something somewhat legibly is insane and 2) My hand hurts after like. A paragraph. But I could and probably would. I used to write everything by hand, I still have the folders with my original story on notebook paper that I wrote when I was 12 and didn't have a computer, it's something like fifty pages?

4. What’s a word that makes you go absolutely feral?

Infinitesimal. I don't know why. I just think it's neat. And the characters who use it are funny. U could've said "small" but no.

16. What’s the weirdest thing you’ve ever used as a bookmark?

I usually wouldn't use a bookmark, I'd just remember where I was in the book and then flip to it, but probably my pillow (I was coming back in a few moments)

19. Tell me a story about your writing journey. When did you start? Why did you start? Were there bumps along the way? Where are you now and where are you going?

When I was twelve, I decided I was going to write a 4 novel series about a sixteen (maybe fourteen, I don't remember) year old girl who had a bracelet that was meant to destroy the world (magic), and she and her friends were trying to destroy it first. It got a bit into the first book, but then I was always jumping from story idea to story idea because I was. You know. Twelve. Anyway, when I got to about fifteen, I got introduced to fanfiction by my near and dear friend who now makes fun of me for killing off Hunter all the time, and was like ":O! I can do that! I do that in my head all the time with Star Wars! And books! It's the 'what if I were in this story' game!" So I started writing fanfiction, and lemme tell you, it was awful. But I bugged bigger, better fanfic writers to pretty please read my thing and tell me what I could do better and THANK GOD they were nice people and DID, and I followed their advice, and I got a LOT better at writing fanfic. Then I wrote a fantasy trilogy that started off as fanfiction (the characters were playing a dnd game) and just kind of devolved so far from the original characters/plot that I said "Okay then!" renamed some characters, switched up some plot, and went from there! Anyway, I've done more writing for original stuff since, but it's mostly been fanfiction, and given that I can look at stuff I wrote only a year ago and go "Hrm, that could have been better" I think I'm still growing as a writer! I want to write one of my original stories, but my brain's pretty firmly full of owls at the moment, so that'll have to wait. For now, fanfiction ho!

25. What is a weird, hyper-specific detail you know about one of your characters that is completely irrelevant to the story?

Kore HATES fluorescent lighting. Any electric lighting in general, actually, she uses daylight mostly and then candles and lanterns when she has to. Fluorescent lighting makes a buzzing she hates, and she doesn't like the color of the light.

34. Thoughts on the Oxford comma, Go:

If you don't use the Oxford comma you're an uncivilized heathen, and your writing implements should be taken away.

37. If you were to be remembered only by the words you’ve put on the page, what would future historians think of you?

"That was one sadistic person. Probably hated people."

#asks #ask game #writing #war stories from the sergeant

[mandos-mind-trick]

4,5,7,9,25,31, 34, 37, 38 👀

Aah okay so many

4. What’s a word that makes you go absolutely feral?

Like feral good or feral bad? Feral good, I mean...I don't think I really have one? I like a lot of words lol. Feral bad, it's definite "doesn't" because I somehow got the muscle memory to type it "doens't" and I literally have to fix it every time. Every damn time.

5. Do you have any writing superstitions? What are they and why are they 100% true?

I don't think I have any. I mean, I have to be in the right position, with a certain computer to write, but I don't think that counts.

7. What is your deepest joy about writing?

Oh boy, I'm gonna try to keep this short. Really, it's the expression. I'm not good at speaking or conveying things out loud successfully, but in writing that's a whole other story. It's a lot easier for me to write than to speak and I've always been that way. It's also a way to express things that I might not be comfortable speaking about, or things I may not want to necessarily relive out loud. I can write things like trauma or negative experiences in way that feels safe. Writing's always been an outlet for me and I remember the brief time when it wasn't and that really was a dark time there.

9. Do you believe in ghosts? This isn’t about writing I just wanna know

I don't know if I really truly believe in them. I jokingly blame things on them when weird things happen in our house, and I watch a lot of ghost hunting shows (mostly cause they're hilarious). I do believe in the possibility of there being ghosts, but until I see one, I guess you could count me as a skeptic?

25. What is a weird, hyper-specific detail you know about one of your characters that is completely irrelevant to the story?

Midnight is secretly afraid of one type of candy because she almost choked on one as a kid.

31. Write a short love letter to your readers.

I am so bad at stuff like this oh god. I've never written a love letter in my life.

Dear readers,

I hope your day is treating you well. I hope it's been easy and stress free and you've gotten to do something you love, even if it's something small. I just wanted to remind you that you mean so much to me. Every single one of you that takes the time to read one of my stories, those who like them, those who reblog, those who comment, every single one of you is so special to me. It brings me so much joy to see so many of you enjoying my writing and I can't thank you enough. I hope the rest of your day is kind to you, and don't forget to treat yourself with kindness.

