#C. Norwich

[vintagepromotions]

'Canadian National Railways - A Great Railway in a Great Land'

Canadian National Railways poster featuring the Canadian National 6122 steam locomotive (c. 1920). Artwork by C. Norwich.

[une-sanz-pluis]

Other professional elites within the contemporary university were represented in Henry V’s circle. Nicholas Colnet was the king’s doctor, having held this position since at least July 1413. He too served on the Agincourt campaign in 1415 and was left a missal or breviary in the king’s will. His own will, made in 1417 before setting out again across the Channel, reveals his considerable wealth, in plate and jewels, including a ewer given by the Duc d’Orléans. In the early 1420s, university-trained physicians were working to establish a monopoly in their profession, and medicine was one of several natural sciences in which Merton had established a reputation for excellence in the fourteenth century. This was therefore a further way in which the college could supply a trained elite to the highest levels of society. Another contemporary fellow, Thomas Duncan, was doctor to the Earl of March. As Carole Rawcliffe has shown, the king’s doctor performed duties as much spiritual as medical, giving him privileged access to the royal person and therefore to power. Colnet’s position and medical skills may explain Bishop Courtenay’s presence in the college glazing. Courtenay was also close to Henry V, who was present when the bishop died at Harfleur in 1415. The king had his body transported back to Westminster Abbey for the rare privilege of burial in Edward the Confessor’s chapel. At Merton, the name and arms of this former Chancellor of the University are recorded at the foot of the great south window in the new transept. Presented heraldically with the arms of Archbishop Arundel (the visitor in 1411, and his opponent as Chancellor), overlooking the burial place of Warden Beckenham (his replacement as Chancellor in the same year), the window could be seen as an act of reconciliation by this distinguished theologian. Courtenay has no known connection with Hereford Cathedral, however, to explain the pair of Hereford saints who once appeared in the tracery – Sts. Ethelbert and Thomas Cantilupe (now in the tracery of the great west window). The only contemporary Mertonian known to have held either a prebend or an office at Hereford is Nicholas Colnet, who was Precentor briefly in 1413; so it is tempting to think that this was a joint donation, at that time.

Tim Ayers, "Collegiate Identity and the Art of Lancastrian Reform: The Stained Glass of Merton College, Oxford in the Early Fifteenth Century", Image, Memory and Devotion: Liber Amicorum Paul Crossley (Brepols 2011)

Image: St. Thomas Cantilupe from the great south window, south transept, Merton College, early 15th century.

[philwriter-blog]

Shoe manufacture in Britain

We were more of a nation of cobblers than cordwainers; shoes only began to be bought new an any quantity in the nineteenth century with increasing urban populations. The demand for boots for soldiers undoubtedly boosted demand in the time of the Napoleonic, Crimean and World Wars. Unlike the textile industry where British inventions were key to mechanisation, in the case of shoes we looked more…

[pathetic-gamer]

Pentiment's Complete Bibliography, with links to some hard-to-find items:

I've seen some people post screenshots of the game's bibliography, but I hadn't found a plain text version (which would be much easier to work from), so I put together a complete typed version - citation style irregularities included lol. I checked through the full list and found that only four of the forty sources can't be found easily through a search engine. One has no English translation and I'm not even close to fluent enough in German to be able to actually translate an academic article, so I can't help there. For the other three (a museum exhibit book, a master's thesis, and portions of a primary source that has not been entirely translated into English), I tracked down links to them, which are included with their entries on the list.

If you want to read one of the journal articles but can't access it due to paywalls, try out 12ft.io or the unpaywall browser extension (works on Firefox and most chromium browsers). If there's something you have interest in reading but can't track down, let me know, and I can try to help! I'm pretty good at finding things lmao

Okay, happy reading, love you bye

Beach, Alison I. Women as Scribes: Book Production and Monastic Reform in Twelfth-Century Bavaria. Cambridge Univeristy Press, 2004.

Berger, Jutta Maria. Die Geschichterder Gastfreundschaft im hochmittel alterlichen Monchtum: die Cistercienser. Akademie Verlag GmbH, 1999. [No translation found.]

Blickle, Peter. The Revolution of 1525. Translated by Thomas A. Brady, Jr. and H.C. Erik Midelfort. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Brady, Thomas A., Jr. “Imperial Destinies: A New Biography of the Emperor Maximilian I.” The Journal of Modern History, vol 62, no. 2., 1990. pp.298-314.

Brandl, Rainer. “Art or Craft: Art and the Artist in Medieval Nuremberg.” Gothic and Renaissance Art in Nuremberg 1300-1550. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1986. [LINK]

Byars, Jana L., “Prostitutes and Prostitution in Late Medieval Bercelona.” Masters Theses. Western Michigan University, 1997. [LINK]

Cashion, Debra Taylor. “The Art of Nikolaus Glockendon: Imitation and Originality in the Art of Renaissance Germany.” Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art, vol 2, no. 1-2, 2010.

de Hamel, Christopher. A History of Illuminated Manuscripts. Phaidon Press Limited, 1986.

Eco, Umberto. The Name of the Rose. Translated by William Weaver. Mariner Books, 2014.

Eco, Umberto. Baudolino. Translated by William Weaver. Mariner Books, 2003.

