#(ie her successor was most...or had more...political influence because of this)

[fideidefenswhore]

There is a saying that when Anne Boleyn was not the queen, she had greater power than the queen's three years. What do you think?

I think this rather limits the sphere of influence of royal woman (or, as it was for the former period, royal-in-waiting, Anne was a noblewoman, not a royal one, until she became Queen); to, how to put this...the 'domestic'?

Ie, it's known that Henry had mistresses while Anne was Queen, but not queen-in-waiting; I feel like when this is argued that's mainly what the gist of the argument is, she was his ultimate priority and singular love, then they married and the 'chase ran out' and the disillusionment was quick and debasing. And so her influence reduced concurrently.

And...while I find that summary rather specious anyways on whole, for the sake of argument, even if the former part were true, political power is something else. Queen-in-waiting was Anne at "I beseech your grace with all my heart to remember the parson of Honey Lane for my sake shortly", Queen Anne was Anne at seven of her own evangelical clients appointed bishops. After the fall of Wolsey we get "above all, the Lady Anne" re: Henry's councilors from the French ambassador, after Anne becomes Queen we get the contemporary remarks that she has the most influence with the King, beyond any other person, her time in power is referred to as her "reign". Even contemporary remarks after her fall are testament to the influence she had as Queen, "the fall of Queen Anne was like the fall of Lucifer", a parallel to God's most favoured angel being cast down...nobody remarks that it was evident her power had diminished once she married Henry.

Tl;dr, even following the paradigm of loss of love = loss of influence, I don't think...we have that much evidence of the former; the narrative is popular...well, because it's popular, if that makes sense? There's not much of an attempt to understand Henry as his own person, as an individual, particularly when it comes to his relationships with his wives. He was very ostentatious about what he felt for Anne: he "preferred the love of the queen to half his realm", he would "beg alms door to door" before he would forsake her, it's easy to dismiss this all as Henry being glib, knowing the ending, however...I believe he felt and meant these sentiments in the moments he said them, despite that, I think even had the ending been different, these expressions were both to Anne's benefit and detriment, really-- she was regarded as someone whose favour it was important to gain and keep circa as early as 1528, at the latest, all the way through to the end... but because of the common bruit of them, she was also, sometimes solely, blamed for Henry's unpopular decisions.

[nightingaletrash]

Nightingale Headcanons

Because @lamorellenoire6 and @partyatsanguines asked for it, so be prepared for me to yell about my special interest :)

Being a Trinity means there's little to no formal structure to the Trinity beyond their Agent roles and so every Trinity is different.

Some are only very loosely associated, working together to defend the Sepulcher but otherwise having little to do with each other (ie Drayven Indoril's Trinity)

Others are much more tight-knit groups that vary between operating as a triumvate or having a designated leader to follow (ie the Gallus-Karliah-Mercer Trinity)

Membership amongst the Thieves Guild has also varied much over the years; it became the norm after the Riften branch became more permanently established, but prior to that, Nightingales could come from almost anywhere, provided they had the skill and dedication required.

The Nightingale Hall in Skyrim was the first of its kind. However, as Nightingales began to travel Tamriel, more halls were established across the provinces so that they had secure places to stay and could return to the Sepulcher at a moment's notice in order to defend it.

There must always be a Nightingale in Skyrim, however.

When it comes to choosing new Initiates, it depends on the Trinity. The loose associations will have each Agent selecting an individual best suited to fulfilling their role and then grooming them in preparation to take up the mantel.

The tight-knit groups tend to discuss potential new Initiates, with each Agent having someone in mind who they then personally train to take their place (see Dralsi and Karliah) but if there is a designated leader, they get the final say on whether or not that the individual is initiated into the Nightingales.

The Initiates are kept in the dark as to the true purpose behind their training until it is time for the mantel to be passed on; In looser associations, a Nightingale might reveal their purpose earlier in preparation for a sudden or unexpected death. In the more organised groups, another Nightingale will take it upon themselves to induct the Initiate into the Trinity in the event of an unexpected death.

If a Nightingale lives long enough to reach old age, they can step down from the Trinity and their chosen successor takes their place. Some of these Nightingales still advise the Trinity, while others retreat permanently from their old responsibilities.

Nocturnal doesn't need the Nightingales exactly, not the way they need her, but she formed the group to serve her needs in a more subtle fashion. 

By creating the Ebonmere and using it as a means of housing the Skeleton Key, Nocturnal ensured that there was a source of her influence out in the world - the luck that benefits the thieves of Tamriel at large.

While the Key continued to serve as a reward for those who aided her, the Nightingales serve as a balancing influence. When the Key falls into the hands of a single thief, they benefit exponentially while other thieves begin to suffer from the loss of luck. The Nightingales then retrieve the Key and restore the luck that benefits all thieves rather than just the one. 