(this was so bad omg just me the cheesiest person I know)

34. Thoughts on the Oxford comma, Go:

Absolutely necessary, 100% use it and think it's needed. It gives context to things that may otherwise be confusing without it. Like the old example of: "I love my dogs, pizza and baseball." Like how are we supposed to know if they're listing things they like, or they're listing the names of their dogs. Like yes, there could be other contextual clues, but still, the oxford comma is absolutely something that should be used.

37. If you were to be remembered only by the words you’ve put on the page, what would future historians think of you?

Damn she's got some issues. Lol, no, like I hope that my words live that long but they'd definitely think I had some deep rooted issues, and I'm also very horny.

38. What is something about your writing process YOU think is Really Weird? If you are comfortable, please share. If you’re not comfortable, what do you think cats say about us?

I mean, I did state above that I only write really well on a certain computer. Like, I hate writing on my desktop and I always struggle, but I can bust a chapter out in a couple hours on my laptop. Also, when I'm writing fic, like I have to have a picture of whatever character I'm writing of up on my screen. Like, I have two screens for my desktop and one of them is just pintrest open with Wolffe's face everywhere cause I have to be able to stare at him while I write like I'm gonna forget what he looks like or something. Literally can't write without it.

#thanks for sending these in! #this was fun

[winterlovesong1]

Hello. Weird Questions for Writers ask! 4, 11, 24, 34, 37 please.

11 answered here

4. What’s a word that makes you go absolutely feral?

Incandescent is a rather beautiful word I'm finding lately. My first favorite word was (and it's still in the running) is serendipity. I just love the sentiment of that word. These are all rather positive. I guess feral in a negative way might be squish - a word that doesn't leave a super pleasing sound in my mind after I say it. There's a ton that I don't love because of connotation or meaning, but I won't go there here.

24. How much prep work do you put into your stories? What does that look like for you? Do you enjoy this part or do you just want to get on with it?

For the most part, I don't prep at all. I have an idea and I go with the first initial concept of that idea in my mind and try to get that idea down on paper before I lose it and once that initial idea is written, I let the story carry me where it decides to go. The only stories I really plan are when I'm working with the four times and then one time after that trope - in which case I write what the concept will be for each vignette or "time" in the story and then I go from there.

34. Thoughts on the Oxford comma, Go:

I'm here for the comma. I'm a fan of reducing confusion in writing and I'm also a fan of a three listing. Pro comma.

37. If you were to be remembered only by the words you’ve put on the page, what would future historians think of you?

It's funny you ask this question because I recently looked through my comments (as a fic writer often does) and noticed many readers noticing my writing as some version of poetic. To that I'm truly and incredibly flattered, so I can only hope that in the future, that sentiment stands true.

Send in a weird writer ask

#thank you for the ask #ask answered

[thranduil-aran-edhil]

32-37 😍

helloo! <3 32. What is a line from a poem/novel/fanfic etc that you return to from time and time again? How did you find it? What does it mean to you?

OH I KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO ANSWER THIS ONE.

A little girl without a doll is almost as unhappy, and quite as impossible, as a woman without children. So Cosette had made herself a doll out of the sword.

IT'S SO VISCERAL, makes me go feral.

33. Do you practice any other art besides writing? Does that art ever tie into your writing, or is it entirely separate?

I love collaging and bookbinding! One day I wanna bookbind a whole fic! Maybe even one of my own works.

34. Thoughts on the Oxford comma, Go:

uuuuh, it certainly exists and maybe I sometimes even get it right, but I don't think I'd be able to be like "ah yes, here it is, the Oxford comma"

35. What’s your favorite writing rule to smash into smithereens?

Ah the whole "every scene should move the plot forward", fuck that I love completely "useless" scenes that are just about vibing.

36. They say to Write What You Know. Setting aside for a moment the fact that this is terrible advice...what do you Know?

I know that enough time on a research vortex can help you know stuff SFLJDFKJHS

37. If you were to be remembered only by the words you’ve put on the page, what would future historians think of you?

Well, judging by my bujo they'd probably know i have a very messy brain and i procrastinate a lot (im sorry for migrating that task like 4 times in a row, bujo, im sorry)

#thank you for the ask! sorry its not nice and pretty like the other ones #tumblr is being a bitch #alexturne

[christinaroseandrews]

Queens of the Crusades follows the lives of five of England's Queens: Eleanor of Aquitaine (Henry II), Berengaria of Navarre (Richard I), Isabella of Angoulême (John I), Eleanor (Alienor) of Provence (Richard III), and Eleanor of Castile (Edward I) -- Yes lots of Eleanors.  The book uses primary sources and other research (mostly Mathew Paris) to tell the story of these five queens.

