#John Knox' House

[rabbitcruiser]

The Burning of Edinburgh by an English army on May 7, 1544 was the first action of the Rough Wooing.

[shan0blight]

If i do when harry met sally i’m gonna need some help deciding the argument between the both of them (like how harry and sally argue that boys and girls can’t just be friends)

and if i do before sunrise there is a 50% chance i’ll do the other two movies in the trilogy

but if it’s sleepless in seattle the plot is going to be a lot different from the movie cause i just can’t see ether of them having a child and plus they don’t meet till like at the end soooo…. it’s def not my first choice

RIDE YOUR WAVE IS AN ANIME LOVE STORY AND ITS SO HEARTBREAKING!!!

[deadxregulus]

I want to start writing one shots , which is why i would like to hear your ideas and wishes for one shots !

Fandoms :

•Dead Poets Society

•Hpuse md

(Maybe there will be more fandoms with the time)

[scotianostra]

Royal Mile photies fae the bus.

[maryqos]

"As previously discussed by Mary Villeponteaux, Protestant efforts to equate female rulers with Old Testament tyrants such as Jezebel were motivated primarily by fear of their gender. The implication was that papist queens were neither compassionate nor rational, but impulsive, excessively cruel, sexually incontinent, and either stubborn or indecisive due to the unnaturalness of occupying a traditionally male position of power. During his own exile, Scotsman John Knox actively equated both Mary I of England and Mary Stuart with Jezebel, and argued that 'nature doth paint them to be weak, frail, indirect, feeble and foolish, while experience hath declared them to be unconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel.”

nick k. crown, "catholic, anglican, and puritan representation of royal martyrs."

[atendencytotangle]

My Favorite Books I Read in 2023 (In No Particular Order)

Check out these books that I loved reading during 2023

In previous years, I’ve limited my favorite books read in a year posts to ten. This year, I decided not to limit myself because I read so many books I absolutely adored in 2023 and I just couldn’t pare them down to ten. As always, not all of these books were published in 2023, but I read all 61 of them between 1st January and 31st December 2023. These were a mixture of fiction and non-fiction,…

[solcito-dps]

hi! my name is sol, im 19 but i’ve been writing since i was 11. I’ve never posted my writing in here, but i feel like it could be a good start now, since i’ve seen some of the fandoms im like very into right now are pretty active here. So, (i’ve been out of interacting with people on internet for a long time, in case i say something cringe) i would love to know if anyone here would like to be mutuals.

my interests are:

house md

dead poets society

obert sean leonard in general

succession

the beatles (my favorite beatle is george)

pedro pascal also in general

diego luna, gael garcía

and ultimately the bear and jeremy allen white

i think there’s more but this is all that is very important to me right now. so yeah, if you’re up to being mutuals and if you’re extra kind explain me how all this dynamic works i’ll be super grateful ❣️

(also english is not my first language so i’m sorry if something doesn’t make sense )

[morwensteelsheen]

Tilney v Knox (1799)

Those familiar with the work of Reverend Knox will know precisely what sort of ill-humour such a combination is apt to encourage in well-read young men; for those who are not familiar with the good minister’s work, suffice it to say that one may either concur with the conclusions of The First Blast, or have an amiable character, but never both.

On Ao3

Fandom: Northanger Abbey - Jane Austen

Rating: General Audiences

Relationship: Catherine Morland/Henry Tilney

Additional Tags: I am here to be rude about John Knox and do very little of anything else, First Blast deez nuts

[tommykane]

This is a drawing I did of the Scottish Storytelling Center on High Street along the royal mile in Edinburgh. Even though the streets are filled with crazy old medieval buildings, this guy stood out. This section of the center is the John Knox house originally built in 1490. The second I stumbled upon it, I knew I had to draw it. Plus I never painted a storytelling center before.

[weirdlookindog]

"There are those who, having sold their souls to Satan, must dwell forevermore in the grim housing of the dead - accursed beings only half alive, who must ravish beneath the moon for living, human prey"

Amos Sewell (1901-1983) - Illustration from John Knox' 'Those Who Dwell In Coffin'

(Dime Mystery Magazine, August, 1934)

[natequarter]

you wonder why the scots were so unstable, then you look at their monarchy and realise they had seven child monarchs in a row. oh your king's a twelve-year-old? that sucks. what, he's been assassinated? huh! good thing his heir-- HE'S SIX? good thing he isn't going to die a ridiculous death like getting blown up by a cannon any time soon! BUT NOT FOR LONG! what, he was actually blown up by a cannon? wow. anyway, we're leaving the throne in the capable hands of a nine-year-old. that won't go wrong! OR SO WE THOUGHT! well, at least it wasn't a cannon that took him out this time, just a little bit of rebellion and war. and we're leaving the throne in the capable hands of a competent and popular ruler.

