#'another source has told me henry percy is not a reliable source'

[fideidefenswhore]

Whether or not this is a true composition, and the details do sound convincing, it is written from a position of strength. Anne was confident that she was soon to bear a son and that she was beyond the reach of any harm that Mary or her party might intend her. The letter distances Anne from self-interest in the matter, presenting the purest motives, urging Mrs Shelton to action out of her duty to the King. The tone is not consistent with Chapuys' contemporaneous report that Anne frequently wept in the period immediately following Catherine's death, in the realisation that a significant obstacle had been removed should Henry choose to set her aside.

Anne Boleyn: Adultery, Heresy, Desire (Licence, Amy)

[libcaro]

FBAWTFT My little review *Story*

So I’m going to summarize and comment on the key points I saw on the movie.

The story started with two major lines, the creatures that are missing and the suddenly destruction in New York.

At first all is just happy and fun with Newt being captured by Tina. A really minor dilemma that keeps escalating.

Then we go to the other side where  we have the disaster in new york followed by the MACUSA, but also with mini stories of the  Salem’s, the…  senator (the rude guy… Shaw Henry) and of course Percival.

They seems really disconnected from one another… just little coincidences among this two narratives like Tina (someone who knows Percival and Newt), the beast that Percival claims to be the source of the problem and of course credence; but credence is not as obvious as the other two because at the start we just see him as a source of information for Percival and nothing more.

Here is what I love about this, all the time I was like… “Why the fuck are you showing me this particular case of family abuse?”  And well, when Percival talks to him it seems obvious and we think “oh… this is that type character which is being taking being advantaged of … but why?” This is fed too by the constant shots on the little girl… Modesty, like is really well played and you can see the intention on it, most of the shots about the Salem’s are on her, making us believe she is the obscurial that Perci wants to find so desperately.

And this is one of the things I love in this movie; in my opinion a really well structured one, because all of the scenes has a meaning…more like an intention … and addition to the story. They are there for a reason and without one of them we wouldn’t get the whole thing.

And … I have seen the movie 3 times, the first time I got the entire “Newt stuff like getting to know him and understanding him; then, the second time, was more onto Tina and all of the characters relationships and the final time i got more into credence. That’s to say in general but in the first one at some moment before credence reveals his powers I knew he was the obscurial, because of the death of the senator, I just connected the dots at some point. And the movie answers more of the questions at the end of the movie… but it gave us hints all over it.  

Something like this:

¿why does Percival wants to find an obscurial?

¿what the hell is an obscurial? (!)

¿why does Percival wants the MACUSA to belie81ve it’s a beast?

In general … ¿what the fuck is Percival doing? (!)

Like now thinking of it, yeah all of this surrounds him since he is the “Evil” in here, the bad guy, the one making troubles for everybody. Like if he wasn’t here… Newt would have just deal with Tina and the Beast laws and credence would still be abused by that inhuman lady of the Barebone.  

Man I just realize this literally… I don’t know how should feel.

Anyway, following my preview line of thought.  

Besides Perci other questions arise, like:

¿why is the true of Newt’s visit to America?

¿why does Newt have an obscurus?

¿How does Newt plays in all of this?

Pretty simple ones, like:

¿is Newt going to collect all the creatures?

¿is he finally going to be penalized for bringing the creatures?

¿why does he bring Jacob all along?

And we got hints; Perci… seems no at all reliable.

¿why?

In the moment someone he supported doesn’t give him something he can use he just leaves. That happened with Tina. *remember that Case scene in MACUSA*

All the time something felt wrong, like something was about to happen and we were just waiting. (Building the suspense)

Then most of them start to be solved when Tina exposed Newt into the… into what I would call “the parliament of magic”.

(Because newt betrayed her trust, going out to look for the creatures with Jacob, seriously Newt… she gave you Coco :c (but well, he has broken heart and trust issues, I can’t be mad at him…

I can’t!!) )

Anyway, there we get that:

1-what is happening is not thanks to a beast but by an obscurus, said by the self-proclaimed Magizoologist himself, NEWTON SCAMANDER (clearing the doubts of the president).