The majority of the book focuses on two of them: the formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine and the ambiguous Eleanor of Castile. In fact, the first third of the book is devoted to Eleanor of Aquitaine which can be good or bad depending on your tastes. I personally would have liked a bit more time spent on the other queens... particularly Isabella, but that is me.

The book is told in Weir's incredibly readable style. And it's easy for the armchair historian to pick up and follow along with. While there's a lot of very interesting information in this book, readers need to be aware that there is some unstated bias in the prose and some theories/facts which are in dispute. It's a good start for people looking for more information about these queens who have exhausted Wikipedia but it's really only a start.

There were also some odd tangents at times that didn't seem to fit with the rest of the narrative and felt shoehorned in because they were interesting tidbits but didn't relate fully to the information at hand.

In all, I am torn about what to rate this book. It's readable. It's approachable. But there's a lack of context provided to some of the sources and Weir's bias is present but it's not stated or acknowledged. There's also the potential for confusion regarding the names in this book. Maud is used instead of Mathilda for Henry II's mother. Alienor is used for Eleanor of Provence. At several points, I had to pause to check to make sure that the name in question was a viable one and that lessened my reading enjoyment. I'm not a fan of fact-checking my non-fiction, and I needed to fact check much of this book. Additionally, I also felt that the book was uneven. The section on Eleanor of Aquitaine was far and away the best and most in depth. However the section on Berengaria of Navarre felt lacking.

If you're a fan of Weir's work, you're going to enjoy this. If you aren't, I'd give it a miss. If you're new to the subject, then this is a good starting point and something light and easy to read.

In all, I liked and disliked parts of this book. And for that I give this:

Three Stars

If this is your jam, you can get it here.

If you like these kind of honest reviews, please consider supporting us here!

I received an ARC of this book via NetGalley

#book review #historical nonfiction #eleanor of aquitaine #eleanor of castile #berengaria of navarre #historical queens #english queens #alison weir #there's some inaccuracies and unacknowledged bias #there's good in here too #but it's hit and miss #three stars #Rose and Lark review books #I don't have a hate-on for Alison Weir like some people #She's not a trained historian and that bugs some people #It doesn't bug me #I just want her to admit her biases and check her sources #you don't have to go to oxford to be a historian #or have to spend years in school #that's just elitist #and this is a hill I will die on

[useless-englandfacts]

I don’t know if you’ll be able to help out, but I support BLM and want to learn more about black people in the UK but most of the stuff out there is about America. Do you have any recommendations about British black people? Books or documentaries or resources?

I'd be happy to help out! I agree the US tends to dominate conversations about race, but happily there are quite a few British books out there too! Disclaimer that these are just off the top of my head so if anyone wants to add more then please go ahead!

Black and British: A Forgotten History by David Olusoga! He's a prominent Black historian and has also done multiple documentaries which aim to expand traditional narratives of British history to include people of colour who are so often written out. You can find a full list on his Wikipedia page of course, though I'm unsure as to how many are on iPlayer and such! There's a child-friendly version of Black and British here too for any parents/teachers who are interested!

Brit(ish) by Afua Hirsch is a more autobiographical book about Hirsch's experiences growing up as a mixed race woman in Britain. Hirsch attended Oxford University and works at the BBC, so it’s offers a good insight into what it's like for POC to exist in spaces that have traditionally been saved for rich white people. She's a journalist too so there are various articles of hers floating about covering a range of issues, some of which relate to race. She's also done a few documentaries that are worth checking out, including The Battle for Britain's Heroes which questions whether some of our 'heroes' (e.g. Churchill, Nelson) should really be honoured, and (not British but) African Renaissance which looks at Black culture in Ethiopia, Senegal and Kenya - maybe the first time I've seen African culture shown on its own terms.

Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire by Akala is another half autobiographical work, covering stuff like the far right in Britain, policing and education. It does a great job of cutting through the squeamishness I think Brits often have when talking about race.

Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race by Reni Eddo-Lodge has become a sort of classic of its genre but I think it's totally worthy of all the praise it's received! It looks at how lots of white people in Britain (and more generally) equate racism with full-on hate crimes, meaning they don't consider themselves racist despite regularly committing micro-aggressions/other unintentional acts. Also an absolutely stellar insight into intersectionality throughout the book! Cannot recommend enough!

Feminism, Interrupted: Disrupting Power by Lola Olufemi is a must-read for feminists! It discusses modern-day feminism and how it needs to remove itself from that girlboss capitalist yuckiness, and should instead focus on marginalised issues within feminism such as transmisogyny, sex work, and - of course - racism. Has been praised by Angela Davis so that's a huge plus!

