#Norman vs Saxon

[sherryewing]

First Kiss Friday with C.H. Admirand!

Welcome to my First Kiss Friday blog. I’m so happy to have my friend C.H. Admirand returning to give you an excerpt from her novel Rescuing the Lady of Sedgeworth. You can preorder it now for $0.99 or read for FREE in Kindle Unlimited. Releases on November 9th. Happy reading, my lovelies. We hope you enjoy this first kiss scene! Excerpt: Without a word, Winslow picked up a spoonful of stew,…

[medievalandfantasymelee]

THE HOT MEDIEVAL & FANTASY MEN MELEE

QUALIFYING ROUND: 136th Tilt

Uhtred of Bebbanburg, The Last Kingdom (2015-2022) VS. Robin Hood, Robin of Sherwood (1984)

Propaganda

Uhtred of Bebbanburg, The Last Kingdom (2015-2022) Portrayed by: Alexander Dreymon

“He's your quintessential fantasy hero, the embodiment of rugged hotness! What's more, he's a complex, flawed character - courageous, smart and trustworthy but also arrogant, impulsive and stubborn, which makes him more realistic and adds to his overall appeal. He's far from perfect, but good at heart, someone you could trust with your life. And look at his blue eyes :) What's not to like?”

Robin Hood, Robin of Sherwood (1984) Portrayed by: Michael Praed

“Perhaps no one ought to be able to carry off an '80s haircut of that sheer exuberance, and YET. Dark eyes you could drown in, cheekbones that could cut glass, and the right amount of mischief and vulnerability for an excellent Robin Hood. This is to say nothing of the long, dexterous fingers that I have definitely spent too much time thinking about. Anyway! He is lithe, beautiful, a little bit rakish, absolutely devastatingly hot.”

Additional Propaganda Under the Cut

Additional Propaganda

For Uhtred of Bebbanburg:

"If you want a textbook example of a hot medieval guy, Uhtred is IT. Alexander Dreymon is like, flawless from head to foot; gorgeous icy blue eyes, long lashes etc. and on top of all that Uhtred is just, such a likeable character. Short tempered? Sure, but humorous, just, fair-minded and loyal as well."

[Gifset]

[Gifset]

For Robin Hood:

“Amazingly great hair for someone living in a forest as an outlaw (but we're not complaining), and with eyes as green as a forest glade, this slim, fey Robin was a Saxon peasant who was ready to be a figurehead for the people of England who needed hope to endure under their Norman overlords. He accepted the role of the forest god Herne the Hunter and a legend was born.”

[lykegenia]

So something has been bugging me for a while now about A and N’s backstories, and while I know not everyone will be as pedantic as me, as someone who loves history and has done a lot of writing, I feel that if you’re going to write a story about vampires and give them a specific time and date of origin, then there should be a certain level of research that goes into making that background authentic. I'm not saying that Mishka didn’t do any research. It just seems that in order to keep the vibe of a happy, mellow fantasy some of the less savoury aspects of A and N’s upbringings have been left out, and it's a shame. To be honest, it feels a bit disingenuous, and it feels like an opportunity got wasted.

Let me explain (long post got long, it's 2am)

Let's take A first, since the problem is simpler here.

A is the child of a Norman lord and an Anglo-Saxon noblewoman, born in the first generation after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. A says that these were turbulent times but that their parents had a happy marriage. Which. While I’m sure a lot of unions in that time period made the best of it, I can’t help but feel this description strips away a lot of the context of what was going on at that point in history - and removes some of the complexity about A’s thoughts on love and relationships.

Basically, after he took control of the throne, William the Conqueror stripped many Anglo-Saxon lords of their lands and titles so he could give them to his Norman buddies instead - with the added bonus that it left the Anglo-Saxons without the means to raise armies against him. The sisters, daughters, and widows of the dispossessed Anglo-Saxons were then forced to marry these new Norman lords to legitimise their power, not infrequently after all of their male relatives had been slaughtered. It’s not as if Anglo-Saxon women weren’t used to being used as political chess pieces, but the years after the conquest were brutal. It’s why William had to build so many castles. The point that I’m trying to make is that even if A’s mother was content enough in her daily life, due to the power imbalance between her and her husband, it's very likely she had little choice in the matter. She may have seen a lot of her family killed for political reasons, with the knowledge that – in an age where women had very little protection outside of their paternal household – she might be next if she made too much of a fuss.

