#AND SHE CLEARLY FAVORS THEM

[absolutelyzoned]

i NEED to yap about personal shit i gotta get it out there somewhere

[introspectivememories]

i've always had this hc that romans are a lot more neutral about the gods than the greeks. looking at the books, it very much feels like a transactional relationship between the romans and the gods. the gods ask and the romans do. they take care of the temples, they make offerings, they pray when they need something, and then they go about their lives. and so i've always believed that when a new roman demigod makes their way to cj, the older demigods/legacies/civilians always tell them not to rely on the gods for anything.

don't think of them like they have feelings, they'll say, the gods take what they want and we dutifully give. more importantly, don't rely on them. if you have a godly parent, no you don't. you have someone who donated sperm or carried you. they care as long as you can give back. and being favored by them is a sentence worse than death. live unnoticed.

then do you think they tried to tell jason grace (youngest in the legion for the longest time, rome's child, jupiter's son, juno's champion) this and he didn't believe them? do think he couldn't believe them not when he was juno's champion? not when he was lupa's youngest? not when he was rome's favored child down to his bone? not when he was their dutiful soldier, their golden boy, their saving grace?

years later, standing on the battlefield after the second giant war, do you think jason grace,

(no sense of self, no personality, no memories, no past, nothing except his loyalty and his duty to rome, its people and its gods)

looked at percy jackson

(memories restored, sense of self intact, girlfriend who never stopped looking, everything even without being overly loyal to gods)

and wondered what his faith got him?

[wonder-worker]

Is it true that Elizabeth of York birth celebrated like she was a son? I have seen some historians say this.

Hi! Yes, Edward IV did celebrate his daughter’s birth as though she was a male heir (“a prince”), iirc as per the Great Chronicle.

While we have no contemporary reports at the time of Elizabeth of York's birth, we know that Luchino Dallaghiexia reported that the birth of Edward and Elizabeth's third child, Cecily of York, "rejoiced the king and all the nobles exceedingly*, though they would have preferred a son'. Wanting a son (ie: an heir) was typical for their time period, likely enhanced by Edward and Elizabeth's unprecedentedly controversial marriage, her very unsuitable origins and his own status as a usurper. The fact that he was described as being "exceedingly" delighted at the birth of his third daughter in a row regardless does support the claim that he would have gone over-the-top to celebrate the birth of his first legitimate** child.

Hope this helps!

*Bizarrely, I have seen several historians and blogs use Dallaghiexia's letter to claim that Edward IV was bitterly disappointed at Cecily of York's birth. I don't understand how historical reading comprehension can be so poor that "rejoiced the king exceedingly" has somehow been rewritten as the...exact opposite of that. With no self-awareness whatsoever. **Edward's illegitimate daughter Margaret - popularly known as Elizabeth for some reason - was almost definitely born before his marriage. We don't know the birth dates of his other two illegitimate children: I think the likeliest conception date for Arthur was in early 1470 (when he was away from court, near Hampshire), but it's unverified; and we know nothing about Grace - which was probably her surname, not her name - other than the fact that Elizabeth Woodville seems to have been very attached to her.

[team7-headquarter]

I'm kinda curious about the period of time when Minato was Hokage, because there's so much you could say about Konoha depending on it. It could be that I don't remember what the manga says about it too, but anyway.

We know that before Minato was Hokage, the discrimination towards jinchuurikis was high. We know it from Kushina's story. After Minato, the jinchuurikis discrimination was not exactly as bad as it could have been (and the bar is soooo low) in physical terms, but the level of sheer isolation was ridiculous. Sure, Kushina had guards and she lived in a tower with a perimeter drawn around it, one that she couldn't surpass. The difference is that Kushina knew why she was being isolated, there was someone willing to teach her about it right from the start, a family member even if distant, someone with the same experience.

All Naruto knew is that he was unwanted. He had no family, no one was willing to guide him. No, not even Iruka. I'm talking about before in the manga, before Iruka realized how much Naruto needed him and did something about it.

If that was before and after, how was it during the time Minato was Hokage?