The Good Immigrant edited by Nikesh Shukla is a collection of essays by POC from across Britain sharing experiences of racism and immigration, and what it feels like to be constantly regarded as an 'other' or as an ambassador for your race.

Literally anything by Paul Gilroy! His work is slightly older and some of it is very ~academic~ but I don't want to suggest that it's therefore totally inaccessible. He talks a lot more about British national identity and our role in the world and how that has affected views on race and immigration. He's written lots (I recommend Googling him and having a better look yourself!) but There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack and After Empire: Melancholia or Convivial Culture are both fab.

If you're feeling brave then you could look at anything by Marxist darling Stuart Hall? Some of his writing is very difficult to penetrate imo, but it's worth it if you can. He's written a lot so I would recommend browsing his Wikipedia page first and seeing if there's anything that grabs you. Even if you don't feel up to reading his stuff cover to cover, he's still someone who every antiracist in Britain should know!

Honourary mention to Thinking Black: Britain, 1964-1985 by Rob Waters just because he taught me at university hehe! Obviously more of an academic history book, but again pretty accessible and a good insight into more radical Black politics in Britain in the era.

I haven't read it myself as I believe it's only just come out but David Harewood has a book called Maybe I Don't Belong Here: A Memoir of Race, Identity, Breakdown and Recovery which looks worth checking out! Foreword by our beloved David Olusoga too!

If you're still looking for more then a good tip with any of the academic books listed here is that you can browse the footnotes and/or bibliography to find further reading there!

If you're looking for documentaries then on the BBC you can browse for Black History Month stuff, (fictional) shows that centre Black British characters and narratives, and documentaries that do the same. There has been quite a lot done in the past year about all sorts of stuff - from Black people in the NHS, what it's like being Black in the church, more specific stuff on Stephen Lawrence, Windrush, the Newcross Fire, and even specials on Black celebrities such as Lenny Henry. There's also a Black and Proud section on Channel 4's website that does something similar (side note: cannot believe they've put Hollyoaks on there that's so funny).

I don't read much fiction myself, but it is important not just to see Black Britons as victims of racism, but also as… you know… complicated and fully rounded human beings who are able to experience the full spectrum of human emotion like everyone else. Like black people just… existing. Looking to others who do read fiction to help flesh out this section in particular but a couple again off the top of my head:

Girl, Woman, Other by Bernadine Evaristo

Love in Colour by Bolu Babalola (I know this isn’t about Britain per se, but she's a Black British writer so I think it counts).

This is probably more than you asked for and you can likely tell that my academic background is in history so it is skewed towards that but I hope this helps! And again, if anyone wants to add anything then feel free!

- Dominique

#asks #anonymous #BLM #black lives matter #long post #recommendations #books #resources

[apinchofm]

Diana and Phoebe in between research!

I loved in season 3 how they showed Diana and Phoebe working together, and it implied that they became quite close, so had this in mind!

Diana stretched and yawned as they went over yet another dead end. She knew finding the pages from the Book of Life wouldn't be easy but this was tricky.

Having Phoebe, who was a diligent and organized historian in her own right was a massive help. This girl knew how to go through auction houses, museums and collections like it was nothing.

"Are you tired?" Phoebe asked, noticing Diana shifting. She was five months pregnant now, she supposed she would be getting tired more often.

"No, let's just take a break." Diana moved to the sofa near the fireplace, and beckoned Phoebe over, "Let's just hang out. It's been a while since I've had a conversation that wasn't about a magic book."

They spoke about growing up, school. Phoebe knew a little about Diana, mainly the dead parents part and was glad to spend some time with her.

"Yale is beautiful, but Cambridge here is better." Phoebe replied, "We are the original, after all."

"Cambridge?" Diana smiled, impressed.

"I know this family are an Oxford bunch." Phoebe joked, "Marcus doesn't consider it a deal breaker."

"It'll be our secret." Diana teased, "What made you study Art History? It's very niche." She had done straight history at undergrad, narrowing her focus when she got to postgrad, but everyone was different.

Phoebe sipped her coffee before answering, "I used to visit so many museums and historical sites when I was growing up. There was always a story behind the artwork, a mystery. And I always wanted to know why. I think a lot of people think art is frivolous but it tells us so much. Like those miniatures of yours."

"We are the children that couldn't stop asking why?" Diana said, "Are your parents historians?"

"No, my mother's a teacher, linguistics, which helps with old languages. My father is in the Queen's diplomatic service." Phoebe said and the witch was further impressed, "That's how they met, actually. Surprised a lot of people."