BUT NOT FOR LONG! this idiot gets absolutely wrecked at the hands of the english. and by wrecked, i mean killed. great news for henry viii, terrible news for little one-year-old jamie (his nephew, i should point out), a.k.a. your highness, and fifth in a long line of idiots called james. (you'd think they'd learn to pick another name.) things work out eventually, right up until henry viii's lot come back onto the scene and get into a bunch of fights with the scots. unbelievably, things are about to get so much worse. in a real smart move, james dies at the grand old age of thirty. (i feel the need to point out that none of these jameses lived past the age of forty-two. and that's being generous.)

enter mary. she's catholic! she's not called james! she's the queen of scotland! and guess how old she is? six days! yes, you heard that right - six days. (and you thought six years was bad.) she's eventually whisked away to live in france and later marry the dauphin, handily solving the problem of the english trying to kidnap her and marry her off to edward vi. (she's five at this point. edward is ten. françois, the dauphin, is three. don't think too hard about any of that.)

they grow up. edward dies at fifteen. mary i, best known for her fondness for barbecues, dies five years later. françois, sensing a trend, dies two years after that at sixteen. mary returns to scotland, and all is well.

OR SO WE THOUGHT! whilst england was busy being torn apart by religious matters, scotland was busy being torn apart by religious matters. (you'll never guess what's happening in france.) mary, of course, is a devout catholic. some of the scots, who have spent twelve years without a monarch, let alone a catholic girl raised in france, are... not. rebellions! political instability! back to the status quo, basically. john knox is not happy, but when is he ever? elizabeth i kindly tries to help things by sending her bestie robert dudley (yes, that robert) to marry mary. this, unsurprisingly, does not go down well. fortunately, mary solves all these problems by creating a new one: she marries her half-cousin, henry lord darnley! yuck! i mean, yay! more rebellion (led by mary's half-brother)! henry turns on mary because he wants more power! he allies with the protestant lords, and they stab mary's private secretary to death in front of her whilst she's pregnant! the usual.

BUT NOT FOR LONG! mary and henry escape, they have a lovely little son called james (they still hadn't learn their lesson about scottish jameses), and they all live happily ever after until henry's house is blown up and he's found smothered outside in broad daylight. suspects include: everyone in scotland. but mostly lord bothwell, who proceeds to kidnap mary and marry her. now, you may struggle to believe this, but things go downhill from here. mary is eventually forced to abdicate, and flees to england. bothwell is imprisoned in denmark, and later goes insane. as for james, now the one-year-old james vi (anyone sensing a pattern here?), well, he's probably too busy learning to speak to care. because, you know, he's one. some people never learn.

from this point onwards, mary's kept under house arrest by elizabeth i. in a display of gratitude towards elizabeth, mary promptly spends the rest of her life plotting against her. or being involved in plots. in the meantime, james's regent, also called james stewart (mary's aforementioned half-brother; the name is cursed), earns the dubious honour of being the first head of government to be assassinated with a firearm. eventually, after mary, that virtuous angel, actively tries to kill elizabeth, elizabeth gets fed up and drops a sword on mary's neck. james, who last saw his mother at the age of zero years old, must have been devastated.

you all know what happened next: elizabeth died at the grand old age of sixty-nine, and james inherited the throne. thus followed decades of religious instability, parliamentary infighting, and stubborn monarchs who refused to listen to reason, which were surely new to the elizabethans. james, who was what is commonly known these days as a "hot mess" or "bisexual disaster" - don't quote me on that - was nearly blown up in a plot masterminded by a guy called tosser. sorry, i mean a tosser called guy. he also pissed everyone off by being a bit too buddy-buddy with several men, possibly lovers. (probably lovers.) that was not the end of the curse of james stewart (see: james ii of england), but it did at least put an end to mary queen of scots. oh, and england and scotland were united. that too. cue much chaos with a man you've probably heard of, named oliver cromwell... the rest is history. i mean, all of this is history, but you know what i mean.

and that's the story of why having seven child monarchs in a row is a really fucking bad idea!

[rabbitcruiser]

The Burning of Edinburgh by an English army on May 7, 1544 was the first action of the Rough Wooing.

[idontwanttospoiltheparty]

I’ve been reading through you J+P analysis and love it! I hope you don’t mind but I wanted to add my two cents on the idea that Paul’s statements and mentions about John have potentially gotten over effusive to please the press and have fed into him over romanticising his relationship with John. I think this is somewhat true but I believe the reality is a lot more complicated and symbiotic.

