#Catherine instead is like

[slime-sandwhich-nom]

Playing SOMA gave me vision

[autisticrosewilson]

Um if you write Jason having to get drugs for Catherine I want you dead btw. Not only does it tell me you assume the average drug dealer would give the hard shit to a very small child and then not supervise them at all (classist stereotype that all drug dealers are inherently evil + lazy writing with no grasp on reality) and you genuinely think that Catherine was CONSTANTLY high, as if that's even possible without overdosing far sooner than she did. That's without even getting into the bad mom Catherine propaganda.

[spiritsglade]

never forget that jason todd has his mother's eyes

[myreputatioooon]

okay but can we see Wuthering Height's side on the fallout of Heathcliff being Doomed by the Narrative in World of U Corp?

manor reconstruction is in order, golden boughs are secured, some more years and Heathcliff will be invited back home

some years too early an uninvited guest requests an audience with somebody he only knows by the name of Cathy to give news regarding Heathcliff

Catherine, deprived of her love for so long demands the same, demands he tells everything he knows about Heathcliff, to know the name of whom Heathcliff has spent the last of his years with

"I've beaten around the bush for too long, I came here because Heathcliff loved you dearly, so much so he had a coffin made for the moment of his inevitable demise.

"I'm inviting you, and anybody you wish to take with you, to my love's funeral. Please forgive me for not having the funds to host it in a Nest," is spoken from Yi Sang.

whom Heathcliff has spent the last of his years with

it can't be him

[melonisopod]

My personal headcanon for the WH Mirror World is that Ishmael agreed to be a maid under the Edgar Family because she knew the heir was a sickly waif of a man who would probably croak from TB in a decade or two and she can train up to face Ahab in that amount of time, but unfortunately she got really attached to the sickly waif of a man she was banking on dying young.

[colbrot]

no but what if rtd ended it ambiguously???? no evil smiles and monster teeth to clue you in, just one donna entering the tardis and one donna dying, but you’re not sure which was which and it’s never explained either. you think it’s donna, you think the doctor was right but you can’t be 100% sure. and neither can he

[averlym]

Hi! Would you maybe be willing to draw Fluff, 1 for platonic Kat and Cathy, please? No pressure if not obv!

"wait is that my book" "you mean our book?" (prompt list here)

[stheresya]

lol at lb being a heathcliff anti as if mal and alina's relationship isn't just a piss poor version of catherine & heathcliff's all consuming love

[turtleduckmocha]

i don't hate bl.ions fans but it's not my fault they consistently have the worst fucking takes in the world

[lilcathsmith]

Greg in every episode of CSI (99/328) • Unbearable •

[heartofstanding]

anyway I feel like writing spite fic so maybe I will write Joan of Kent/Blanche of Lancaster smut. send prompts if you want. :>

[fideidefenswhore]

"On leaving the company I took Cromwell apart, who assured me that the King was very well disposed to listen to the matters of which we had treated, and as to the Princess, the King had lately told him that he felt himself already growing old, and doubted whether he should have any child by the Queen; for which reason he intended, in a few days, to declare the Princess heir of the kingdom..."

I've been doing research on Thomas Cromwell for my novel, set in 1537, and found this. Do you think Cromwell was lying here? And why? I know it's all conjecture but I'm curious what you think. Love your blog btw <3

you're doing background, i assume? since that quote is from 1536?

i think you can assume that angle wrt to mary, since obviously henry never did actually do that (i mean, sort of and conditionally, in 1543, behind prince edward and his heirs). there's certainly the possibility that he did say or plan this, and then just reneged (ie, cromwell was giving chapuys 'temporarily' accurate intel, just unbeknowst to him), but i don't think that's likely. likelier is that cromwell is lying (er...'misrepresenting'), or chapuys is (perhaps, willfully) misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he has told him.