Diana nodded in understanding, "That's really sweet. I bet they would adore Marcus." A doctor from an old aristocratic family? A rebel who had never cared for social convention?

They were perfect for each other. Diana was hoping she would get to see a wedding, despite how tense things were between Marcus and Matthew.

"They would love him, though the part about him being three hundred years old they may find a touch unsettling." Phoebe said.

"Oh, and the diet consisting of blood."

"Little things, you know?" They both laughed.

"You're human and you are dating a vampire and you don't even back down at his father." Diana said, "I'm impressed. And I'm glad you're here and that Marcus has someone."

"Thanks, but you are the most impressive one here." Phoebe replied, "Super witch."

"Ugh, don't. You're the only one who treats me normally." Diana said, "It's nice, just getting to be a historian again,"

"Books were always my escape too." Phoebe mused, "Funny, isn't it, where life takes you? We read our way to where we are now."

Diana winced as one twin kicked and laughed, "Hilarious. I miss chocolate.

Phoebe held her finger, and went to her handbag and pulled out a bar of Cadbury's dairy milk, "Period craving." She split the bar in half and gave it to Diana

"You, Phoebe Taylor are my favourite."

"As are you, Dr Bishop."

#a discovery of witches #diana bishop #phoebe taylor #adow fic #drabble #missing scene #adows3 #fluff

[heartofstanding]

hello!!! i was encouraged to send you an ask about henry v and his possible (?) boyfriend (?) richard courtenay! if im understanding correctly he died @ harfleur and henry said to bury them with each other so they stuck RC underground in westminster and he was just chillin there undiscovered for?? 550 years?? and hes still there in the same chantry as henry v?? and henry v was like 'catherine my Wife and the mother of my Future Kingly Children can just go wherever' ????? hello??? i MUST be misunderstanding something else im going insane

hi! I am always excited to get a chance to talk about Henry V and his possible boyfriend, Richard Courtenay, Bishop of Norwich and Flower of Devon. The short answer is that no, they are probably not sharing a single tomb and we can’t say for certain that they were boyfriends BUT they did really care about each other a whole lot and Courtenay’s place of burial is REALLY INTERESTING anyway.

So the story they’re actually sharing a single a tomb has been around for awhile, I don’t know where it started and I wish I did because Courtenay’s 2004 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, while no-homoing them, says they were sharing a tomb and it’s been repeated in some works (e.g. Ian Mortimer says they’re actually sharing the same coffin in his non-recommended book about Henry V and the Agincourt campaign). A few years ago, Charles Courtenay, the Earl of Devon and descended from Richard Courtenay’s younger brother, gave an interview where he talked about going to Westminster Abbey and how he found out Richard Courtenay was buried in the chapel of Edward the Confessor, under the steps of the northern turret of Henry V’s chantry chapel. So he thinks that’s a bit weird because St Edward’s chapel is where a bunch of medieval kings, queens and their children were buried and space was at a premium. Later, the Earl has dinner with Jonathon Sumption, a historian of the Hundred Years War, and says that Sumption told him that Courtenay is actually not under the steps of the turret but in the tomb with Henry V and the Earl is like “...were they lovers then?”

Sadly, I don't think it is true.

There's no record of Henry V's tomb being ever opened but there are accounts of Courtenay's tomb being rediscovered in October 1953, including archaeological drawings of his tomb:

Apparently photographs and archaeological studies were made but these have never been published.

Although his tomb was only rediscovered in 1953, we did know he was buried in St Edward’s Chapel because medieval chroniclers, like the anonymous author of the Gesta Henrici Quinti, mentioned it, as did John Dart in his 1723 history of the Abbey. Courtenay’s tomb was also disturbed at one point during the construction of Henry V’s chantry chapel (1437-1450) These references were how Courtenay tomb was identified because there was no grave slab, plaque or memorial brass to mark it (there still isn’t). His ODNB entry was revised in 2020 to remove the reference to him sharing a tomb with Henry V and replace it with the reference to him being buried under the steps of the turret.

So, unless there’s some enormous cover up going on, it’s incredibly unlikely that Courtenay is actually in the same tomb as Henry V. Their tombs are just located in the same chapel.

It also means that Catherine de Valois’s burial place wasn’t displaced or supplanted by Courtenay (who, after all, died five years before Catherine and Henry married, seven years before Henry died and over 20 years before Catherine herself died). It is true that Henry V didn’t leave instructions for where Catherine was to be buried but considering she survived him for fifteen years, that’s pretty understandable and also fairly normal - a queen who outlived their husband had more control over her burial and her life going forward. IIRC, Catherine paid for at least some of the construction of Henry’s tomb so if she wanted burial with him, she could have easily arranged it. In short, Henry V left it up to Catherine to choose where she was buried and made no assumptions that she would want to be buried with him, that she wouldn’t remarry and that she would remain in England. She was only 21 when he died, after all.