Fournier, Jacques. “The Inquisition Records of Jacques Fournier.” Translated by Nancy P. Stork. Jan Jose Univeristy, 2020. [LINK]

Geary, Patrick. “Humiliation of Saints.” In Saints and their cults: studies in religious sociology, folklore, and history. Edited by Stephen Wilson. Cambridge University Press, 1985. pp. 123-140

Harrington, Joel F. The Faithrul Executioner: Life and Death, Honor and Shame in the Turbulent Sixteenth Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013.

Hertzka, Gottfired and Wighard Strehlow. Grosse Hildegard-Apotheke. Christiana-Verlag, 2017.

Hildegard von Bingen. Physica. Edited by Reiner Hildebrandt and Thomas Gloning. De Gruyter, 2010.

Julian of Norwich. Revelations of Divine Love. Translated by Barry Windeatt. Oxford Univeristy Press, 2015.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others. Routledge, 2017.

Kerr, Julie. Monastic Hospitality: The Benedictines in England, c.1070-c.1250. Boudell Press, 2007.

Kieckhefer, Richard. Forbidden rites: a necromancer’s manual of the fifteenth century. Sutton, 1997.

Kuemin, Beat and B. Ann Tlusty, The World of the Tavern: Public Houses in Early Modern Europe. Routledge, 2017.

Ilner, Thomas, et al. The Economy of Duerrnberg-Bei-Hallein: An Iron Age Salt-mining Center in the Austrian Alps. The Antiquaries Journal, vol 83, 2003. pp. 123-194

Lang, Benedek. Unlocked Books: Manuscripts of Learned Magic in the Medieval Libraries of Central Europe. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008

Lindeman, Mary. Medicine and Society in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Lowe, Kate. “’Representing’ Africa: Ambassadors and Princes from Christian Africa to Renaissance Italy and Portugal, 1402-1608.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Sixth Series, vol 17, 2007. pp. 101-128

Meyers, David. “Ritual, Confession, and Religion in Sixteenth-Century Germany.” Archiv fuer Reformationsgenshichte, vol. 89, 1998. pp. 125-143.

Murat, Zuleika. “Wall paintings through the ages: the medieval period (Italy, twelfth to fifteenth century).” Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, vol 23, no. 191. Springer, October 2021. pp. 1-27.

Overty, Joanne Filippone. “The Cost of Doing Scribal Business: Prices of Manuscript Books in England, 1300-1483.” Book History 11, 2008. pp. 1-32.

Page, Sophie. Magic in the Cloister: Pious Motives, Illicit Interests, and Occullt Approaches to the Medieval Universe. The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013.

Park, Katharine. “The Criminal and the Saintly Body: Autopsy and Dissectionin Renaissance Italy.” Renaissance Quarterly, vol 47, no. 1, Spring 1994. pp. 1-33.

Rebel, Hermann. Peasant Classes: The Bureaucratization of Property and Family Relations under Early Habsburg Absolutism, 1511-1636. Princeton University Press, 1983.

Rublack, Ulinka. “Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Female Body in Early Modern Germany.” Past & Present,vol. 150, no. 1, February 1996.

Salvador, Matteo. “The Ethiopian Age of Exploration: Prester John’s Discovery of Europe, 1306-1458.” Journal of World History, vol. 21, no. 4, 2011. pp.593-627.

Sangster, Alan. “The Earliest Known Treatise on Double Entry Bookkeeping by Marino de Raphaeli.” The Accounting Historians Journal, vol. 42, no. 2, 2015. pp. 1-33.

Throop, Priscilla. Hildegarde von Bingen’s Physica: The Complete English Translation of Her Classic Work on Health and Healing. Healing Arts Press, 1998.

Usher, Abbott Payson. “The Origins of Banking: The Brimitive Bank of Deposit, 1200-1600.” The Economic History Review, vol. 4, no. 4. 1934. pp.399-428.

Waldman, Louis A. “Commissioning Art in Florence for Matthias Corvinus: The Painter and Agent Alexander Formoser and his Sons, Jacopo and Raffaello del Tedesco.” Italy and Hungary: Humanism and Art in the Early Renaissance. Edited by Peter Farbaky and Louis A. Waldman, Villa I Tatti, 2011. pp.427-501.

Wendt, Ulrich. Kultur and Jagd: ein Birschgang durch die Geschichte. G. Reimer, 1907.

Whelan, Mark. “Taxes, Wagenburgs and a Nightingale: The Imperial Abbey of Ellwangen and the Hussite Wars, 1427-1435.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, vol. 72, no. 4, 2021, pp.751-777.

Wiesner-Hanks, Merry E. Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Yardeni, Ada. The Book of Hebrew Script: History, Palaeography, Script Styles, Calligraphy & Design. Tyndale House Publishers, 2010.

