marietheran

[marietheran]

because I guess there are strong similarities?

all the problems of the world have to do with this one specific family

"the dark lord wouldn't just go on the internet and lie, right?"

is this a common thing for most people in a given fandom to take stuff that could just as well have a big flaring red sign of "this is the big bad's propaganda and manipulation" over it completely seriously, or is it specifically a problem with the star wars and silmarillion people?

[marietheran]

The wild thing about anti-monarchists is that they seem to genuinely think that the average eastern european is smart enough to govern themselves. Like, no, asshole: we’re stupid as fuck, and cannot be left to our own devices. Royals may be inbred, but democracy is fucking degenerate.

No, that stance is the opposite extreme and I do not endorse that at all.

As an Eastern European I do not allow anybody to call us stupid, not even myself. People already look down on us way too much. And what's the alternative to us governing ourselves? Russia ruling over us? Hard pass!!! Even Eastern European countries had their own kingdoms back in the day, such as Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Greece, and also Central-Eastern countries like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was a superpower in its peak in the Middle ages. Heck, before Russians took over, there was such a thing as a Duchy of Kyiv! Eastern Europeans have always been better off governing ourselves, and we did have our own kingdoms, and thrived when we were not actively subjugated! What's the alternative to governing ourselves? Well from Romanian history alone, being ruled over by: The Ottoman Empire, The Habsburg/ Austro-Hungarian Empire, The Russian Empire + the URSS by proxy during communism, Greek nobles that one time in the 1840s, and so on and so forth. The main reason Eastern European countries are as far back as they are is NOT because we're in any way worse than Western Europeans, it's because throughout centuries we bore the brunt of all major battles and invasions in Europe while Western Europe was largely spared/ protected, and took that peace for granted. If there is one inherent thing about Eastern Europeans that I personally believe is a bad influence would be their fatalistic mentality as opposed to the better mindset of self-determinism and endurance. But even that's not fully true. Look at the insane level of resilience Poland had, surviving and thriving after having been wiped off the map for a century straight!

And I jumped to the assumption that not governing ourselves = being under Russian rule because I know some of my fellow Romanians believe that, and I beg them and everybody who holds this view to reconsider! Russia isn't the saviour here, not at all. The West may be extremely corrupt now but what we need is not an equally corrupt East but in the opposite extreme. It's very sinister to see fellow Romanians thinking they're being patriotic when they endorse actual pro-Russian politicians. This is not the way. Eastern European countries thrive when they aren't subjugated or in constant war, as history shows. We must self govern. We, of course, need strong alliances like any other country, but I really don't think Russia would be a good ally, not until it sheds its last remnants of communism and corrupt politicians from the previous regime, not until it undergoes genuine reform. Do not trust them just because they market themselves as protectors of tradition and Christianity and whatever else; they're not they're just politicians who know what rhetoric will appeal to people. And if you're Western and think America or whoever else is imperialistic, take a long, close look at Russia and you will see who the actual imperialist is here.

Also. It's not democracy that's degenerate. Not inherently, not at all. Do you think all the evil that came about in the world is because people were allowed to vote? I would not go into that extreme! Freedom is a good thing. It's not too much freedom that allows evil, just as it's not restriction that somehow "prevents" evil from happening. I will say very bluntly that the main reason our society has degenerated the way it has is because of secularism and the increasingly aggressive forms thereof. You cannot purge God out of every single aspect of culture and expect to become more civilised. Even if you don't like this answer, this is the truth. It's not Europe, by itself, that made the world better. It's not monarchy, by itself that made the world better. It's not the West by itself that made the world better. There's nothing about our tradition or history or form of government or whatever, that inherently, alone, by itself, made the world better. All of this would've made a worse world, in fact, if it weren't for Christianity. The only reason the West and Europe and kingdoms thrived so much from the middle ages onwards is Christianity. Whenever any country adopts Christianity en masse they see huge progress in terms of human rights, healthcare, education etc. Christianity is what shaped the West, and Europe, and made it great.

The real danger is in people who don't see the necessity for Christianity and think the West is just inherently, somehow, better and think they can go on progressing without God, and not only that, but by violently promoting atheism and going against everything that their predecessors stood for. And their predecessors were all steeped in Christian culture! But secularists deny that and act like the more we abandon the vestiges of Christianity from out culture, the better. Well it's been more than a century of secularism now. Look at the West. Not so full of progress is it. Turns out you do become more and more degenerate the more you reject all of the values your society was built on!