It would be fascinating to see what effect that tension has had on A 900 years later, or even to get an acknowledgement of how much times have changed, but we don’t. We don't see how their early years affected them, how they view relationships formed naturally instead of via political contracts. And I really, really wish we did. There is so much potential there.

But A is not the one keeping me up past 2 in the morning. It’s N, and the utter detachment their backstory seems to have from the period in history they lived in as a human. And it all stems from the fact that they came from the English nobility in the late 1600s.

See, the bulk of the problem is that English inheritance law at the time heavily favoured primogeniture, where a man’s wealth would go to his first-born son. Some dispensation was made for widows and other children, but the estates, assets, and most of the money had a very clear destination.

For one thing, this makes it kinda weird that N’s stepfather would have needed an heir before he could inherit, because except in extreme circumstances everything would have gone to him anyway. Don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst part of the problem, it’s just annoying when there are more plausible reasons for him marrying a woman already pregnant with another man’s child (old family friend wanting to save her from disgrace, needed the dowry to pay off gambling debts, there was a longstanding betrothal between them that would have been tricky to get out of, etc.).

No, the bigger problem with N’s backstory vs primogeniture is firstly that at the time the English aristocracy was racist af (still is tbh) and given his pretty obvious mixed-race heritage, no court would have agreed that Nate was a legitimate son (this is for a very special reason that we will be coming back to). I say Nate specifically here because primogeniture requires the eldest legitimate son. Nat wouldn’t have inherited at all, as women in that period passed from the guardianship of their father (or other male blood relative) into that of their husband after marriage, and only gained any kind of independence with widowhood. If N had been an only child, maybe they would have been treated as a special case, but unfortunately Milton exists: the eldest legitimate son who by law will inherit everything.

Now here’s the thing. Your average aristocrat in the 17th century is very obsessed with lineage and keeping the family line unbroken. He would not, therefore, send his legitimate heir to sea to be shot at or drowned before he can carry on the family name – that joy instead goes to any other sons who need their own profession, because again, they will get very little. Nat would have had a dowry, but would never have been expected to make her own living, so I'm going to focuson Nate for this next bit.

In Book 3, if you unlock his tragic backstory Nate tells you he joined the Royal Navy after Milton went missing so that he could go look for him. And, well. This is where his backstory as Mishka tells it completely falls apart. For two reasons:

1. Even in the modern day, you can’t ‘just’ join the Navy, and you certainly can’t just jump straight to being a lieutenant – it takes years of training and after a certain age they won’t take you because they won’t be able to mould you easily enough into a useful tool. For most of the Navy's history, the process was even more involved. It wasn’t an office job you could just rock up to and then quit if you felt like it, it was a lifetime commitment. Boys destined to be officers would be sent to sea as early as 12 to learn shipboard life, starting at the bottom and moving up the ranks. These were gained by passing exams and by purchasing a commission – which is why you generally had to come from wealth to be an officer at all. Once you get to lieutenant you're responsible for a lot of people, and might be tasked with commanding any captured ships alongside the daily running of yours - it was not an easy job.

2. Even as a lieutenant (one rank below Captain, with varying levels of seniority) it’s not like you can just go where you want. In the 1720s British colonies already existed in India, the Caribbean, and up the entire eastern seaboard of North America and into Canada, and the Navy was tasked with protecting merchant shipping along these seaways (and one trade in particular that we’ll be getting to, don’t worry). Nate could have ended up practically anywhere in the burgeoning empire. He would not have been able to choose whom he served under, and would not have been able to demand his superior officer go against orders from the admirality to chase down one lone vessel because he thinks another one of the admirals might be a bit dodgy. It could not have happened.