[bronzeageecho]

funerary urn lid | c. 500s CE | saxon culture (modern day norfolk, england)

in the norwich castle museum collection

[exercise-of-trust]

seemingly cool fiber arts person i followed a little bit ago just put radfem shit on the dash, anyway the blanket statement that the only contributions of men to textile production are capitalist/exploitative and the only contributions of women are household-centric/victimized is patently untrue. while less of a documented presence, women in medieval europe [1] absolutely participated in weaver's guilds and commercial cloth production [2], and men have been participating in household knitting in all parts of europe for as long as knitting has been a thing there [3]. like i'm not trying to say women haven't been deeply excluded from economic opportunities in the textile trade for centuries but you cannot be making sweeping statements like that about everyone in every part of the world through all of history and expect them to be true. do, like, a basic level of research and have a basic understanding of nuance, i beg of you [4]

footnotes/sources/etc under the cut, sources are a bit basic because i just grabbed whatever was nearest to hand but they should suffice to prove my point:

[1] i'm only referring to western europe here because that's the only region i feel comfortable talking about in any detail without embarrassing myself. systems of medieval cloth production in european guilds are not gonna look anything like the systems of hundreds of servants employed to do textile production for a household in china. don't make categorical statements about everyone everywhere all at once, you will end up with egg on your face.

[2] quotes from "when did weaving become a male profession," ingvild øye, danish journal of archaeology, p.45 in particular.

england: "in norwich, a certain elizabeth baret was enrolled as freeman of the city in 1445/6 because she was a worsted weaver, and in 1511, a riot occurred when the weavers here complained that women were taking over their work" + "another ordinance from bristol [in 1461] forbade master weavers to engage wives, daughters, and maids who wove on their own looms as weavers but made an exception for wives already active before this act" germany: "in bremen, several professional male weavers are recorded in the early fourteenth century, but evidently alongside female weavers, who are documented even later, in 1440" -> the whole "even later" thing is because the original article is disputing the idea that men as weavers/clothiers in medieval europe entirely replaced women over time. also: "in 1432-36, a female weaver, mette weuersk, is referred to as a member of the gertrud's guild in flensburg, presently germany" scandanavia: "the guild of weavers that was established in copenhagen in 1500 also accepted female weavers as independent members and the rules were recorded in the guild's statutes"

[3] quotes from folk socks: the history and techniques of handknitted footwear by nancy bush, interweave press, 2011, don't roast me it was literally within arm's reach and i didn't feel like looking up more stuff

uk/yorkshire dales: "...handknitting had been a daily employment for three centuries [leading up to 1900]. practiced by women, children, and men, the craft added much to the economy of the dales people." (p.21) uk/wales: re the knitting night (noson weu/noswaith weu) as a social custom practiced in the 18th/19th c.: "all the ladies would work on their knitting; some of the men would knit garters" (p.22) uk/channel islands: "by the early seventeenth century, so many of the islands' men, women, and children had taken up the trade of knitting that laws were necessary to keep them from knitting during harvest" (p.24) -> this one is deeply funny to me, in addition to proving my point uk/aberdeen: "the knitters, known as shankers, were usually women, but sometimes included old men and boys" (p.26) denmark: "with iron and brass needles, they made stockings called stunthoser, stomper, or stockings without feet, as well as stockings with feet. the men knit the legs and the women and girls made the heels" (p.32) iceland & faroe islands: "people of all ages and both sexes knit at home not only for their own use but for exportation of their goods as well" (p.35)

[4] actually? no. i'm not begging for shit from radfems. fuck all'a'y'all.

[catherinetheprincessofwales]

The Martineau Family | French Huguenots Norwich Maître Chirurgien (Master Surgeon), David Martineau (1726-1768) and his wife Sarah Meadows (1725-1800). David Martineau was the grandson of Gaston Martineau (c. 1654-1726), a surgeon in Dieppe, who moved to Norwich after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685; the edict had allowed French Protestants freedom of religion and the Huguenots left France for safety. The arrival of this large amount of new immigrants into Britain in the 1680s meant that a new word came into the English language to describe them: ‘rés’ or refugees. They are therefore considered the ‘first refugees’ to arrive to the British Isles.

The Princess of Wales (b. 1982) is a descendant of the couple via their son Thomas Martineau, a textile manufacturer (1764-1826) and his wife Elizabeth Rankin (1772-1848) the couples second daughter was famed sociologist and abolitionist Harriet Martineau (1802-1876). Film Director Guy Ritchie (b. 1962) is a descendent of David and Sarah Martineau via their son Peter Finch Martineau, a businessman and philanthropist (1755-1847) and his wife Catherine Marsh (1760-1853). The Princess and Guy Ritchie are 6th cousins 1x removed.

[blueiscoool]

11th Century Silver Coin Hoard Found in UK

A hoard of coins dating back to the 11th century has been found at the site of a future nuclear power station.

Oxford Cotswold Archaeology discovered a cloth package containing 321 silver coins in mint condition during excavations at Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast.

The team believed the bundle of coins could have been the savings pot of a local figure, fearing regime changes following the coronation of Edward the Confessor in 1042.

Archaeologist Andrew Pegg said he was shaking when he found the coins.

"I was shaking when I first unearthed it, seeing a single coin edge peeking at me," he recalled.

"A perfect archaeological time capsule.

"The information we are learning from it is stunning and I'm so proud to have added to the history of my own little part of Suffolk."

Mr Pegg referred to the collection as "the pasty" due to the coins being wrapped in a cloth bundle which was barely bigger than a Cornish pasty.