In fact, the Nightingales are why no single thief is in possession of they Key for too long, as they steal it back from any thieves or champions who come into its possession and return it to the Ebonmere.

For a long time, it was believed that the Key simply disappeared on its own (or Nocturnal’s) accord with no one being any the wiser about the Nightingales involvement.

After the events of Skyrim’s TG story, the Nightingales become representative of Nocturnal’s influence and its believed that doing a good turn for a Nightingale, whether that's aiding the Nightingale in a job or offering them gold or some valuable trinket, will in turn earn the thief Nocturnal’s favour and a small measure of ‘extra luck.’

Most Nightingales don’t consider themselves to be worshippers of Nocturnal and simply respect her as they might a Guild Master or a very important client as opposed to a god. 

Members of the Thieves Guild have more reverence for her, as they lack the direct connection the Nightingales have, hence the shrine that’s erected in the Cistern. True worship amongst either group, however, is incredibly rare.

After the seduction of Barenziah, the Nightingales became more strict about not involving themselves in political schemes to avoid the risk of being discovered.

No Nightingale has ever assumed the mantel of the Grey Fox... Or at least that’s what the Nightingales think. Any who have are presumed missing or dead and a new Initiate takes their place, which leads to them losing their powers when the new Nightingale drinks from the Ebonmere. 

Nocturnal has never intervened on the behalf of any Nightingale who has become the Grey Fox, and Nightingales who find themselves in such a position presume it is out of spite or is a punishment for donning the stolen Cowl rather than returning it to her. 

These Nightingales still find themselves defending the Twilight Sepulcher in death, and often find themselves serving for significantly longer than those who have never donned the Cowl.

Corvus Umbranox was one such Nightingale and he spurned Nocturnal when his plea for the curse to be lifted was met by silence. In turn, he earned Nocturnal’s spite when he successfully broke the curse and he still defends the Sepulcher to this day.

Traitors, such as Mercer and Corvus, are punished by Nocturnal with silence. She never directly addresses their betrayals to them and doesn’t inflict physical punishments such as torture. She doesn’t force them to beg for forgiveness. Instead they simply carry out their end of the bargain in death, protecting the Sepulcher until they themselves see the error of their ways and ask her forgiveness. Only then will she entertain the notion of allowing them to pass on to the Evergloam.

[kindabraveandlittlestupid]

Love her or hate her, Congresswoman Pelosi has been one of strongest women in DC and one of the major leaders of the Democratic Party. She scares the right because of her effectiveness as a Congresswoman and she upsets the left with a long history of making compromises and conflicting interests that continue to orbit her. This article isn't a reflection on her career as a whole but reflection of whether or not she should take up the mantle of Speaker of the House again as she did under President Bush and for a short time under President Obama. While I have my opinion on the subject (which I will share in the end) I want to go over why she should be afforded the position while also making a case for her to step down.

Speaker of the House Position

Before we get into the nitty-gritty details of why Pelosi should and shouldn't take the job, it's important to go over what the position entails. The Speaker of the House Position is effectively the mediator of the House of Representatives elected by the Representatives (usually the party with the majority). The election is pretty straightforward as a candidate must have a clear majority in Congress IE over 50% and if the vote cannot get over that bar then another vote takes place. Another notable aspect of the position is that it does not have to be someone from Congress to hold the role of Speaker of the House which means an outside individual can be voted into the role (I plan to touch base on that idea again later).

So, in a nutshell, the Speaker of the House is the arbiter for the house of representatives which enables him or her to bring votes on legislation to the floor, create special oversight committees (something essential for the Trump Administration), and keeping order within the house. The role has a fair amount of power but it is fragile in the sense that if a House Speaker loses the majority support of his/her party they could be voted from the position quite easily.

Reasons to Consider Pelosi

Pelosi’s Power

What I have read/heard about Pelosi over the years is that she is a focused woman who has a lot of influence in the Democratic Party. She can raise money like crazy, knows all the right people in DC and Rolodex full of all the contacts she has acquired over the years. Her networking skills are nothing short of something of the Mafia keeping favors on the books and knowing where to put pressure to get things done. This makes her very unlikeable because it represents some of the major fundamental issues with American Politics but on the other hand, if this is how the game is played you most certainly want her on your side. If not because these connections but also because of her experience and ability to fundraise for the DNC.

A Tarnishing Position

While the position brings with it power, a louder voice with the political party and prestige, the position also moves whoever is in the position to the front of the line for the mudslinging. Successes in the role are short-lived in their celebration and failures stick to a person like deep stains. Believe it or not Pelosi over a decade and a half ago was far from the polarizing person she is today. Most of the bad reputation she earned (while some of it deserved) came BECAUSE she held this role under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The Conservatives can/will demonize anyone holding the position over time making the Speaker of the House the ‘enemy of the people ‘if they don't have the R after their name.

