quite-possibly-haunted

[quite-possibly-haunted]

btw I think the big thing that matters in NZ is that our founding document is not a constitution it is a treaty

this gets confusing sometimes because people try to treat it as a constitution and it does serve some of the same functions as that

but the thing about a treaty is that you can't make amendments in the way you can a constitution - it's a bilateral agreement and it needs bilateral agreement to be changed (the current Bill which is causing the furore is an attempt to unilaterally change what it means, a thing which is incompatible with the idea of a treaty)

and the thing that people (David Seymour) don't like is that it specifies different provisions for Māori and non-Māori, so they're trying to overwrite that

the thing is: of course Māori and non-Māori have different provisions. There are specific protections for taonga and whenua (treasures and land) and in return the rest of us get to live here

like very literally this document is the basis of our right to exist in this land please consider not undermining that

[quite-possibly-haunted]

My area of expertise is 17th-18th century England and America, so this might not be exactly what you were looking for, but:

The window in between “a bank account becoming a thing that the average person needs to have” and “women being allowed to have bank accounts” is smaller than a lot of people might think! In medieval Europe, a bank was somewhere you would go to get a large loan, or to exchange money into the local currency if you were traveling, etc—all things modern banks do, of course, but also things most people were unlikely to need. And the idea of having a bank *account* is much more recent.

Now, on to the topic of women. Unmarried women owning their own money/property is something that comes up quite often in 17th-18th century legal documents—specifically, widows. Legally, women were, essentially, considered an extension of their husbands, so widows could easily continue owning the land/businesses that their husbands had had. 18th-century Paris was chock-full of businesses run by widows (at least, if my memory of a book I read 4 years ago serves me). Legally, in England, a husband was required to leave his wife a minimum of 1/3 of his property in his will, but it was extremely common for a man to leave his wife everything he owned with the explicit instructions that she could divide things among their children however she pleased.

An excellent example of the whole “woman is an extension of her husband” thing, and how widows could use it to their advantage, is a woman named Elizabeth Warren whose husband Richard came over on the Mayflower. In 1626 he was granted the status of Purchaser (basically a privileged type of shareholder in the colony, any more thorough explanation of the concept would require a lengthy lecture on the economics of Plymouth Colony). In 1628, he died, and the other Purchasers voted UNANIMOUSLY to give his former position to his widow. Elizabeth remained a Purchaser for as long as the status existed, and went on not only to administer Richard’s lands, but to buy a considerable amount more and become one of the wealthiest people (not women, *people*) in the colony. She also got sued multiple times in Plymouth court, proving that she was considered a legal entity in her own right.

Of course, that’s just widows. What about women who simply chose never to marry?

In any Catholic country (aka all of Europe until the 16th century), the choice for a woman who doesn’t want to marry is obvious: become a nun. Of course, all nunneries were different, but some nuns were able to become highly educated and were well-respected individuals (the most famous example being Hildegard von Bingen). It was also possible, though rare, for an educated woman to remain single and unattached to any religious organization: Europe’s first female mathematics professor, Maria Agnesi, was supported by her wealthy family for her entire life.

Of course, in Protestant countries post-Reformation, becoming a nun was no longer an option. For the vast majority of women, this simply meant they had no choice but to get married. Marriage wasn’t simply about social pressure in this time, it was also pure survival—both “men’s work” and “women’s work” were utterly necessary, and any household that was missing one half of that equation was not going to last long. Financially independent women could just hire male servants to do the men’s work, but those were almost always widows, since there were few other ways to become financially independent.

And then, in the mid-17th century, the religious landscape of England EXPLODED. New sects were being founded left and right, many of which no longer exist, but some (like Baptists and Quakers) do. And women were right in the thick of it. Unmarried women joined (and sometimes led) these groups, finding community in religion in a way not unlike what their medieval forebears did in becoming nuns.

Some female prophets (like the Baptist Anna Trapnell) wandered England preaching the Gospel. More often, women attached themselves to groups led by men. Quaker preacher James Nayler notably had a group of female followers who were interrogated about his beliefs after he was arrested for blasphemy.

In America, the Great Awakening(s) allowed for even more unmarried women to join religious movements. Leaders of new movements took advantage of recently-colonized land to start entire towns from scratch, with society structured according to their (often unorthodox) beliefs. The Shakers, for example, believed that all contact between men and women was sinful. The Oneida Community went in the exact opposite direction, practicing communalism of both property and sex, with a doctrine of “free love” that did away with marriage entirely. According to modern studies of the community, women there enjoyed a lot of freedoms and opportunities they did not in the outside world. How enticing this was to other women can be seen in the case of Tryphena Hubbard, a young woman who joined the community against her father’s will (the ensuing court case nearly ended the movement).

I am personally of the opinion that a lot of the proliferation of “wacky cults” in the 17th-19th centuries can be chalked up to women who, in a past century, would’ve become nuns.

Anyway, that was a lot of information, and I’m not sure if any of it was what you were actually interested in. I just saw an opportunity to infodump about early modern women’s history and took it.