The coins date between 1036 and 1044 during the reigns of Harold I, Harthacnut and Edward the Confessor.

A large number of them were minted in London, but others were struck at locations including Thetford and Norwich in Norfolk, as well as more locally in Ipswich and further away in Lincoln and Stamford in Lincolnshire.

The archaeologists said it represented a substantial amount of money to most people of the time and likely belonged to someone of middle status rather than anyone of very high status or national importance.

However, they do not know why the collection was never retrieved.

It was likely the owner was prevented from returning to the location, they potentially died before they could return or they were unable to relocate the exact spot they buried the coins in, it was theorised.

Damian Leydon, site delivery director at Sizewell C, said the find was "extraordinary".

"This project provides a rare and fascinating glimpse into Suffolk's rich history, deepening our understanding of this part of Britain," he added.

"In partnership with Oxford Cotswold Archaeology, we plan to make these discoveries as accessible to the public as possible."

By Alice Cunningham.

[ainsi-soit-il]

mormons are christians

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you, anon. There are some key theological points historically shared by the rest of orthodox Christianity that the LDS Church does not share with the rest of Christianity.

(What I am about to say here presumes that by "Mormons", you mean "LDS", since that's commonly how the term is used. I am less familiar with trinitarian Mormon groups such as the CoC, so I don't feel comfortable getting into all that here, and I feel like that's another post anyway.)

((I am also aware that my explanation may be misconstrued as me biting your head off. That's not my intention at all, and I apologize profusely if it reads that way. I've just done a lot of digging into LDS theology and history over the years, and I wanted to give a rundown of why I understand this issue in the way that I do.))

(((This is also about to get really long and unwieldy so. Apologies for that too.)))

The LDS Church teaches a fundamentally different view of the nature of God. Little-o orthodox Christianity is trinitarian. Not going to get into any biblical defenses of the Trinity here, because I feel like other people have explored it in much more depth, but suffice it to say this is a very old and long-accepted doctrine. Protestants, Catholics, etc. are all in agreement here.

By contrast, LDS theology uses the language of three separate beings united in one purpose. This is particularly apparent in the Book of Abraham, which refers to "the Gods organiz[ing] and form[ing] the heavens and the earth" (Abraham 4:1, emphasis mine). In addition, LDS theology depicts God the Father as an exalted man (see the King Follett Discourse for more on that) and ascribes a physical body to Him (D&C 130:22), which is unheard of in orthodox Christianity.

Furthermore, LDS theology teaches a fundamentally different relationship between God and His People. In orthodox Christianity, when we speak of God as our Father, there is an understanding that we are not His literal children in a biological sense (John 1:12-13). Instead, God being described as our Father is one of various images that He uses in order to communicate His love for His people. As another example of this kind of language in action He is also described as our Husband (e. g. Isaiah 54:5, Ezekiel 16:32, Hosea). This is because God's love for us is so vast and so deep and so complete that it is impossible to use just one analogy and encapsulate all of it perfectly. (I'd argue it's also because the magnitude of God's love is what makes all these other forms of love possible. We love because He first loved us, after all.)

In LDS theology, however, this Father-Child relationship language is not an analogy. It's literal. We are the biological spirit children of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.

The Heavenly Mother is another aspect of this that is very different from Christianity. In LDS Theology, God is held to be actually male, with a male body and a wife. In Christianity, God is neither male nor female. We may use masculine language to refer to God ("Father", "Son", "He", etc.), and Jesus chose to take the form of a human male, but Scripture also uses feminine language to describe God through the language of motherhood, childbirth and breastfeeding (e. g. Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 42:14), and various orthodox Christian theologians have leaned into that language (Julian of Norwich, for example).

I say all that not out of sensationalism or because I want to showcase how "weird" I think LDS beliefs are. All religions are weird (and heck, all of human existence is weird, if we're really honest about it). All of that to say, I'm saying this because it's necessary background to the LDS conception of who Jesus is.

In LDS theology, Jesus is the eldest of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother's spirit children (and therefore, our elder spirit brother), who volunteered for the role of Savior in our preexistence. Satan is Jesus' younger spirit brother, who was cast out of Heaven for trying to take away humanity's free will. Jesus was later exalted to the status of godhood after His resurrection.

In the event that someone tries to claim I am making all this stuff up or misrepresenting LDS beliefs, the LDS Church is completely transparent about this aspect of their theology:

"Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister." (Spirit Children of Heavenly Parents)

"In harmony with the plan of happiness, the premortal Jesus Christ, the Firstborn Son of the Father in the spirit, covenanted to be the Savior. Those who followed Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were permitted to come to the earth to experience mortality and progress toward eternal life. Lucifer, another spirit son of God, rebelled against the plan and 'sought to destroy the agency of man.' He became Satan, and he and his followers were cast out of heaven and denied the privileges of receiving a physical body and experiencing mortality." (Premortality)

"The Savior did not have a fulness at first, but after he received his body and the resurrection all power was given unto him both in heaven and in earth. Although he was a God, even the Son of God, with power and authority to create this earth and other earths, yet there were some things lacking which he did not receive until after his resurrection. In other words he had not received the fulness until he got a resurrected body" (Joseph Fielding Smith)

"And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him." (D&C 93:12-17).