2- Perci reveals his true nature… again cleared by our beautiful Magizoologist (interrogation scene)

3-Newt told us and Tina (because he wanted to convince her above anything, beautiful…) why did he had an obscurus.

4-newt told us what an obscurus is

Additional note: you know, now I see why Jacob is here, he asks for the things the audience doesn’t get, like what is an obscurus since. This is an “adult magic word” some things are taken for granted in terms of vocabulary so … he kind of asks and we get to know what the hell they are talking about.

5- We get to know who the obscurus is

6- We get to know the real intentions of Percival manipulator graves (and that get us to the final but last question that no one asked, though it makes part of the “why Percival does this” question but anyway…)

7-Percival’s real identity and final revelation of his nature. This is a plus.                                              

BUT!

We get hints, hints like:

-Greendelwald at the start in the newspaper, we knew he will have to appear in some sort of way here.

-the necklace Perci gives to credence, deathly hallows reference of Gellert and Dumbledore (I read the whole thing in wiki because I didn’t know how they are connected).

-the scene of the senator being mean to credence

-the haircut of Gellert at the start and Percival’s one

-the reason behind credence being abused by his adopting mother

- Credence hesitation to tell Perci who was the obscurus. For what I got he seems to be avoiding the topic, he never responds at first I thought it must be for his low self-esteem but now I see it more as a “he wasn’t sure if he wanted to trust him and tell him”.

And there is maybe more that I’m ignoring.

All of this gave more base to the final outcome, for me it was like just putting a camera on a series on events that are already happening… like a portion of the story. It is not like other story that starts with direct introduction of the character, it lets the character introduce itself with their actions.

Also, it gave us some previous story that we don’t know about completely but that entrails with this one.  

I think is because fantastic beast seems more like “how Newt got into this mess” so that’s why we are starting from there.

Mmm it’s also about the book thought, the title says it all. So is not just showing us the era where it was created and the person who did it, but also showing us that books have a social and a human background to it that is important to address when we read something.

A book could tell us a story but also an understanding of other eras, customs and ways of living and immerse us there, without us being there.

And FBAWTFT give us a little of that.

Since the post get really long I will separate the review into 3 posts.

CHARACTERS

RELATIONSHIPS

[thesaltydigest]

REVIEW: "The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue", or: Fetch me a couch, for I nearly swoon!

Title: The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue

Author: Mackenzi Lee

Review by: Captain Clo

Verdict: adventures of a bisexual scoundrel unable to keep his mouth shut and pathetically in love with his biracial male best friend. I had the time of my life, would totally recommend, go read it right now! 5 stars

Trigger warning for: homophobia, slight racism, parental abuse

Sometimes you just need an adventurous, fun and queer book in your life. The Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue definitely fits the bill. It can look daunting with its 500 pages, but they fly by like nobody's business. An apt summary of its plot would look more or less like this:

Dramatic escapes through Europe! Highwaymen! Pirates! Alchemy! The mysteries of Venice!

And last but not least, best friends hopelessly pining for each other.

I think the official summary of the book actually sells the book short – it's so much more than just "two friends of noble station – and a little sister – go on a Grand Tour through Europe". It's actually two friends and one sister go on a Grand Tour, the dummy of the trio enrages the Prime Minister of France, then proceeds to steal something of said Minister out of pettiness, dashes out of Versailles stark naked, and then discovers what he stole isn't just a trinket, but the key to an alchemical secret. Slightly spoilerish? I guess, but it's so much more interesting put that way.

When you read "Grand Tour" maybe you think of Mary Shelley, Percy (coincidence??) Bisshe Shelley and Lord Byron going on their disastrous romp through Europe... and  A Gentleman's Guide to Vice and Virtue is definitely not that. Unless you think of Mary Shelley as a bitter teenager snarking in disgust at her stupid male companions, and of Lord Byron as a pathetic mess trying too hard to look like a hedonist Casanova, and... well actually that kind of works, but Percy Shelley definitely wasn't a biracial violinist... with a crush on Lord Byr--- I mean, Monty... I mean I'm no expert but reliable sources told me that he was an ass! And a jerk! Percy doesn't deserve that, he's an angel.