So while I am a monarchist, yes I do believe Romania was better off staying a kingdom (especially since we were forcibly made communist immediately afterwards), I do not adhere to monarchism independently of Christianity. For example, I like Deuteronomy 17 (the latter half of the chapter) for a nice Bible passage that describes the ideal king. But I will go a step further and say no king can be truly just, truly good unless he knows he worships a higher King than himself, Jesus Christ the King of Kings! And the best kings in history are like that. I think especially about our last king, Mihai the 1st, who was very devout. Obviously no king is perfect but my point is that any country thrives in a Christian culture. I would not like to live in a monarchy that was not Christian, which there are plenty of even in the 2020s.

I will now make two very important disclaimers. One. I do not condone theocracy. While Christianity is objectively the best for any culture, it is not our job as Christians to forcefully convert people or to impede religious freedom, or to impose stuff like Old Testament laws, and especially not by conquering other countries! And wherever the church and state are synonymous, it's the church that gets corrupted first and foremost, as it becomes increasingly preoccupied with politics (ie worldly things). This would just be the opposite extreme of the secularism we face today. We should not make compromises but neither should we go into extremes.

Two. It should go without saying that I'm not against democracy. Monarchy and democracy can coexist, democracy is not synonymous with republics and it's a very strange dichotomy to make! There are many forms of monarchy aside from autocracy. For example most modern European kingdoms are parliamentary monarchies. In the 1920s when Romania was still a kingdom it was a Constitutional monarchy ie even the king was subject to the Constitution. And if you were to ask me what form of monarchy makes most sense to me in the modern times, I'd say one in which the king fulfills the role that the prime minister would in a republic. Such a king is thus more than a mere representative/ figurehead but also leaves enough room for the separation of powers in the state (separate Parliament, Supreme Court etc, that cab be voted in). Anyway that's just my opinion. Point is. Democracy is good, actually. People should be allowed to vote. And people bring stupid isn't a valid argument against that; people will always be stupid, we don't get to restrict their rights because we think we're any smarter. And my being a monarchist doesn't even mean I hate republics on principle! What I do hate is the violent way many previous kingdoms were forcibly turned into republics (many of which communist ones; with Romania, we never had a democratic republic until 1990. We went from a thriving monarchy to a communist dictatorship!). But if there are countries that started out republics, they can stay that way as far as I'm concerned. The main thing about my support of monarchy is righting the wrong that were the endless revolutions since the 18th century onwards. Countries discarding their entire tradition, and for what? Countries being stripped of their tradition and brainwashed to think this is the best or the only way. That's the situation in Europe. I do think most European countries would've been better off staying kingdoms. But countries that don't have such a long running history of that? They don't have to become a kingdom, I don't think monarchy would bring any benefit at all to a country like America for example. No point in that. And also if there somehow were a scenario in which a European country decided to be a republic by completely peaceful and democratic ways I'd respect that. But that does not tend to happen at all.

I will say though that what baffles me the most are British anti monarchists. You're one of the only ones left and you want to get rid of that? Incomprehensible mindset to me. Doesn't help that Britain has become extremely secular lately. I know part of it has to do with their previous imperialism (which I've already established, is wrong. No country should conquer another). But, key word "previous". It's not like British monarchists are pro imperialism they just want to preserve their traditions. And I do think that some people unwisely think of kingdoms as a thing of the past and think becoming a republic is what makes their country modern. Nothing further from the truth, and I wish I saw less of this mindset.

But ultimately we cannot turn back time. I don't expect people to want to go back to their roots any time soon. And while I definitely would prefer my country, especially, stayed a kingdom, I wouldn't prioritise that over everything else. The most important thing is having a ruler that's actually willing to preserve Christian culture. Better a godly president than a godless king. If there will ever be such a reform, it will have to happen in slow incremental steps, because people are still under the impression that republicanism is the only modern way to rule a country. I do think it's important for countries to preserve their traditions and would love to see that. But what's truly most important is that Europe and the West return to its Christian roots. And the other stuff will come in its own time.

[marietheran]

#probably the only revolution worse was Haiti's <- Haiti at least has the defence of being against an outside tyrant, a nation vs nation thing, whatever the bloodshed at the end became.

(although maybe as a Polish person, I have little right to speak, since Poles were spared from the slaughter)

***

Also, Marie Antoinette didn't actually pretend to do farmwork, she pretended she was a lesser noble running a farm, doing the administration and stuff, instead of having other people do it for her. Which was in my opinion a very reasonable thing for her to do.