as far as the 'by the [present] queen' aspect goes...well, that's interesting. despite the recent popularity of weir's claims that jane became pregnant mid-1536 and miscarried later, there is just no evidence for this, beyond a "colourful but secondhand story" printed by thomas colwell, in the elizabethan era, in which henry suggests she's with child late in 1536 at a public court event, and some gossip by a faraway source (which doesn't really corroborate the former, bcus if the latter were true, then jane would likely have had a child by october 1536, not *still* be with child in late december 1536, as the former implies). his former two wives both became pregnant within months of their respective marriages. he possibly was feeling/fearing that he was without hope of future issue, and expressing this, based on precedent, which cromwell might've used to suggest or imply to chapuys that mary's chances of being declared heiress were still strong, to maintain warmer anglo-imperial relations and balance that diplomatic tightrope, leave options of alliances open etc.

it was unusual (possibly unprecedented?), for example, for quickenings to be celebrated as jane's was in 1537--

"as it was not customary in england for public announcements to be made about the pregnancies of the royal family, physical signs and hints in conversation provided courtiers with the only evidence of the queen's secret" (retha warnicke)

so...why was it? distraction from the reprisals of the pilgrimage of grace? or was henry making a point of having it known and dated as an...overcompensation, of sorts? there were large gaps between his surviving children, henry the nyp in 1511, princess mary in 1516, fitzroy in 1519, princess elizabeth in 1533. the last long-term pregnancy of a wife resulting in a living child had, by 1537, been four years prior (and so had celebration relating to that, which might be why bonfires and free wine were provided here, as they were in 1533 to celebrate princess elizabeth's christening) and 'vigour nor virtue' lived in infamy, he was likely at pains to 'prove' it was untrue.

[navree]

the concept of having children being so tied into political ambitions and machinations throughout history means that a lot of people do seem to straight up forget that these people were, like, family, and likely acted as such a lot of the time

[robertsbarbie]

You being a Luke fan makes so much sense for you but I would like go know the extend of fanhood. What are your thoughts on him?

short answer: luke has never done anything ever in his entire life

long answer: my perspective is a lot wider now than when i initially read the books, i think i held a similar mentality, but i also was 12 years old and in love with him so that is biased. but i find his character fascinating, i think the fact he is 19 in the first book is fascinating (my entire life i thought he was maybe two years older than the others until i re read), i think the way his character’s story was written and how he was interlaced with the other characters could not and will never be better. that being said i do think he did a lot of things that were wrong (homeboy did commit mass murder, and like he is AN antagonist of the series), but i will never think he’s a bad guy.

i think luke being 19 and the way his story was written ALL of it makes sense, there’s true no malicious intent and that’s seen time and time again where he pauses almost (even as he’s being controlled by kronos) and is like “… but my friends” which like is just another thing that ties his similarities to percy as if they’re two paths. but back to him being 19 and mad at his dad 19 is when you age out of a lot of stuff, it’s a weird transitional period and he had to do it alone after feeling abandoned by his father (the titan headquarters being where luke got his scar and started his villain origin story>>>>> cinematic) in a place where he watched people constantly die, where his best friend died, where he was constantly in danger like that’s a lot! no wonder resentment grew! and it’s like at the end of the day like just wanted to be safe with his friends and feel seen. which i think is the main point of the first series you see it with the minor gods, you see it in the camp games (silena my absolute beloved trying to get people to take aphrodite kids seriously), you see it with the “Big Three”, you see it with rachel elizabeth dare, calypso, you see it even at percy’s first school like it’s everywhere!this concept of being seen and not just cast aside when convenient and i think luke was used as the archetypal symbol for that. and like it finally clicks for percy in the last book and he sees the point of it all and like it drove me insane while rereading but while percy gets bitter about luke and hates him and can’t stand that annabeth still feels for him i truly believe he never loses his compassion for luke and the life luke could’ve had if not for the life he did

and idk i just love him so much not for the terrible things he did but because he was literally just a kid who was fucked over by the system

[heir-less]

A special task force about how early childhood care can promote businesses when 57% of people in the UK have to cut their hours and earnings because they can't even afford childhood care?

Bye.

[widowshill]

haha.. yes.... i love this song. fully continuing the roger/laura/burke parallels.