Enter the protagonist: Henry Montague, aka Monty. He's a hot mess. A rogue, a scoundrel, a ladykiller, an unrepentant bisexual, with the good looks and the charm to get anyone he wants in his bed. Alas, he's hopelessly in love with his best friend, Percy, who is exactly the kind of level-headed, serious person who's just perfect to rein Monty in. Monty is witty, superficial and a pleasure-seeker, refusing to take anything seriously, and especially anything his father wants him to do – like being a respectable lord, studying with profit at Eton, or running a family estate, for example. Monty loathes the very idea, so what better course of action than doing every single thing his father would disapprove of?

Enter Felicity, Monty's little sister. Wicked smart and with a cutting tongue to match, she's the opposite of Monty in every way. She looks forward to the museum trips, to the scientific lectures, to the operas and the landscapes. Too bad she's a woman, and so she's not invited. Felicity loathes it, and she also loathes how Monty is so obviously unwilling to take advantage of his privilege in every way it's denied her. Felicity wants to study and to become a doctor, and she would welcome the offer to learn how to run the estates. Instead, soon she'll be shipped off to a school of good manners for young ladies, where at most she'll learn to curtsy.

Enter Percy, Monty's best friend and crush. He's the biracial son of an English member of the gentry, grudgingly accepted into the family when his father dies. He has all the things Monty doesn't have – and that he's in love with: sensitivity, artistic sense (he's a violinist and, as Monty himself notes with delight, the kind of person who loves Italian opera and can recognize an aria by its first verse), and height.

What I found most interesting about Percy is that he is actually what moves the plot along. At first, the book looks like it'll be about a hedonistic journey through Europe; but a revelation about Percy spins it in an entirely different direction – one that also challenges Monty to overcome his selfish tendencies.

I am dying to tell you what Percy's deal is because damn, I was delighted and surprised, but I can't take that away from you. Just know that it was very satisfying to see how his main problem wasn't directly linked to his race, although he does get shit for it sometimes. His relationship with Monty is the sweetest thing, but it doesn't lack thorns (read: drama), mostly because Monty is pretty clueless and it often borders on insensitive. For example, Monty always defends Percy when someone is a racist ass to him (yay!) but he doesn't see why Percy doesn't just say something witty and rude to every lord who insults him (less yay) and thinks there's really no problem, Percy is just a little darker than most, so? Which, bless him, is a very simple thing to think, and definitely not the truth. But he's also so pathetically sorry when Percy snaps at him for it, I can't really hate him.

"I could say something to your uncle."

"No."

"Why not? If he won't listen to you-"

"I know you think you're being helpful when you say things like that, and when you defend me, and I appreciate it, I really do, but please, don't. I don't need you to stand up for me – I can do that."

"But you don't-"

"You're right, sometimes I don't, because I'm not the light-skinned son of an earl so I haven't the luxury of talking back to everyone who speaks ill of me. But I don't need you to rescue me."

"I'm sorry." It comes out soft and meek, like the bleat of a lamb.

I made a very undignified noise when I first read this. Actually I just did it again.

I found the book wonderful in how it blends serious moments, scenes that tugs at the reader's heartstrings, and witty banter. On the serious side, Monty is an alcoholic, suffers from panic attacks, and although he flaunts a charming and flippant persona, he's actually consumed by self-loathing and an atavistic fear of his father. At first, it can look like Monty self-sabotaged or defied his father by getting himself kicked out of Eton, but then we learn the truth: he was kicked out because of his relationship with another boy. His relationship with Felicity is a frustrating affair where both give the worst of themselves. Monty, as mentioned, is incapable of seeing how privileged he is and how much Felicity is put down in her ambitions just because she's a woman; but Felicity has absorbed a lot of how their father treats Monty, it's hard to see her treating him like he's worthless and stupid. Every time it seems like they might get along, one or both of them revert back to old patterns, and you're just there wishing you could smack their heads together and tell them, Now love each other properly!