Again--and I cannot stress this enough--my problem with this is not that I think it is "weird". I don't think it is exceptionally weird, and again, all religions are weird, including my own. Something being "weird" isn't enough to make it not Christian.

My issue is that this is significantly different than orthodox Christian theology. Orthodox Christian theology holds that Jesus is fully God, and has always been fully God, even as an embryo in Mary's womb. Again, fully willing to say that the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, God's neither-male-nor-femaleness, and Jesus being eternally fully God, even as an unborn baby, is all pretty bizarre.

Now, there are absolutely places where orthodox Christian denominations and theologians have disagreements about Jesus. Some of those questions are really significant ones too, like the whole miaphysitism vs. hypostatic union debate. But whatever disagreements we have, I am of the firm belief that the question of Jesus' divinity--that He was, is, and ever shall be God--is a pretty fundamental tenet of the Christian faith. For all of our squabbling, Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Wesleyans, Russian Orthodox, etc. have all taken that question very, very seriously. Once a religion leaves that behind, I have a hard time accepting that a member of said religion is a Christian.

I'll concede that in anthropological contexts, it's not incorrect to categorize the LDS Church as "Christian" for historical reasons. After all, various aspects of LDS practice and teaching can only be explained through the fact that Mormonism came about as a blending of various 19th century American beliefs with Second Great Awakening-era low-church American Protestantism.

And I also recognize that there are other Christians around here that would take a much broader theological stance over who is or isn't Christian than I do. But personally, looking at LDS theology and comparing it to the rest of orthodox Christianity, I would consider the LDS Church one of several American offshoots of Christianity dating to the 19th century rather than orthodox Christianity-proper.

[canvasmirror]

Emma Sandys (British/English, 1843-1876) • Portrait Study of a Lady in a Yellow Dress (Possibly a Self Portrait) • c. 1870 • Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery, Norwich, England, UK

Emma Sandys was the sister of the Pre-Raphaelite painter Frederick Sandys (1829-1904).

[randomlywanderingmoth]

Ah, nuts to it, I'm not letting this one simmer in my head forever.

Fanservant: Tam Lin Bedivere

Servant Class: Saber

In a distant land, a Lostbelt- no, a Lostworld called Faerie Britain, the there was once a Savior named Aesc. She had companions, tried to save this Lostworld, failed, and the tyrant Queen Morgan rose. Visitors to this Lostworld witnessed her tyranny, fought her, slew her, and- if you know of Faerie Britain you know the specifics of this story, the ways it might be inaccurate, and so on.

However, the Kaleidoscope, the observation of infinite possibilities, is a funny thing, that observes differences in timelines. In the timeline you know, the story is as it is.

Tam Lin Bedivere is not from the timeline you know.

In another time, Aesc the Savior had one more companion than was commonly listed- a fae squire that became a fairy knight, the one called Tam Lin Bedivere. When Aesc died, Bedivere went missing- and it is commonly believed that the fairy knight's grief contributed to the circumstances of her reappearance, as the tyrant Queen Morgan's first knight.

Tam Lin Bedivere. The Loyal Knight of Autumn. A seemingly simplistic knight, adorned in armor like pale bone, or old grey wood, wielding a dread rapier of divine light, cutting down every Mors she comes across, in a near unbreaking vigil to end the threats to Faerie Britain. Gentle voiced but stern, and would always spirit those in danger away to safety.

The truth is several times over. Firstly, her armor, similar to the armor you might think reminiscent of a certain Lion King of Knights, was fashioned from the "bark" carved from A Certain Tree. Secondly, her sword was a gift, given to her by the Savior Aesc- originally a hefty spear, Tam Lin Bedivere fashioned it closer to a sword that would retract into the gauntlet of her right arm in golden coils. Due to the manner in which it was reforged, that sword is also capable of reforming as its wielder needs, extending in length and twisting around shields.

Thirdly, to dispel any notions, in spite of her proud, long, flowing autumn hair, and elsewise appearance, Tam Lin Bedivere is not the one you might recognize as Fujimaru Ritsuka.

She might have been, once. A long, long time ago. Two thousand and four hundred years ago, in fact. But once, in the present, the girl named Fujimaru Ritsuka was overcome with an irrational desire to protect- and thus displaced her Servant, and took the Water Mirror herself.

That Water Mirror sent that girl back, two thousand and four hundred years- but that is not what affected her. No, it was the combination of circumstance. The girl had no mana left in her body from a terrible fight with a terrible foe in Norwich Harbor, and furthermore she no longer had the protection of Shielder.

In that circumstance, she was like a sponge, absorbing the local mana- and that changed her rapidly and irrevocably, and subtly enough that even she did not notice herself.

And so, the girl became a changeling faerie. And so, she knew she could not return. And so, she remained with the Savior Aesc.

And over the years, and decades, and centuries, and millenia, she cultivated her mana, and her technique, and loyally served. Because that was all that she could do, because that was all that was left for her to do. Because she could not go home anymore.

And over those years, those decades, those centuries, those millenia, she forgot what she once was.

... is that really the truth, though?