So. Having said all that, Henry V ordering Courtenay’s burial in St Edward’s Chapel is still VERY interesting. Because space was at a premium, because it was used for the burials of kings, queens and their children and while Courtenay was descended from Edward I, he was from a fairly minor line. Nor was Westminster Abbey a natural choice for him. His family came from Devon and were buried primarily in Exeter Cathedral and he was Bishop of Norwich. So why was he buried in Westminster Abbey when Exeter Cathedral or Norwich Cathedral would be a more obvious choice? And why in St Edward’s Chapel when space was so tight that Henry V’s son Henry VI would struggle to find a space for his own tomb?

Harold, they were boyfriends.

It says, to me, that theirs was a deep, close relationship. That Henry, at least, loved Courtenay and wanted him to be close by. Wanted their bodies to lie close together, if not actually in the same tomb. That he felt this strongly is also evident by the fact that he was willing to risk upsetting the monks of Westminster by ordering Courtenay buried in St Edward’s Chapel (twenty years earlier, Richard II had aroused the “dismay” of the monks twenty years earlier by ordering the burial of John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury in the same chapel - Courtenay was better born than Waltham but also just as unlikely a person to buried in this chapel where kings and queens were buried).

It’s not enough evidence to say that they were boyfriends in an objective, historical fact kind of way. The evidence just doesn’t exist for it to be a fact. Neither Henry nor Courtenay were never connected to any allegations of sodomy or “obscene familiarity" with each other or anyone else. It doesn’t mean that they weren’t boyfriends, just that the evidence they were hasn’t survived. I mean, there’s also no evidence they weren’t boyfriends, just an absence of evidence. They might have kept their true relationship hidden, they might have been allowed a certain measure of silent acceptance so long as Henry V’s rule proceeded well or they might have merely been close friends. We don’t know. 

But. The evidence suggests that they were very close:

Juliet Barker says Courtenay “had put his extraordinary abilities wholly at the service of his king rather than his God.“

Henry, as Prince of Wales, wrote a letter to the abbot and chapter of Bury St Edmunds requesting that John Lydgate be allowed to continue his studies at Oxford on Richard Courtenay’s advice

Courtenay was called “the king’s bishop”

Courtenay took part in the embassies to France in 1414/15 “perhaps because he knew the king’s mind better than his colleagues“ and definitely knew all about the tennis ball incident.

Richard Ullerston wrote De officio militari for Henry at Courtenay’s request

Courtenay got the Prior of the Celestines in Paris to give 1000 almonds as a gift to Henry

At the siege of Harfleur, Courtenay had a tent adjoining Henry’s and sometimes shared the royal tent

The stories that Henry V didn’t have sex with women after his coronation came from Courtenay. Which is indicative of their closeness, perhaps, but it’s also very tempting to read it as “I didn’t see any women in his bed when I was in there, railing him”.

Courtenay was described as “one of the most loving and dearest of [Henry V’s] friends”

After Courtenay received extreme unction, Henry “with his own hands wiped [Courtenay’s] feet and closed his eyes”

And one of my newest discovery from Henry V’s letters patent:

Courtenay arranged for a mass to be said daily at Ottery St Mary for himself and Henry!

And if you want to get your tinhat on. This is a ring found in Courtenay’s tomb:

This is a detail of Henry’s hands from the earliest known version of his portrait

Matching rings? 😈

#richard courtenay #henry v #oh my god they were tomb mates #asks #text posts #hamletplinko

[minervacasterly]

The caricature of Margaret Beaufort:

From pop culture POV and the POV of those influenced by it, this powerful matriarch is all of the following: Religious nut case! Bitch. She killed the princes in the tower! Old and ugly! Screw her! She and her son were the worst thing that happened to England!