"marie antoinette used to play pretend poverty" big deal there's a ton of university art students in new york doing the same thing

[marietheran]

For sale: baby stiletto heels, never worn. What was my mother in law thinking

[marietheran]

Frankenstein from the perspective of any of the other characters would be INSANE.

This guy goes off to university; flourishes; stops writing home; and then has a complete mental and physical collapse. While he's still recovering from that, his baby brother is strangled to death. He come home devastated, insistent that the servant accused of the crime CAN'T have done it, and seems more broken by her death and his brother's than anyone else. He is, in fact, VERY Haunted about something. The best anyone can come up with is "do you not want to marry your childhood fiancee anymore?"

He insists he does but he has to go to England first for unclear reasons. His bff goes with him. His bff is strangled to death in Ireland; he's arrested for the murder, released on a an ironclad alibi, but has ANOTHER total breakdown and, even after recovering, frequently insists he killed his brother, the servant, and his bff. Varies between depression, terror, and catatonic fits on and after the journey home.

The best anyone can come up with, again, is "Are you SURE you still want to marry me? Were you upset the last time you were home because there's Someone Else?" He responds that he expects very little happiness in life for any of them, going forward, but he definitely wants to marry her, and the day after their wedding he will reveal why he is a blasted and ruined man. This is kind of a typical interaction at this point, for him.

But he's totally ready to get married in ten days! He's excited for it, even!

He comes home the night after the wedding to tell his father that his bride was strangled to death.

His father died of grief. He himself has ANOTHER breakdown and is put in an insane asylum for many months.

When he finally becomes coherent and stable enough to be released again, he takes all the money he possesses, leaves the country (and his one remaining brother), and is never heard of again.

The local magistrate has a long story from him, given shortly before he left, about an eight-foot-tall abomination he created at college through the Power Of Science. He told the magistrate this abomination committed all the murders.

[marietheran]

“...I translated it from the Ensur into the Mede a long time ago. I was in Attolia when I translated it into your language. I used to sit sometimes in the kitchens, and the workers there liked to ask me about where I came from. Once when they were telling stories of the Attolian afterlife, they asked me if there were stories of the Mede afterlife. One of them kept asking until I translated Ennikar and Immakuk and the Queen of the Night for him. I liked doing it, so I kept at it.”

Thick as Thieves — Megan Whalen Turner

[marietheran]

I receive: telling mom you hit me

You receive: telling mom I hit you first

Sibling relationships are like

Trade offer

I receive: you not telling mom I hit you

You receive: permission to hit me back

[marietheran]

'I am so mad that I think [X] should die' is an inside thought for the record.

lesson of the day:

[marietheran]

This is the highest compliment I could receive on my art

[marietheran]

I won't say that I'm getting a good grade at loving my enemies, something that is both normal to wish for and possible to achieve et cetera, since it's probably mostly emotional... but I am in an oddly good mood for someone who's had death wished on them three times in three minutes :)))

[marietheran]

Dearie who sent me an anon, I am not publishing it for blasphemy, but if you thought you'd insult me by wishing the crown of martyrdom upon me, you did not. In truth, I have to thank you for the well wishing.

[marietheran]

...Am I the only person who finds this a very curious combination of words to use in one sentence?

[marietheran]

Anyway we've had a real snowfall (in november terms) this time and it's set to snow more in the night.

[marietheran]

This is badass: Medieval Nubian Fashion Brought to Life. Click through to the link because there’s more replica clothing and it is all stunning!

[marietheran]

Catholics believe it’s important to name their child after a saint because giving them a “Christian name” is literally required by canon law.

That’s from the 1917 code, even the 1983 code still says:

“Choose a Christian name” and “a name not foreign to Christian sentiment” is arguably a wider net than “a Saint name” but you can see why it would be referred to that way commonly.

It isn’t always enforced anymore and cultural norms are shifting to use “Catholic adjacent” names, including place names (eg Lourdes, Guadalupe, Fatima) even where historically a given culture didn’t. Variations of names are accepted as well (eg Jennifer is a variant of Genevieve.) I don’t have a citation but I’m confident beati and widely venerated recently passed persons would have been namesake candidates too, historically. And of course ymmv on what any given priest, even some flavor of traditional one, will know, care about, or enforce.

TLDR naming your kid a saint name isn’t something hipsters made up and doesn’t deserve to be mocked since it’s actually. you know. an ancient, pious Catholic practice enshrined in law.

There are so many things you can mock Catholic subcultures for please choose something else.

[marietheran]

Oh, my son

rkgk tonight playing around with some brushes and texture ^^