Besides these impracticalities, there’s a far easier way for the child of a wealthy man to get to a specific point on the far side of the globe to look for their lost sibling, which is the route I assume Nat took sine she couldn’t have joined the Navy (yes she could have snuck in but she’s specifically in a dress in the B2 mirror scene so). All they'd have to do would be to charter a ship and tell the captain where to go, which is the plot of Treasure Island. It's quicker, less fuss, with less chance of things going wrong. It's even possible in the age of mercantilism that the Sewells had some merchant vessels among their holdings that could be diverted for the task. Why go through the hassle of joining the Navy and potentially ending up on the wrong side of the world when you can just hire a ship directly?

If Nate does have to be in the Navy (and let’s face it, it’s worth it just for the uniform) then it's far more plausible is that, as the illegitimate son who would not inherit because of racism etc, he got sent to the Navy as a boy and rose through the ranks to become a lieutenant. When he got news of Milton’s disappearance not far from where he was stationed, he begged his captain to go investigate in case whatever happened turned out to be the symptom of a bigger problem. Like pirates.

I like this version better not just because it makes more sense, or because it keeps Nate’s situation re: inheritance closer to Nat’s and therefore makes their stories more equal, but also because it adds a delicious amount of guilt to Nate’s need to find his brother. We know his entire crew died looking for answers, because he was selfish – that’s roughly 100-400 lives lost because of him, and we know that sort of thing eats at him.

So that's one side of the story, but if Milton wasn’t in the Navy, what was he doing on the other side of the Atlantic in the first place? Well, this is where we come to the biggest elephant in the room regarding N’s backstory as a member of the 17th century English aristocracy and potentially as a naval officer: the Atlantic Slave Trade. If you are wealthy in 17th century Britain it's more than likely that your wealth comes either from the trade itself, or from the products made with the labour of enslaved people. If you are wealthy, you want to protect your assets from attack by pirates or foreign powers so you don't become less wealthy, and that is what the Navy is for.

Regardless of N’s own views on slavery at the time – and any subsequent changes in opinion – it’s likely their family owned or had shares in slave plantations in the Americas. As distasteful as it is, it makes far more sense that Milton was on a trip to check the family’s holdings when his ship - specifically a merchant vessel - went missing. From a pirate perspective, a merchant ship would make a much better target than a Navy vessel, being slower, more likely to have valuable cargo, and less likely to have marines or a well-trained broadside.

It's not surprising that Mishka left out the subject of the slave trade given her tendency to skirt around darker subjects and general blindspot for racial politics, but it is nuance that, if it was there, would create a more grounded and coherent backstory for N that doesn’t have quite so many holes. Like with A being the child of an invader and his war bride, we could get some deeper thoughts from N about their place in the world - How do they feel to have grown up so privileged when others who looked like them were regarded as literal property? How did they feel being part of the system that made it happen? Did it inform their compassionate nature? Is it still a source of guilt or someithng they've tried to make up for?

I'm not sure where I was going with all of this. It's late, my sleep pattern is fucked. The tl;dr is that giving the vampires' backstories historical context would make them feel more multifaceted and would give opportunities for character growth that are instead missed because of a desire for a more sanitized version of the past.

[missouri-and-woe]

Old English versus Middle English versus Modern English?

The Old English language is the primitive form of our modern tongue, spoken by the Anglo-Saxons who migrated and settled the area now named for them around the 5th century AD.

After the invasion of Duke William the Bastard in 1066, the language began to change under the influence of the French and Norman languages, and by the 13th century evolved into the Middle form of English as well as the Early form of Scots.

The Middle form of English continued the trend of continental influence, and by the 15th century had evolved into the form known as Early Modern English, which in turn evolved into Modern English by about the 17th century.

Old English was the language of Beowulf; Middle English was the language of Geoffrey Chaucer; Early Modern English was the language of Shakespeare and the King James version of the Bible; and, of course, Modern English is our present tongue, though it has undergone some major changes since the 17th century.

Example (Our Father) in Old English:

Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum, Sīe þīn nama ġehālgod. Tōbecume þīn rīċe, Ġeweorðe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum. Ūrne dæġhwamlīcan hlāf sele ūs tōdæġ, And forġief ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġiefaþ ūrum gyltendum. And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālīes ūs of yfele.