Then there are the moments when Monty remembers he's in love with Percy, and has the gall to get all mushy and pathetically in love like this:

"[Percy] reaches out, almost as though he can't help himself, and puts his thumb to my jawline. The tips of his fingers brush the hollow of my throat, and I feel the touch so deep I half expect that when he moves, I'll be left with an imprint there, as though I am a thing fashioned from clay in a potter's hand."

And then there's the witty banter. Everywhere. Witty banter for days. Oscar Wilde would be proud, and I'm so so happy. There's witty banter to seduce:

"She smiles, then flicks open the ivory fan hanging from her wrist and begins to work it up and down. The breeze flutters the single ringlet trailing down the back of that neck of hers that swans would envy. I have been mentally patting myself on the head for keeping my eyes on her face the whole time we've been speaking, but then the bastards betray me suddenly and dive straight down the front of her dress.

I think for a moment she may not have noticed, but then her mouth twists up and I know she's seen. But instead of slapping me or calling me a boor and storming off, she says, "My lord, would you like to see..." Telling pause. Eyelash flutter. "More or Versailles?"

"You know, I believe that I would. Though I'm short a guide."

"Perhaps you'll allow me."

"But this party seemed to be just picking up speed. I'd hate to drag you away."

"Life is filled with sacrifices."

"Am I a sacrifice?"

"One I'm happy to make."

Witty banter when Monty shows how much of a dunce he is, and how much he cannot spy on people properly:

"Helena stopped awfully short when she realized I was listening."

"Well, you were being rude."

"I wasn't being rude!"

"You were eavesdropping."

"No eaves were dropped, I was just standing about. It's their fault they weren't speaking softer."

There's witty banter almost every time he utters a word with Percy. Or utters a word, period.

"How is it that we've landed the only bear-leader for hire who's entirely opposed to the true purpose of the Tour?"

"Which is... remind me."

"Strong spirits and loose women."

"Sounds instead like it's going to be weak wine with dinner and handling yourself in your bedroom after."

"No shame in that. If the Good Lord didn't want men to play with themselves, we'd have hooks for hands. [...] Hold on, are you keen on all this cultural thing?"

"I'm not... not keen." And then he gives me a smile that I think is supposed to be apologetic but instead looks very, very keen.

"No, no, no, you have to be on my side about this! Lockwood is tyranny and oppression and all that! Don't be seduced away by his promises of poetry and symphonies and – Dear Lord, am I to be subjected to music for the entirety of out Tour?"

"Absolutely you will. And the only thing you will hate more than listening to Lockwood's selected music will be listening to me talk about said music. Sometimes I'll walk to Lockwood about music and you will hate it. You're going to have to listen to me and Lockwood using words like atonal and chromatic scale and cadenza."

"Et tu?"

Honestly, what are you even waiting for. Go buy it right now!

[fideidefenswhore]

Do you think Chapuys' account of Anne Boleyn is either lying or exaggerating?

Relevant comment section (not mine!)

For myself, well...

I can't answer a sum-total for every single report where he mentions her. Individual reports I can better answer, because I can look at the specific claims he's making, dated to the specific time, and find which claims have corroboration, which lack corroboration, and which are contradicted by (an)other source(s)...and I can contextualise with a narrower specificity, and determine potential motivations behind his presentation of what has happened.