Did Minato push for Kushina to become Hokage? Was the idea rejected? Did he get angry? It was her dream after all. Or did they realize it would be impossible so they pushed Minato to go for it? Were they sad about the idea of Kushina having to live her dream through Minato, because they wouldn't let her go for it? When did Kushina give up and change her goal in life?

Did Minato tell anyone about his plan on how to get rid of the jinchuuriki discrimination? Did he talk about it with Kushina? We know that they planned Naruto's birth and tried to make it as safe as possible. When the time to seal Kurama within Naruto came, they both knew how Konoha would treat Naruto. Minato wanted Naruto to be viewed as the son of a hero, but his wishes were thrown aside as soon as his body was cold enough.

With no law to protect the jinchuuriki of the kyubi, I wonder how bold the people of Konoha were in their discrimination against Kushina while Minato was Hokage. Times were different, Minato was highly respected and feared, but how many times did he have to tell someone to mind their words? How many times did he catch Kushina avoiding a certain restaurant or a street? Did he ever feel a slight of resentment against his home for the way they treated his wife? His pregnant wife?

Were there rumors of the child being a monster for being the son of a jinchuuriki? It could be that some Konoha parents telling their kids to not play with the little Uzumaki/Namikaze was a thing before Naruto was even born?

From what I've seen, Konoha has no gentleness for kids of prestigious lineages. Being a child of a powerful shinobi makes your life worse, in fact. A million times over: it happened to Sasuke, to Neji, it happened to Kakashi in the generation before them, it happened to Itachi in the in-between.

I don't think that being the son of the hokage would have saved Naruto for being mistreated by the village. Not when his mother was a jinchuuriki.

It just makes me wonder, you know?

In the time he had, how did Minato try to change things to protect his family?

Was it a matter of needing more time? Or there wasn't a plan at all?

[bogor-o]

i remember one of my least favorite followers did that one quest thats like "hey, theyre saying youre a wimp, you should kill (follower who JUST became an adult) and show them youre for real"

and all i could imagine was mother showing her teeth and getting angry for once

[blitzbuckz]

【𐂃】 ❝ BE GONE YA COWARD PERVERTED LOLICON DIPSHIT ! ❞

[dreamedfyre-a]

hel loves jae.haerys sm her little boy her precious prince but she loves jae.haera sm her little girl her little princess so cherished and treasured and the one who's most like her and the one she gets to keep the closest the only girl the one who will have so little say on her life but for who hel would fight fiercely if it meant giving her a chance to choose and mae.lor is the babiest her little princeling the one she got to enjoy the most the light of her life the second son destined to receive less than his brother.

she loves them all so much and she loves jae.haerys so much but she would make such an effort for jae.haera and mae.lor to grow up knowing they are no less important than the firstborn son, that they are loved and cherished and enough

[bl00dh0rs3]

Caught up on Hazbin and. Man. I haven't even seen anyone react to episode 6 but im already dreading it. How many people are going to Deliberately miss the point This time.....

[munch-mumbles]

ive been a little upset about it all night so i need to write out all the things that happened at work today and are bugging me so i can TRY to get it out of my head and actually RELAX bc i just keep pacing in circles around it instead of just accepting it and moving on

[fideidefenswhore]

Did most of Henry's court dislike Elizabeth just because she was the daughter of Anne Boleyn? Do you think that she was bullied by them growing up?

No, I think very few disliked her, for that reason or otherwise (Observant Friars, the Aragonese and later Marian, factions, notwithstanding). She was literally a child, and after 1544 she was officially third in line to the throne, & once Edward VI became King, second in line. There's the argument that most would have revered Mary more, for at least habit's reason (she had been acknowledged Princess for the first seventeen years of her life, versus Elizabeth's scant three); but Elizabeth would have probably been revered, too. All the reports of her as a child, both when Anne was Queen and after her death and disgrace, spoke of her 'towardness', her gravity, her intelligence, her grace, politesse and charm...even Chapuys, after the death of his bete noire, admitted she was a pretty child.