PARAMETERS:

Strength: B

Endurance: A

Agility: B

Mana: A++

Luck: C

NP: EX

SKILLS:

Territory Creation (EX Rank): It is less to say that Tam Lin Bedivere is capable of calling forth a territory and using it; rather, a constant Bounded Field surrounds her and the area immediately around her. In ancient times, the effect was provided by her armor, but over thousands of years the effect has "stuck" to her. The nature of this Bounded Field "defines" Tam Lin Bedivere, near-absolutely. As such, her Parameters cannot be altered in any way by outside sources (detrimentally, or beneficially). In addition, any mana she expends, as long as it remains within this Bounded Field, will return to her almost immediately. Furthermore, this defined space protects her against all forms of unnatural attack, acting similarly to a Magic Resistance of A+ Rank. Lastly, allegedly, the Bounded Field would even protect Tam Lin Bedivere from ontological phenomena, such as erasure by paradox. However, such protection would surely be of extraneous value at best.

Riding (C+ Rank): One method of travel for Tam Lin Bedivere is to make her sword as large as possible, throw it like a javelin, and hop aboard, surfing across the sky. That alone should speak to her Riding skill. She calls the technique the Remix Arash Express, although even she cannot say as though why she would call it that.

Mana Burst (A++ Rank): Tam Lin Bedivere has an utterly extraordinary amount of mana, as well as the ability to manipulate it near effortlessly. Apocryphally, that unbelievable supply was gifted to her by Aesc the Savior, for her attempt to learn the nature of the Great Pit at the center of Faerie Britain. One direct manner by which she can crush threats to her Queen is to funnel a titanic amount of mana into her sacred sword; in a pinch, she can also channel that mana into her gauntlets or greaves. Even the unparalleled warrior Wryneck was said to quake at the notion of challenging her sheer force output.

Mind's Eye (True) (A Rank): Over thousands of years, Tam Lin Bedivere has fought threats to the Lostworld of Faerie Britain- from the Mors, to rogue elements. Over that combat she has accrued incredible battlefield awareness.

Fairy Knight of Autumn (B+ Rank): Tam Lin Bedivere was one of Queen Morgan's loyal knights, leading her own contingent in the battle against the Mors. Her unusual valor inspired the soldiers in her charge, acting similar to a Charisma skill. However, her true value comes in the certainty with which she fights. Her mind never folds under pressure, regardless of the odds or circumstances, whether it be fighting a tide of Mors, stalling a Calamity, or cutting down traitors to her Queen. It is said she has only ever faltered twice- both times against the foreign knight called "Tam Lin Galahad".

NOBLE PHANTASM:

Claiomh Solais: Sacred Sword, Light of Judgment

In the mythology of Pan-Human history, Claiomh Solais was the mythic sword of the equally mythic war god Nuadha. Chaldeas logs indicate that the heroic spirit known as Bedivere co-opted the legend of Nuadha's Silver Arm, Airgetlam. It is only appropriate that his Tam Lin counterpart would co-opt his shining sword.

Originally an iteration of the Sacred Spear Rhongomyniad, it was passed from the Savior Aesc to the Tam Lin Bedivere, and fashioned into a sword, that retracts to form the gauntlet and the armor of her right arm. When invoked, the Faerie Knight of Autumn could call down a gleaming pillar of light from the heavens, obliterating anything before her.

At one point, in this timeline, it was deflected by Mash Kyrielight, and irreversibly destroyed Tam Lin Bedivere's helmet, thus exposing her face to the public for the first time in over two thousand years.

Over the course of events, after Queen Morgan's death, she was bade to join the Chaldeans in their descent to Avalon, and bear witness to the forming of Excalibur in the Lostworld. This imprint of Excalibur was then given to her, and fused with her own sword- thus completing the sword known as Claiomh Solais.

In the better known timeline, this was followed by Artoria Caster's sacrifice to fell Cernunnos, and some other things. In this timeline, things are slightly reversed- it is Tam Lin Bedivere who sacrifices her life to fell Cernunnos, and Artoria Caster who survived, was devoured alongside the Chaldeans by the Abyssal Worm, called forth the memory of a kindly knight, and defeated Oberon Vortigern.

"O light from the Inner Sea, I bid you rise. O judgment from the Ends of the World, I bid you descend. No wrongness or evil may remain before my blade! CLAIOMH SOLAIS!"

[nanshe-of-nina]

Women’s History Meme || Empresses (5/5) ↬ Zoe Porphyrogénnētē (c. 978 – 1050)