Controversially for a "Stanne" (lol), I think in most of his dispatches, Chapuys was not "lying"—at least, not in an outright, straightforward way, if that makes sense. He was reporting what his sources told him. Whether or not his sources were being completely honest themselves is another question. Sometimes Chapuys tells on himself in his own admissions, re: sources: some reports that suggest Anne's humanity, anything mildly sympathetic towards her, are dismissed by him; he'll admit that 'several reliable quarters' told him the same story but claim he himself still does not believe the story (that Anne was crying frequently in the wake of the death of her predecessor, that Anne gifted Wolsey something valuable and sent him a message of goodwill during his illness, etc). Sometimes he will admit one 'trusted source' has told him another, newer source is not to be trusted (one was Henry Percy); but he doesn't always change his own belief in their allegations despite their advice, and sometimes there is this sense that he is actively seeking out confirmation of an earlier claim he's made, either to save face and/or because he's determined to follow that thread or 'lead', as it were (one example: "she has lately boasted that she will make of the Princess a maid of honour in her Royal household, that she may perhaps give her too much dinner" ie, poison her stepdaughter...this report was written in April 1533, nearly a year passes, he doesn't really mention the poison allegation again, but by 1534 Mary has not been made a maid of honour in Anne's household, which might've either diminished Chapuys' credibility with the Emperor, or influenced an inclination to not take reports of 'boasts' or threats from 'the concubine' seriously...so by February 1534, he has expanded and sourced the claim further, it's moved beyond a 'boast' to a plan: "A gentleman told me yesterday that the earl of Northumberland told him that he knew for certain that she had determined to poison the Princess. The Earl may know something of it, from his familiarity and credit with Anne." So we have a specific identification of a source—albeit, the most immediate one unnamed —and chain of sources with the latter that we don't in the former, and a qualification, 'the Earl may know something of it', but then this claim is inherently contradictory...Northumberland has 'familiarity and credit with Anne', but he's disparaging her? He doesn't give further qualification, doesn't claim Northumberland is a secret ally of Princess Mary, or anything to that effect.)

Now, when Chapuys gives his own accounts of one-on-one conversations he's had with others, is where we find most contradictions or rather, misrepresentations. He wasn't (always) credulous, for example, that what Cromwell told him was completely accurate, nor should he have been: Cromwell had his own motivations for presenting events certain ways. Most egregiously contradictory tends to be his relay of what (save Chabot, who was an Imperial sympathizer via his strong alliance with Eleanor of Austria) this or that French ambassador said to him. One example:

"The said ambassador further related to me that the King, on his return from a visit to his new daughter, had said to him that "he would not see or speak to the Princess, on account of her stubborn and obstinate disobedience to his commands [...] and that upon the Ambassador remarking that the Princess had been very well educated (nourrie), tears rushed to the King's eyes, and he could not help praising her many virtues and accomplishments. Anne is aware of the King's affection for the Princess, and does not cease to plot against her." 

Here is a dispatch from the said French ambassador, on the same conversation:

In the end he made answer to me, that, as to his daughter Mary, he intended always to treat that matter as a thing of no importance, and that I must say nothing more about it; adding that he was very much displeased with her, because she would rather die than acknowledge the present Queen as Queen, or the daughter of this marriage as Princess, but that he would take care to punish her. To judge by his words, he hates her thoroughly. He added that there were many other girls in his kingdom, and that he had a niece, daughter of the queen of Scotland, whom he keeps with the Queen his wife, and treats like a queen's daughter, and if any proposition were made for her, he would make her marriage worth as much as his daughter Mary's. I assure you the lady is beautiful, and highly esteemed here; and if Mary is passed over, there is a daughter of the late queen of France and the duke of Suffolk, but still very young, for whom he will readily enter the said alliance.

Can this be judged as different interpretations of the same conversation? Firstly, why would the French ambassador share this with Chapuys? Secondly, does this make sense as a believable conversation? Because as Chapuys claims he was told, it went: Henry complained about his daughter, the French ambassador praises her education, Henry agrees and praises her further...if that were true, would the French ambassador's takeaway be that he "hates her thoroughly"? Would Henry then proceed to elevate his nieces as better choices for marriage to French royalty? If Castillon thought there was a chance Henry was going to reinstate Mary into the succession, he would have reported that, if he thought she made a good candidate for marriage due to her "great education", he would've reported that.