On this point, I think this is one good reason to keep Pelosi as Speaker. Already covered in mud from years of being a democratic leader makes it hard to bring her low since she has are been vilified as much as she could possibly be. If anyone does step into this position there must be an understanding that the Speaker of the House position can possibly limit any long-term aspirations to climb higher in the political power structure. The alternative to dealing with the Partisan Tarnish is to either put someone who is completely neutral into the position as Speaker who represents a fairness between parties or let someone outside of Congress take on the role and see if they CAN build a career from being the Speaker by being that neutral arbiter that will appeal to centrist/undecided voters in upcoming elections (more on this later).

No Better Options

The last reason why I think Pelosi should be considered for the role besides the fact she already dealt with the worst of the GOP’s mudslinging and has a strong/established power base in DC is the fact she appears to be the best option at the moment. I know this sounds like Hillary Clinton again but there is something to say about tried and true politicians who know how the sausage is made. While we have lots of fresh young faces entering the white house after this blue wave, I see no reason to put anyone into the role simply because they are charming, energized, and optimistic. We have better ways of utilizing those traits and the Speaker role is perhaps not the best place to start (see Tarnish again if you need a reminder of why). I, however, DO NOT think Pelosi should hold this position for long but I think she takes the role and begins thinking about the future of the party instead of any personal motivations she might have for holding to power. In other words, thinking who should come after her and become the new face of the party should be one of her priorities. 

Reasons to Reject Pelosi

Grooming A Successor

So its pretty clear I am kinda Pro-Pelosi at this point but I also believe in the long game of politics and building a better party. I think Democrats benefit from a diverse base, a belief in equality/equity regardless of race and gender and appeal to humanities better characteristics. This party cannot survive without bringing in the New Generations X,Y, & Z into the base. Part of that is having young politicians who inspire these larger voting demographics to put their support behind candidates they relate too.

Pelosi is actually pre-Baby Boomer herself and is a representation of a harsh reality that the current Democratic Party keeps investing its power in politicians who are simply... old. This isn't agism mind you but just an observation of a flawed structure in our party and one that we need to frankly address. What I purpose is a shift in the structure where the faces of the party are the younger/newer politicians that can stir up their voter bases in a positive/effective way. The veteran politicians take a step back for the new generations and take on the advisor like role steering the party from behind but no longer being the face. I know some people’s egos might have an issue with this but if you care about democratic values it's all about thinking what comes next and grooming younger successors to undercut the old white man party as deep as possible.

In regards to Pelosi, while she should take the Speake of the House role it should be on the condition that she keeps one of the younger Congressmen or women close to her and prepares them to take her role permanently. Whoever does this should know that the position comes with that big red target on their back and should look to tap Pelosi’s (and other veteran Democrats) expertise regularly to be an effective House Speaker.

The Outsider

Since the position does not have to be a sitting Representative of the House, we could consider the option of bringing in an outsider to take on the role. The way the current law is written allows for this and provides a unique opportunity to do one of two things. 

A) We can bring in an upcoming/motivated official who perhaps lost the recent election but provides an important injection of energy into the DNC. I am thinking Stacey Abrams or the like taking on the position being someone who can bring new energy and perhaps avoid the mudslinging enough to build a name for herself and return to the governor's race with enough renown to unseat the racist who presently took that position in her state.

B) Take the neutral path. A representative who a bit left of center who takes on the role of being an objective nonpartisan speaker. This does a few things: 1) Displays democrats willingness to be nonpartisan for the sake of the country. 2) Allows conservatives to do their mudslinging ineffectively tarnishing a person who has no long-term interest in a political career. 3) Makes it harder for Donald Trump to scapegoat his own impotent policies on the new Speaker of the House.

We can use this position to either build up someone's career (if done properly) or we can have someone looking to serve his/her country in a meaningful way and letting the GOP focus their hate attacking someone who will simply move on wasting their time and efforts. Either way helps the long-term interests of the Democratic Party.

My Thoughts

If I had any political power in the House of Representatives and was able to establish a game plan for the Progressives; it would be voting Pelosi into the position without all the infighting, seeking out a newer/young man or woman to take up the position one or two years from now (perhaps switching them into the Speaker position months before the 2020 election), and reorganizing the power structure of the party where the young politicians are at the front stirring up support/votes while the veterans use their influence and experience to draft legislation to further the progressive goals for the long run. 

As I said before I am not a big fan of Pelosi but no one can deny her influence and effectiveness as a politician in DC. Expelling her because she represents some of the problems in DC won’t save us from the fact that those problems are part of the institutions. If we DO want to move on the age of politicians like Pelosi we need to change the rules and the game before switching out the players who know the game best. This infighting we are currently seeing does not make us a stronger party. 

As always thanks for reading.

Regards, Michael California