When Michael V met his fate on Tuesday evening, 20 April 1042, the Empress Theodora was still in St Sophia. She had by now been there for well over twenty-four hours, steadfastly refusing to proceed to the Palace until she received word from her sister. Only the following morning did Zoe, swallowing her pride, send the long-awaited invitation. On Theodora's arrival, before a large concourse of nobles and senators, the two old ladies marked their reconciliation with a somewhat chilly embrace and settled down, improbably enough, to govern the Roman Empire. All members of the former Emperor's family, together with a few of his most enthusiastic supporters, were banished; but the vast majority of those in senior positions, both civil and military, were confirmed in office. From the outset Zoe, as the elder of the two, was accorded precedence. When they sat in state, her throne was placed slightly in advance of that of Theodora, who had always been of a more retiring disposition and who seemed perfectly content with her inferior status. Psellus gives us a lively description of the pair: Zoe was the quicker to understand ideas, but the slower to give them utterance. With Theodora it was just the reverse: she concealed her inmost thoughts, but once she had embarked on a conversation she would chatter away with an informed and lively tongue. Zoe was a woman of passionate interests, prepared with equal enthusiasm for life or death. In this she reminded me of the waves of the sea, now lifting a vessel on high, now plunging it down again. Such extremes were not to be found in Theodora: she had a calm disposition - one might almost say a dull one. Zoe was prodigal, the sort of woman who could dispose of a whole ocean of gold dust in a single day; the other counted her coins when she gave away money, partly no doubt because all her life her limited resources had prevented her from any reckless spending, but partly also because she was naturally more self-controlled In personal appearance there was a still greater divergence. The elder, though not particularly tall, was distinctly plump. She had large eyes set wide apart, with imposing eyebrows. Her nose was inclined to be aquiline, though not overmuch. She still had golden hair, and her whole body shone with the whiteness of her skin. There were few signs of age in her appearance … there were no wrinkles, her skin being everywhere smooth and taut. Theodora was taller and thinner. Her head was disproportionately small. She was, as I have said, readier with her tongue than Zoe, and quicker in her movements. There was nothing stem in her glance: on the contrary she was cheerful and smiling, eager to find any opportunity for talk. — Byzantium: The Apogee by John Julius Norwich

[historyartthings]

Because I’ve got my finger right on the pulse, I’m gonna make a meandering post about a long-cancelled period drama rather than the major one currently airing. But this has been in the drafts for ages, and yeah I just really didnt like the depiction of Kett’s rebellion in Becoming Elizabeth. And I need to complain about it lol. I wish i could say it was a good effort but im not sure i can even give it that...

a looong post because i cannae haud me wheesht

Firstly, and perhaps one of the most important things, is they have the rebels in the show rally around the cry, ‘kill all gentlemen!’ This wasn't a phrase used by the rebels at the Mousehold camp - it's been attributed to the revolts in the West, but i'd agree with recent research that it doesn't seem to actually have been said by anyone. The sentiment in of itself - the tearing down of the elite class - isn't something expressed in the articles the rebels produced, even if there were underlying tensions between the two groups. You do see it appear in individual testimonies sometimes, like here:

'the pore peple are now Famysshed but C of us wyll rise one daye agenst them & I wylbe one day he'.

I'm also not saying they were nice to the gentlemen they captured, or that they didn't want to confront these landed elites, because they did. But the rebels weren't, as shown in BE, slitting the throats of random nobles they came across. That kind of indiscriminate, murderous loathing isn't something i've seen represented in the sources describing their actions. There were few murders at all committed by the rebels - the battles against crown forces excluded - and fewer still can be confirmed to have been gentry. (although i should point out, whilst I'm focusing on Norwich because the show did, iirc there were killings of elites, and more talk in that sort of vein, in yorkshire). In the south, their violence seems largely to have been aimed at property, and chosen enclosures/deer parks and houses/household goods. that was the consistent thread running through their physical responses. For example:

'So some of the common people rose in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex under a captain they called Common-wealth and made havoc on the wild beasts in many of the parks in these parts.  But they paid for their food in every place'.

or,

'they have pluckyd downe Sir Wyllyam Harberde’s parke that ys abowte hys newe howse, and dyverse other parkysse and commonse that be inclosyd in that cuntre, but harme thay doo too parson (nobody).... They saye thay wylle obaye the Kynges maiste and my lord Protector with alle the counselle, but thay saye thaye wyll nat have ther commonse and ther growendes to be inclosyd and soo taken from them.'

and from Holinshed,

'ditches and hedges, wherewith the commons abrode in the countrie were inclosed, were throwne downe'

Their violence was a response to land, economic, religious, as well as highly local factors. To my understanding, it didn't represent a desire to either kill or eradicate gentlemen as a social group. The Norwich articles do suggest aims to minimise their interference in the community, and it did represent a radical restructuring of local rights and spheres of influence - at least, as i understand it.

Again, all this isn't to say there wasn't force, that there wasn't any brutality, or that there wasn't bitterness or resentment directed at elites. To take another example from Holinshed, he describes this killing of an Italian mercenary at Mousehold:

‘but they [Dudley's forces] left one of their companie behind them, a gentleman that was an Italian, who… through euill hap being outherthrowne beside his horsse, he was inuironed about with a great multitude if those rebels, that tooke him prisoner, and like vile wretches spoiling him of his armor and apparell, hanged him ouer the wals of mount Surrie. Which act shewed what courtesie might be looked for at such cruell traitors hands… it seemed that their beastlie crueltie had bereft them the rememberance of all honest consideration and dutifull humanitie’.

Having said that, the way the show presents the rebels' violence seems to me to be unrepresentative. BE depicts an overly simplistic picture of the commons indiscriminately murdering nobles w/o compunction or for any particularly complex reasons. Just, showing these people yanking a random man and woman off their horses to slit their throats and then leaving them to die... it really fucked me off. That is not at all accurate to events or the commons' behaviour during Kett's rebellion. At least, not in any sources that i've read. I mean funnily enough people werent too keen on getting hanged, which goes a long way to explaining why they skewed away from interpersonal violence.