So, we have Chapuys reporting a tearful Henry that is on the fence as it comes to Mary (so much so that he cannot tamp his conflicted emotions down, even in the presence of an ambassador), with his 'mistress' discouraging and 'plotting against' his affection for her stepdaughter, and Castillon reporting a dry-eyed Henry that states in no uncertain terms that he doesn't even wish to discuss her (then proceeds to complain about her...lol) and praises his niece instead (by implication, because "he keeps [her] with the Queen his wife", because she has done what Mary has not, namely: "acknowledge the present Queen as Queen").

Is there a point where these stories could converge, an 'average' of truths, a median from this Rashomon effect? It's possible...maybe Henry's tears were of anger or frustration, maybe Castillon did not mention the 'praise of her education [and virtues]' in his own dispatch because he did not deem it relevant to the general thrust of what Henry was saying...or, maybe he lied about this to Chapuys because he thought it would make him more open and friendly to him, and thus more likely to reveal intelligence.

Seguing into...where and when he was lying, it was likely from this particular angle:

 I really believe, however, that all this ill-treatment of the Princess has principally originated in the hatred of the Lady Anne, and is carried on without the King's knowledge, who occasionally shows love and affection to his daughter. 

This interpretation tends to be believed due to historical illiteracy and the 'habit' of popular fictional interpretations...there's this perception that Henry was so disappointed in the birth of a daughter by Anne that he took a laissez-faire attitude to Princess Elizabeth's household (where Mary resided, as "lesser") and gave Anne free rein, which lends to credulity of the narrative presented above, but this does not match with the evidence. The appointment of Lady Bryan as Elizabeth's governess, for example, was likely a joint idea by H&A (Anne's aunt, but Henry had experience of her expertise as she had been governess to both Princess Mary and the Duke of Richmond, Henry Fitzroy). Moreover, the implication that Henry was not aware of the funds which went into this household, that the expenditure had no purpose ("The new combined household was arranged to leave visitors to this establishment in no doubt as to which of the king's daughters was his legitimate heir and which was not."), and that he was neither leading ("That Henry was scrupulous in his household provision for both Catherine and Mary is clearly revealed in a surviving set of instructions that Henry issued to Sir Thomas Wyatt, English ambassador at the court of Charles V. In these instructions, written by Henry's chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, it is clear that Henry was acutely sensitive to the allegations that he had acted unjustly in reducing the households and "state" of Catherine and Mary.") nor even apprised of its goings-on, is risible.

Chapuys probably did truly believe that the "ill-treatment originated with Anne", but he hardly could've believed (as he claims above) that said ill-treatment was carried on 'without the King's knowledge'. He was at pains to present matters this way to preserve and maintain Charles V's 'honour' and image—he couldn't very well maintain diplomatic relations with Henry if he was aware of the ill-treatment of his cousin and aunt. He needed that plausible deniability if a future alliance was to be possible, and he also needed plenty of material to justify invasion if it came to that, too.

That's something about ambassadorial dispatches that isn't clear in the superficial reads: there was often specific intent behind dispatches that were ambiguous, or contradictory.

But yeah, I believe most of the time, he was reporting what he believed to be true (which, doesn't necessarily mean it was). What we have, in most ambassadorial dispatches of this time, are "incomplete" truths, or rather, lies by omission. I don't think he forwarded or recorded every rumour he was told, I think he forwarded the ones he thought were most likely to galvanize Charles V into action.

Chapuys was the most prolific of the ambassadors at Henry's court, so his opinions and judgements have (to detriment, arguably) shaped a lot of historiography about this era, its most significant figures, and even the 'insignificant'—Chapuys was often 'speaking' for the majority of the English population, but it's not as if they'd chosen him to represent them, lol...'a number of great personages' believe Henry VIII was not the legitimate king, that the 'better' bloodline was that of the Poles, that they should be on the throne instead, they 'pray daily' for the Emperor to invade, the "few" that believe "God inspired" the King to separate from CofA are "idiots", etc.

There's not a problem with these reports being used, per se, but it's not good practice to use him as a source to the exclusion of all others; it's with multiple contemporary sources that we can get the best reconstruction of events and personalities and they happened and developed, as close to the 'complete picture' as we're ever going to get.