Who would have been brave enough to bully a King's daughter (who wasn't exiled, wasn't in disgrace, see, Mary 1533-36), later, a King's sister, really? What would it have gained them? There were probably some sidelong glances and speech in Edward VI's reign, but that would've had more to do with the drama with Thomas Seymour, and there was outright hostility towards her in Mary I's reign, but that was likely courtiers emulating their sovereign.

[favroitecrime]

barbie discourse getting unhinged actually please end the debates by tomorrow. the movie did nothing to deserve all this chaos and the fact i saw someone say margot and the movie started a ‘movement’… please.

[britneyshakespeare]

i have to be honest. i was filling in for a third grade book club this morning and i read up to the first seven chapters of the book (which is where they were) while i was on my half-hour break and i was thinking. man i do not agree with some of the messages in this book lmao.

[wonder-worker]

richardiii and frideswide lovell? I am only just hearing of this

Hi! We don't know the truth and don't know the exact details, but yes, that's definitely a (potential) relationship worth discussing!

For those who are unaware, Frideswide Lovell was the daughter of John, 8th Baron Lovell, and his wife Joan Beaumont. This made her the sister of Francis Lovell, the future chamberlain and best friend of Richard III - who she may have had a personal connection to in her own right.

Frideswide seems to have been much younger than her siblings and was not born before 1363, most likely in 1464. She was orphaned soon after her birth, with her father dying a year later and her mother a year after that, leaving her to spend her childhood and adolescence in the household of her brother's parents-in-law. The first properly contemporary mention of her is found in the 1470 pardon Edward IV's government issued for Henry FitzHugh and all those in his household. Unfortunately, not much is known about her beyond that, including the kind of education she received.

When she was around 16, Frideswide married the 15-year-old Edward Norris, oldest son of William Norris of Yattendon and his first wife Joan/Jane de Vere. The teenage couple had their first son, John, in 1481, followed by a second son, Henry, a year later. The latter would be executed in 1536 as one of Anne Boleyn's alleged lovers.

Here's where it gets interesting. As we know, Richard III became King in 1483 after deposing his nephews. Michèle Schindler, author of the book Lovell Our Dogge: The Life of Viscount Lovell, Closest Friend of Richard III and Failed Regicide, has speculated that Richard may have been having an affair with Frideswide, aka his best friend's sister, during that time.

To quote Schindler from a blog post about Frideswide:

In 1483, Frideswide received a "reward" of 50 marks from Richard III after he was crowned king. Perhaps it was this, her support and closeness to her brother`s close friend, that caused a rift between her and her husband, and the couple was divided over political opinions which they needed some time to overcome. Edward`s father William, who had originally supported the Lancastrian cause, had accepted Edward IV as king, but rebelled against Richard [in support of the Princes in the Tower] in autumn 1483. Edward Norris may have supported this, though he never acted against Richard, while Frideswide seemed to support Richard.

However, there is evidence from 1484 which throws a rather different light on Frideswide`s marriage and her relationship to Richard. While her "reward" from 1483 could well have been simply a gesture of friendship by the new king towards his closest friend`s sister, their interactions clearly did not stop there. In August 1484, Richard granted her an annuity of 100 marks, a rather large sum. While this has traditionally been assumed to have been because of her father-in-law`s rebellion, leaving her husband disinherited, this does not seem to have been the cause. None of William`s other children, nor his wife, was granted anything by Richard.

Naturally, it could be that Richard chose to favour Francis`s sister over the rest of her marital family, but this is contradicted by two facts: one, that the grant was for unspecified "services" to the king, not, as that to other traitor`s relatives, as a compensation, a generous gift by the king. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that a second grant of an annuity of 100 marks was made from the same venue, dating from 10th January 1485. This grant was not a confirmation of the first, but was added to it, meaning that Frideswide received 200 marks yearly from Richard, a sizable sum, more than the Countess of Oxford, or even his own mother-in-law, received.

The key to this may lie in the fact that the second grant was dated back nine months, and appears to have been made just after Frideswide gave birth to her third child, a daughter called Anne. Very notably, the grants to her, for unspecified services to the king, have the same wording as one to Katherine Haute, a woman often assumed to have been the mother of Richard`s illegitimate daughter Katherine, Richard made years earlier.