Example (Our Father) in Middle English:

Oure fadir That art in hevenes Halwid be thi name Thi kingdom come to Be thi wille don On erthe as in hevenes Give to us this day oure bred ovir othir substaunce And forgiv us oure dettis As we forgiven oure dettours And lede us not in to temptacioun But delyevr us from yvel

Example (Our Father) in Early Modern English:

Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen. Giue vs this day our daily bread. And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters. And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill

Example (Our Father) in Modern English:

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one.

[adventure-showdown]

What is your favourite Doctor Who story?

TOURNAMENT MASTERPOST

synopses and propaganda under the cut

Midnight

Synopsis

The Tenth Doctor and Donna Noble go to the leisure planet of Midnight for a simple, relaxing holiday. However, life with the Doctor can never be that simple, and things go horribly wrong for the Doctor when he decides to go off on a bus trip to see the Sapphire Waterfall, starting with the bus shutting down. When a mysterious entity infiltrates the shuttle bus, no one is to be trusted. Not even the Doctor himself...

Propaganda

Midnight is amazing. So thrilling. The monster was human fear and it cost the life of two innocent women. (plus two men on accident, well, more or less) And we never know what the midnight entity was. Perfect. My absolute favourite episode. The best thing is that it tricks you into liking the passengers before it slowly, slowly turns that into horror of what they're capable of. Chills every time. (Plus it's totally what inspired among us if you ask me) (anonymous)

The Time Meddler

Synopsis

The Doctor, Vicki, and new companion Steven Taylor arrive in Saxon Northumbria on the eve of the Viking and Norman invasions. It is 1066, a pivotal moment in British history. The hand of a mysterious Monk is at work in the nearby monastery, intending that history takes a different course.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

[6-and-7]

The Time Meddler The Doctor, Vicki, and new companion Steven Taylor arrive in Saxon Northumbria on the eve of the Viking and Norman invasions. It is 1066, a pivotal moment in British history. The hand of a mysterious Monk is at work in the nearby monastery, intending that history takes a different course.

The Idiot's Lantern It is 1953, the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II — but there is something hiding in the televisions of the British people. Something hungry…

[wanderingnork]

So I’m reading Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott because I want to have the background for Rebecca of Salerno by Esther Erman, which is about the further adventures of the character Rebecca from Ivanhoe. Highly recommend reading Erman’s discussion of her book. I’m really fucking excited.

But at the moment I’m about a third of the way through Ivanhoe. Audiobook, not text. This book is…buck fucking wild. Unreliable narrator (pay attention to what he says vs how the characters act), falling squarely into the trope Fair For Its Day at every other page, fueled almost entirely by the cast coincidentally running into each other on the road/at a tournament/in the middle of the night in a forest. There is one brain cell in the entire cast and Rebecca herself has it at almost all times, except for one passage where a horse is explicitly handed the brain cell. The narrator slammed to a screeching halt in the middle of an epic joust to inform us that he won’t be telling us the names or heraldry of the knights on the field, because they died and their great deeds really meant nothing in the end anyway. I’ve learned more about Norman-and-Saxon politics than I thought existed to be known. I don’t even have to put on my “temporarily believe in hereditary monarchy” hat, because so far just about everyone who supports the Norman Richard the Lionhearted as the rightful king of England is a Saxon actively choosing to support his claim because they like him!

There’s a lot in here that is a product of being written by a Scottish nobleman in 1820. I have had some serious cringe moments, including a few out-loud “no I hate that” reactions. But I’m having equally as many moments of recognizing how forward-thinking Ivanhoe is for its day. The style of writing just does it for me, it’s a blast to listen to especially when banter really gets going between some of the characters, the descriptions are rich and evocative, the characters are layered, I’m seriously invested in the plot.

Also I’m experiencing the bizarre allure of chemistry between King Richard and Friar Tuck. Like what the fuck was that scene in the hermitage??? Staring into each other’s eyes??? Playing the harp??? Getting Really Weird about the giant weapons stash in the chapel??? Richard being REALLY INTENSE about how buff and hot the mysterious monk is!?!?!?