History side of Tumblr: What did unmarried women do back in the days before they could have their own bank accounts? Was their money just technically the property of their closest male relative? What if they didn't have any male relatives?

Could they own/be willed property or did that also belong to a male relative?

[quite-possibly-haunted]

white artists on here are like "I'll draw Jesus the way he REALLY would look :)" *racist anti-arab caricature but in the heartstopper art style*

[quite-possibly-haunted]

Here's THE masterpost of free and full adaptations, by which I mean that it's a post made by the master.

Anthony and Cleopatra: here's the BBC version, here's a 2017 version.

As you like it: you'll find here an outdoor stage adaptation and here the BBC version. Here's Kenneth Brannagh's 2006 one.

Coriolanus: Here's a college play, here's the 1984 telefilm, here's the 2014 one with tom hiddleston. Here's the Ralph Fiennes 2011 one.

Cymbelline: Here's the 2014 one.

Hamlet: the 1948 Laurence Olivier one is here. The 1964 russian version is here and the 1964 american version is here. The 1964 Broadway production is here, the 1969 Williamson-Parfitt-Hopkins one is there, and the 1980 version is here. Here are part 1 and 2 of the 1990 BBC adaptation, the Kenneth Branagh 1996 Hamlet is here, the 2000 Ethan Hawke one is here. 2009 Tennant's here. And have the 2018 Almeida version here. On a sidenote, here's A Midwinter's Tale, about a man trying to make Hamlet. Andrew Scott's Hamlet is here.

Henry IV: part 1 and part 2 of the BBC 1989 version. And here's part 1 of a corwall school version.

Henry V: Laurence Olivier (who would have guessed) 1944 version. The 1989 Branagh version here. The BBC version is here.

Julius Caesar: here's the 1979 BBC adaptation, here the 1970 John Gielgud one. A theater Live from the late 2010's here.

King Lear: Laurence Olivier once again plays in here. And Gregory Kozintsev, who was I think in charge of the russian hamlet, has a king lear here. The 1975 BBC version is here. The Royal Shakespeare Compagny's 2008 version is here. The 1974 version with James Earl Jones is here. The 1953 Orson Wells one is here.

Macbeth: Here's the 1948 one, there the 1955 Joe McBeth. Here's the 1961 one with Sean Connery, and the 1966 BBC version is here. The 1969 radio one with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench is here, here's the 1971 by Roman Polanski, with spanish subtitles. The 1988 BBC one with portugese subtitles, and here the 2001 one). Here's Scotland, PA, the 2001 modern retelling. Rave Macbeth for anyone interested is here. And 2017 brings you this.

Measure for Measure: BBC version here. Hugo Weaving here.

The Merchant of Venice: here's a stage version, here's the 1980 movie, here the 1973 Lawrence Olivier movie, here's the 2004 movie with Al Pacino. The 2001 movie is here.

The Merry Wives of Windsor: the Royal Shakespeare Compagny gives you this movie.

A Midsummer Night's Dream: have this sponsored by the City of Columbia, and here the BBC version. Have the 1986 Duncan-Jennings version here. 2019 Live Theater version? Have it here!

Much Ado About Nothing: Here is the kenneth branagh version and here the Tennant and Tate 2011 version. Here's the 1984 version.

Othello: A Massachussets Performance here, the 2001 movie her is the Orson Wells movie with portuguese subtitles theree, and a fifteen minutes long lego adaptation here. THen if you want more good ole reliable you've got the BBC version here and there.

Richard II: here is the BBC version. If you want a more meta approach, here's the commentary for the Tennant version. 1997 one here.

Richard III: here's the 1955 one with Laurence Olivier. The 1995 one with Ian McKellen is no longer available at the previous link but I found it HERE.

Romeo and Juliet: here's the 1988 BBC version. Here's a stage production. 1954 brings you this. The french musical with english subtitles is here!

The Taming of the Shrew: the 1980 BBC version here and the 1988 one is here, sorry for the prior confusion. The 1929 version here, some Ontario stuff here, and here is the 1967 one with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. This one is the Shakespeare Retold modern retelling.

The Tempest: the 1979 one is here, the 2010 is here. Here is the 1988 one. Theater Live did a show of it in the late 2010's too.

Timon of Athens: here is the 1981 movie with Jonathan Pryce,

Troilus and Cressida can be found here

Titus Andronicus: the 1999 movie with Anthony Hopkins here

Twelfth night: here for the BBC, here for the 1970 version with Alec Guinness, Joan Plowright and Ralph Richardson.

Two Gentlemen of Verona: have the 2018 one here. The BBC version is here.

The Winter's Tale: the BBC version is here

Please do contribute if you find more. This is far from exhaustive.

(also look up the original post from time to time for more plays)

[quite-possibly-haunted]

Palestinian militants protecting the Maghen Abraham Synagogue in Beirut from attacks during the Lebanese Civil War. The synagogue stood from 1925 until the IDF bombed and destroyed it in 1982