 It's undeniable that Paul is on a bit of a bizarre post-mortem honeymoon with John at the minute due to nostalgia and the pro-lennon/mccartney stuff coming out. There’s no way that isn’t colouring his thinking and you’re right, there’s a discrepancy between Pauls more contradictory statements closer to John’s death vs now. People pleasing does have something to do with it, but it goes both ways. In that 1987(?) interview with John’s sister Julia, Paul says that he tried to downplay his relationship with John as people didn’t want to hear it, which partially explains his scrambled ‘oh we were the best of mates but you don’t get close to mates’ 1980s interviews. That interview is also important as Julia allows him to voice the belief that he skirted round in other interviews, which is that he was the person who knew John best. That’s a bold statement to make, and puts his tentative ‘one of the closest people to him. I can’t claim to be the closest, although it’s possible …  but I wouldn’t… I don’t need that credit.’ in a different light. Linda was also talking about the intensity and depth of their relationship early on (deeper than any of us will ever know, like the mirror image of each other etc) and pre-breakup Paul was casually describing he and John’s extreme closeness to a friend and their telepathy. So some of Paul's more effusive stuff he’s coming out with in interviews in the last decade or so is probably partly to do with the shift in narrative validating all of these feelings that he always had about John but felt unable to say/reckon with at the time of his death. It could be a bit like a pressure valve releasing slightly and all of it just flooding out.

Like the soulmate thing, it could be Paul rambling and getting to an extreme point but also he would never have been able to say that in the 80s/90s without backlash (I do find it telling that Paul’s PR guy also openly called John a soulmate to Paul, sure its good for brand image but also he would be more conscious than anyone of what Paul is okay with being put out there. Also the Howard Stern one where he reacted badly to the LOML question was likely due to the romantic connotations/Howard’s lack of boundaries). We also shouldn’t caricature-ise Paul’s people pleasing tendencies when it comes to his feelings and emotions. Sure he leaves harder stuff out and likes to focus on the positive, but he’s also Fort Knox possessive/private about his feelings and downplays them or shuts off (he’s done this recently like when he refused to tell Colbert about his dreams about John in detail). He fully owns to the press that the situation was complicated and his feelings aren’t straightforward. That he tends to downplay intensity as a general rule DESPITE greater intensity feeding better to the press should throw starker light on the strength of his feeling rather than doubt.

The more extreme statements also match what he’s saying in his personal life to friends and family (multiple people have said he constantly brings up the Beatles even when they themselves are asked not to and Julian mentioned that when he discusses John he talks about it as if it was a great love) and his personality. Paul was never getting over John because he loves profoundly and its not in his nature to let go. He’s the man who spent £70,000 in the 70s doing up a car that had fallen into a lake for ‘sentimental’ reasons, the man who bought the railings from Please Please Me to install in his studio and the man who, according to some reports, turned his whole house into a Linda shrine after she died. He’s also the man shattered by his mother’s death to the point he’s still agonised over laughing at her over something silly.  The press have exacerbated the situation and his uncertainty over their relationship to the point that he has to prove it to himself which is horrible, but in all likelihood he was always going to fill his houses and studios with John’s items and over 40 years later privately mull over if hugging John more would have helped, especially given how John died.

 Paul is not creating a narrative that didn't exist but zooming in on an aspect that was already there and choosing to focus on that. It’s become a bit of a feedback loop, ie Paul watches Mclennon videos on youtube then sends them to producers as inspiration as to how they should present their relationship in a documentary which again pushes a narrative onto fans which they embrace and so on. Ironically, I see the interviews and press as not just a perpetuator but also an outlet for Paul’s grief and trauma that was going to exist regardless of media involvement. Media is the thing that tore them apart and kept them apart initially but now its the medium where again Paul gets validation for his relationship with John as well as an outlet to speak about it in a way which he would normally be too repressed to do. Is his view on John different now than when he was alive? Sure! Is it romanticised? Probably? But likewise, was the petty bullshit that clouded his judgement during their worst period the true snapshot of their relationship either? It’s a whole messy question of whether there is ever one true version of something as shifting as a volatile relationship and if our relationship with the dead ever really ends/our views on the dead become more or less valid with paradoxical clarity/obscurity of distance.

Essentially what I’m trying to say is that Paul romanticises and creates narrative through omission, not exaggeration and that his more extreme statements are likely true to him. Love is a conversation and sometimes becomes an echo when the other person isn’t there yada yada yada.

Thank you for taking the time to write all of this out :)

I agree with a lot of this actually! Though I do also think that we shouldn't ignore the fact that Paul still regularly reveals his feelings towards John to be kind of mixed at times when he talks about the breakup specifically. But on the whole, your thoughts really align with mine and if I at times seem more cynical, it's probably because I find the specific way people talk about Paul on here can get very reductive.

You summarized the nuance of it very well here:

It’s a whole messy question of whether there is ever one true version of something as shifting as a volatile relationship and if our relationship with the dead ever really ends/our views on the dead become more or less valid with paradoxical clarity/obscurity of distance. Essentially what I’m trying to say is that Paul romanticises and creates narrative through omission, not exaggeration and that his more extreme statements are likely true to him. Love is a conversation and sometimes becomes an echo when the other person isn’t there yada yada yada.

[pintoras]

Louise Rayner (English, 1832-1924): John Knox's House, Edinburgh (via Bonhams)

[scotianostra]

High Street, Royal Mile.

[pershing100]

John Knox House, Edinburgh