The show also understates the sheer scale of the death toll imo. Not only were significant numbers killed at Dussindale, but a large number were executed after the fact. There was also battles near Exeter, and a great many Cornish were killed - I've come across the number as potentially as many as 2 000 before.

'The knight, hearing of this came with 200 men in harness who by his order attacked the commons and slaughtered them like wolves among sheep'

'During this time the Lord Privy Seal saw his opportunity to attack the besiegers [at exeter] before the Cornishmen arrived and killed more than 5,000. ....Then [at Norwich] the captain and many honest men were hanged, many of them without deserving it for any harm they had done, and some who had not even raised a stick to go to the field'

i don't think the figures have to be understood as being 100% accurate to nevertheless impart the sense of scale.

BE sort of glosses over this, even if it shows a handful of rebel leaders being hanged. Local communities such as Norwich, Yarmouth and others involved would have been greatly effected in terms of the proportion of their population who were now dead.

And the number of people hanged, drawn, and quartered at the market cross in norwich.. it was 30 or so i think? i can't imagine watching all those people be brutally killed on the same spot in one day. There were churchmen hanged from their steeples in various towns (oh how funnily ironic of you!) - this also extended to William, Robert Kett's brother,

'likewise hanged on the toppe of Windham [Wymondham] Steeple'

And, ofc, people's hung, drawn and quartered body parts were placed on the town/city gates. There were hangings in many local areas wherever support for the rebellion had existed.

Rebels were also hanged actually from the oak of reformation, which I’d argue is a fairly pointed inversion and disregard for such a key symbol of the revolt. It strikes me as particularly cruel and dismissive. as in, everything they tried to convey about themselves was shown to be utterly pointless and irrelevant.

memories of all this lasted, as you can imagine, for decades afterwards, like in 1596:

'the people that there [oxfordshire] did Rise were persuaded to goe home, and were after hanged like dogges'

This deficit in the show is seemingly symptomatic of the general under-representation of the sheer scale of what was happening. the number of amassed people shown is miniscule compared not only to the numbers at Mousehold but also those across the south - as well as some disturbances in the north. I feel like this couldve been mentioned in the dialogue since showing all that wouldve been very difficult, as the scale was most likely a budget thing. But showing merely the killing of Kett and a handful of others does the whole sequence of events a terrible disservice.

It also glosses over the extent to which this was a factor in Somerset's fall, and it was a big factor. The nobility felt he was prioritising the commons over their own interest. Paulet wrote in a pretty exasperated way about Somerset’s policies, and ofc Warwick grew increasingly impatient with him. The common people actually rose in decent numbers when he asked them, but Seymour turned them away in the end. I think he likely realised it was a bridge too far. Edward was actually allowed to survive for a short time after the risings, but not by much.

Anyway, overall i felt the show was far too harsh towards the rebels and presented them as very one-dimensional. And on the flip-side if anything it was too kind towards the nobility in its depictions of their response, considering they showed only a few hangings and not the overwhelming scale of death and brutality that followed. It’s been a while since I’ve watched the show, but did they mention the battle at mousehold, even? If not I think that’s diabolical

(As an aside to that last point, I do find John Dudley interesting. And I mention that because I want to be clear, I’m not saying you can’t like these people, or find them fascinating or compelling or moving. But when ‘these people’ are Tudor ministers you have to be prepared that they will have done some terrible things. Whether that behaviour is the ‘norm’ then or not, it still makes for difficult, upsetting reading. And I’m saying this as someone who does find the characters of these v competent/influential ministers really fascinating - like Wolsey, Cromwell, Cranmer, Dudley, Cecil etc. I mean, Cecil in the wake of the northern revolt? Reading those documents makes me feel a bit sick actually. It’s chilling. But anyway, anyone in the court can come under this umbrella to varying extents, but the drivers/orchestrators of policy are obviously - next to the monarchs - at the heart of any brutality…)

[banji-effect]

Prepare to follow ER 15 no 80

Gold mourning ring, c. 1680, connected to an Elizabeth Roope of Morningthorpe near Norwich

[bronzeageecho]

cavalry helmet | c. 300s CE | late roman britain

in the norwich castle museum collection

[catherinetheprincessofwales]

The Martineau Family | French Huguenots

Norwich Maître Chirurgien (Master Surgeon), David Martineau (1726-1768) and his wife Sarah Meadows (1725-1800). David Martineau was the grandson of Gaston Martineau (c. 1654-1726), a surgeon in Dieppe, who moved to Norwich after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685; the edict had allowed French Protestants freedom of religion and the Huguenots left France for safety. The arrival of this large amount of new immigrants into Britain in the 1680s meant that a new word came into the English language to describe them: ‘rés’ or refugees. They are therefore considered the ‘first refugees’ to arrive to the British Isles.

The Princess of Wales (b. 1982) is a descendant of the couple via their son Thomas Martineau, a textile manufacturer (1764-1826) and his wife Elizabeth Rankin (1772-1848) the couples second daughter was famed sociologist and abolitionist Harriet Martineau (1802-1876).