And yet her son became the founder of a dynasty that reigned for more than a century and continues to fascinate us. Now on to the real Meg Beaufort. In the White Queen she is all this and that but the real Meg was no religious nut case and she certainly didn't plan the murder of the Princes and you can debate me countless times on this but there is no concrete evidence that she did! Richard had more than enough motive and opportunity to kill the Princes and oh wait before I get the Ricardians on my case, I don't hate Richard. I actually find him interesting, I wouldn't find him interesting if he was perfect. Richard had learned from his brother's mistakes but made mistakes of his own. If he produced the boys then that would've propelled them to sainthood and the last thing he wanted was a cult was already building around Henry VI. What happened with this last monarch is fascinating and you might be wondering -hey! Isn't that the guy they smothered with a pillow in the White Queen? Yeah, that's the one. Except there are so many theories abounding to his death. The first one comes from Bettini who wrote three weeks after the Lancastrian king's death that it was Edward NOT Richard who gave the order. At the time the blame was solely pinned on Edward, so let's not confuse contemporary sources with secondary. Rous and Vergil writing in the Tudor period pinned the murder on Richard and even early Ricardians say that he did it, but with one major difference -*under* Edward's orders. If this is so, one thing we can all agree, if Richard gave the order or personally took care of Henry, it was all done under his brother's command. But this backfired, soon people were attributing all sorts of miracles to this guy, he became more famous in death than he had ever been in life. Edward tried hard to suppress this cult but he couldn't and Richard did the next best thing. If you can't beat them, join 'em! He cashed in on the cult and officiated a reburial of the dead monarch and started all new kinds of celebrations for him but people still talked as they always do. Now if he had produced the dead children as he and his brother had done with the Lancastrian king, then it would've been chaos, complete and utter chaos!

Margaret Beaufort's sole aim up until the princes disappearance in the summer of 1483 was to gain back her son's lands and bring him back safely. She was forced to give him up before after the Lancaster line had been wiped out from the face of the earth by Yorkist forces, ending to some historians' view, the wars of the roses in 1471. Margaret would not see him until the aftermath of Bosworth in 1485. She had little to worry about the first years of his exile, he was with his uncle Jasper, his father's brother. They intended to sail to the French court, a court his uncle knew very well but landed in Brittany instead because of the bad weather. Brittany was not on good terms with the French and they had their fair share of enmity with the English so it served the Duke well to have two valuable English hostages, one who had a considerable (if debatable) claim to the English throne via his mother. Edward attempted to coax the old Duke into give up his charge and while the Duke never believed Edward's intentions, some of his ministers did and those who didn't just wanted to cash in on the juicy rewards. Henry was an intelligent youth who was far from the serious and mama's boy he's depicted in today's fiction. He loved to laugh, play, joke and gamble. But he was aware how valuable he was and at one point feigned sickness and took sanctuary in a church when he suspected his future voyage to England was a hoax -which it was -and that small trickery on his part saved him.

By 1480, Margaret had more than enough to worry, but she wasn't giving up on her son's legacy. With Edward's promise to marry him to his eldest daughter, Margaret continued to rely on the faith that gave comfort to so many women in this period, and Edward's promise, albeit a fake one, was something she never let go of. The accession of Richard and Anne changed all that. Always an opportunist at heart, she tried to curry favor with the new regime. Whether she agreed with it or not -we will never know but her husband was an official in Richard's government and she had more than enough reason to believe that Richard would grant her her request to bring her son back. After all he was more busy convincing everyone his brother had never been legally married to Elizabeth and securing his position. But surprise, surprise for Margaret and everyone involved. Her life was never easy, it was one obstacle after another and this was no different. The boys' disappearance changed everything and Buckingham's rebellion gave her a chance she had never considered before. Her moment to shine had come. She was no longer looking to bring her son back as a mere earl but as a king so she started plotting with the queen dowager through her Welsh doctor. After a lot of plotting and intrigue and tragedy at Richard's court, her son's shining moment came and thanks to the defection of his stepfather from Richard's camp to his side, he won. There is a famous myth that his stepfather, Thomas Stanley found the crown in a thorn bush but this is likely Tudor propaganda. Richard's treatment afterwards was one that's always given by the victor to the loser, stripped of all his clothes and shamefully paraded, he was then written as the worst monarch that ever lived.

And while I do agree there needs to be a better assessment of Richard, doing the same to Margaret and Richard is just as dumb. She was born in 1443 and a year after, John Beaufort, her father and Duke of Somerset died. Many said at the time that it was because of suicide because of his terrible leadership in France. Truth or not, Margaret was now a wealthy heiress and her wardship was widely sought after. William de la Pole, the crown's favorite tried to marry her to his son, but after he was murdered, at only nine years old Margaret was brought to court to swear that she never intended to marry his son. Later she rewrote history saying that it was because of a godly vision that told her that it was her destiny to marry Edmund Tudor and establish a great house, that she denied it. Margaret married at only 12 and Edmund Tudor, anxious to get his hands on her wealth, didn't bother to wait. He impregnated her less than a year after and she gave birth in January 1457 when she was months away from being 14, to her only offspring. The birth damaged her, she never had any children with her other spouses. She had a happy marriage with her next spouse, Henry Stafford and they celebrated their anniversary in big style every year and even housed Edward IV in their hunting lodged in one occasion. This doesn't sound like the power hungry, vindictive Margaret of TV. And that's because she wasn't! She was very learned and founded and refounded many colleges, chief among them: Christ's College which had previously been God's House and St. John's in Cambridge. Aware that only the privileged few could attend these institutions she voiced her concerns in 1479, and her attempts bore fruit when Wimborne College was established posthumously in 1509, which was later renamed Queen Elizabeth's school. She also established the Lady Margaret Beaufort Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge in 1502 and the first women's college in Oxford was named after her.