Equally notable is that Richard made grants to Francis on the same days as he made those to Frideswide, as a compensation for equally unspecified services, and that Frideswide appeared to have lived with her brother [rather than her husband] while pregnant.

That Henry Norris, in later years, appeared to not treat Anne as his sister, and that William Norris, Edward`s father, later favoured Frideswide`s sons, even apparently helping them become established at court, but not Anne, might also point towards the idea that there was at least a question mark over Anne`s paternity, and that she may have been Richard`s.

If so, Frideswide was in a bad position after Richard`s defeat and death at Bosworth only eight and a half months after her daughter`s birth. It seems, though, that she and her husband Edward made the best of it, and even reconcilliated. In around 1486, Frideswide gave birth to her last child, a girl called Margaret, presumably after Edward`s sister. From surviving documents, Margaret seemed much closer to her brother Henry and her grandfather William, again showing up a difference to Anne."

Of course, we don't explicitly know if this is true - and if it is true, we don't know the exact details - but the circumstantial evidence is indeed very strong, and it seems very plausible to me. I would love to know more about Frideswide, who seems to have had a very interesting and tragic, albeit mostly unknown, life.

In short, it's very interesting and opens up a lot of possibilities, for sure!

[louisgrayhairs]

.

[audarcy]

The original percy jackson series is about cycles of abuse and neglect, right. Were introduced to percy as a kid who has clearly been left behind by a school system that has given up on him, restless and unengaged and self-defetist because hes been given nothing that works for him and no one even tries to meet him where he is. Then hes told no, listen, your neurodivergence is amazing and you just need to be given something that actually utilizes your unique palatte. And thats obviously the uplifting idea rick wanted for his kids, right. But once we get to know chb the same cycles are happening there too. There are kids "left behind" there too for one reason or another, because their parents dont want to claim them, because their parents werent important enough to get a cabin. Do you get it, all the kids who dont fit the most common neurotypes get shoved into the same closet. Kids are being left in a cruel world to fend for themselves without the tools they need. Theyre dying because no one bothered to accommodate them. Its such an obvious parallel that the first chapter introduces a teacher whos written to be especially hard on percys disability and she turns out to literally be one of these monsters trying to kill him. Meanwhile sally jackson tells him she named him after Perseus because she wanted a redemption for a hero whos story ended in tragedy. Meanwhile every book in the series replicates a greek myth step for step until the moment they break the cycle. Annabeth, playing Odysseus, is talked down from her hubris and grounded by her friends. Percy, playing Heracles, meets someone wronged by the original Heracles and rights his wrongs by refusing to go down the same selfish path as him. Monsters are reborn because they are--as the books explicitly call them--achetypes. These kids are stuck inside the cyclical nature of mythology because thats what happens to mythology, it gets retold over and over again. But these are the kids who have to live it. The series ends with percy being offered immortality and he rejects it because he wants to use his godly favor to force them to break their cycle of neglecting their kids. The series ends with a declaration that we cant keep letting this happen. The very first book offees the same choice. It ends with percy refusing to keep the head of medusa as a spoil of war, refusing his heroic reward. He lets his mother have the head and use it to kill gabe. Isnt that fucking crazy for a kids book? Gabe wasnt a Monster. He wasnt going to Turn to Dust and Disappear in a narratively convenient way. He was a living breathing mortal dude and percy and his mom killed him without remorse. Break the cycle of abuse!!!! Dont let this happen again!!! Anyway thats why the original percy jackson series is Hey where are you going with our breadsticks

[sugarcoatednightshade]

I would absolutely survive caveman times. Medieval Europe would kill me dead.

*this is just about having medical needs that would have meant death without modern medicine, so no ‘I’d probably die from not being able to distinguish the blur as a lion’ we have a healthy caveman squad who cares for each other, we just also dont have, yknow, penicilin. etcetera.

pls reblog for sample size etc

follow for more occasional useless polls :)