In spite of her joy of seeing her son crowned, she could not help herself. Fisher and many contemporaries described how she cried -a clear sign of a woman that doesn't care about power- and when asked why, she responded because she had lived through so many kings and princes who had been murdered and killed in battle. Who knew if her son was next or if his reign would last. She cried the same tears of grief on her grandson's joint coronation with Katherine, fearing that his reign would face the same troubles.

Margaret passed away days after in 1509, after a long life of hardship and triumph.

#history #tudors #dailytudors #margaret beaufort

[qqueenofhades]

sorry if you've answered anything like this before & you don't have to answer this if you don't want to; but how do you like graduate school and what did you like about it? do you think your undergrad did a good job of preparing you for it, and why? also, what's your favorite thing about studying history and what made you want to study it in the first place?

Ahaha. I think I’ve answered this question in bits and pieces and various places before, but my perspective will have inevitably altered in some ways over time, so there’s value in trying to put it in one place here.

At the moment, I am just about one year removed from finishing my PhD (I graduated in July last year). I’ve spent about 18 months applying for jobs and fellowships on what was a bad market to start with and has, since the start of the plague, taken an even worse nosedive. To say the least, this is mentally rugged to deal with, and it’s really hard to keep throwing yourself out there when all you get, at least most of the time, is crickets. As I noted in my last ask, when the default position appears to be just to ignore you (I know people are busy, but would a quick form-generated polite response be the worst thing in the world...?) and you feel like you’re screaming into the void and going crazy and are never going to end up with a career of any kind. This is not related to graduate school per se, but it is an outcome of graduate school, so there is that to consider. I’ve said many times that if you can be happy (and make more money) doing anything apart from academia, you probably should. It’s its own weird little universe and it often doesn’t seem to work very well.

Like most people in my field, I have three degrees: B.A., M.A., PhD (yes, I am terminally overeducated). I got them slightly different from some others, who will often do a combined MA/PhD at the same institution. For my B.A., I went to a small liberal (EXTREMELY liberal) arts college, and I also studied at Oxford, so I was used to small seminars, speaking up in class, writing essays and long papers, and developing a particular academic skill set. All of this has been very useful for graduate study, so yes, even if I was not planning to be an academic historian while I was in undergrad, I lucked into a good preparation for it anyway. Then for my MA, I went to a well regarded public university and one of the smaller schools within it, and I went to a major UK research university for my PhD. So I have experience within both small-private-college and large-public-university settings, and I’ve learned a different set of useful things at each.

As far as enjoying it goes... hmm. I can’t say that I enjoyed the process of getting my PhD, even if I did love the work and really need to be an academic and am good at it and wouldn’t want to do something else. I’m not sure anyone enjoys the PhD, at least as an overall experience, just because there’s so much work, it’s so grueling, and you will spend so many hours on what looks to any sane outside observer (and sometimes often to you) like bogglingly obscure bullshit. (I cannot TELL you how many times I have done things like revise footnotes, in a 300-page dissertation, all by hand whether to remove or insert Roman numerals in their formatting depending on which style sheet was supposed to be used.) It’s obviously a necessary professional skill if you want to be an academic, but everyone has PhD war stories for a reason, so it’s not enjoying in the sense of “oh this is so fun I’m having a great time!” Those moments do exist, and they get you through the rest of it, but it’s enjoyable in that you’re learning a lot and being stretched and pushed to come up with new ways of doing things and processing a lot of information in difficult and technical ways, and that can be very rewarding. But still, Jesus.

As for why I ended up as a historian, it was kind of an accident. I may have told this story before, many moons ago, but while I took medieval history courses in my freshman year of college and was intrigued by it, I went to Oxford with the notion that I was going to study psychology as my second subject (my first was English). Then I helped out at a teaching day in a primary school in London with a workshop on the Norman Conquest, I started realizing I needed to write a book about it despite knowing absolutely nothing about it, and one thing led to another. I switched my second subject to medieval history, went on (not without some other distractions) to do a MA in history and religion, and then ended up in a PhD medieval history program. That was in 2008, 12 years ago, and here I still am, so I think it’s too late.

So yes, basically, blame William the Conqueror. It’s all his fault.

#school stuff #anonymous #ask