Anyway. You gotta really put on your critical thinking hat for this book, but to me it’s worth it. And I’m glad I’m listening to it before Rebecca of Salerno, because I really think this will give the context to understand that book even more.

[horizon-verizon]

Martell’s stans pretending that they’re representatives of Global South in ASOIAF where instead they’re a region who’s constantly in clash with their neighbours cause they can’t stop looting and raiding the Stormlands and the Reach.

*EDITED* (11/5/23)

I haven't come across a Martell stan yet, in all my 7-month life here on Tumblr. But I already wrote a post on why the Martells aren't exactly PoCs (because race, as Americans and modern peoples know the thing, doesn't exist in this fictional universe) so much as "Others" are seen as ethnically different but not enough for there to be concern over "miscegenation" or "dirtying the blood" or losing actual social privileges the Martells still had like other "white", nonDornish nobles.

Ethnicity doesn't equal race, and "people of color" denotes "non-white" people, and "white"/"PoC" are racial terms.

Nationality also does not equal race, nor does it equal ethnicity, though in some racial hierarchies it def gives whatever racial meaning of black/poc the society in question has. "Race"--as in just the practical applications of their real modern realities and economic and social structures as a result--is not accurate or a paltry thing the further you go back in time. There were definitely racializations, racial & ethnic biases, and ethnic & racial tensions/violence, but religion and/or language more often defined a person's belonging and identity within a different hegemony until maybe the late 14th to 15th centuries.

The Rhoynish would definitely be considered PoC in our modern American & British racial categorization; in the world itself, yes they were a "foreign" and literally foreign people and a different ethnicity from First Men and Andal.

However, ONE -- Dorne is not progressive in terms of class, not at all, and TWO -- these two are both Essosi in origin while several of their original cultural aspects [the Faith, the symbols, chivalry, court culture, oaths, the kin slaying taboo, the importance placed on swords, guest rights, etc.] still exist in the main events of ASoIaF right now. These didn't change or get lost upon their arrival to the Westerosi continent.

Dorne, by virtue of the fact that their succession customs are equal gender, will inevitably be Othered and thus they have that sense of "not white-ness" but this doesn't really pin them down as "PoC" bc the emphasis of why the Dornish are Othered is much more about there being less misogyny than religion, region, etc. and the Martells still independently/non-coercively share Andal cultural aspects then they do Rhoynish. Because, how can the whites (nonDornishmen) racialize a region based on skin color or principles of "purity" seen through the outside (as this has been used to create current racial categories) with people with different skin colors?

The First Men are not Andals, the Andals and FM fought several times in past history, come from different regions of Essos, have different religions and both typically have paler skin. Both have misogynist practices and are more stringent about male primogeniture and able-bodiedness mattering to leadership.

The "salty" Martells and other Dornish--even those who are "sandy" or "stony" as Daeron I categorized them--are more analogues of both Welsh vs. the Anglo-Saxons or Normans (all "racially white" ) because of their constant wars with Reach people and Stormlanders. AND Spaniards (European people, so racially white) because Spain has a history of Moor, Hebrew/Jew, and pre-Moor Spaniards having intermarriages and other types of exchange or interaction LONG before King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella expelled the Jewish and Muslim peoples. Even then, she and her King husband were not at first the rulers of all of "Spain", but of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile freshly uniting these to develop and become what we know as "Spain". Like how England used to be Kent, East Anglia, Essex, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, the Welsh peoples (a Celtic people) before the Normans arrived (Northmen/Scandinavian/Swedish/Danish/Viking originated) and conquered the English islands.

Once again, do we consider Spain a "white" country, or not?

[hasufin]

Okay, but I kinda thought that was intentional, though?

Not just in "Robin Hood and Maid Marian should be the same species".

But... Robin Hood is a product of a very specific time. Richard the Lionhearted (i.e., Richard I) and Prince John (John the Softsword) were actual historical figures.

And, in spite of being the Royal Family of England were, in fact, foreigners. They were the Angevin rulers, and barely spoke any English - hence, in other depictions, the obsession with "Norman" vs. "Saxon". And while Robin is nobility, he's coded as Saxon - i.e., English - nobility whereas the Plantagenets were French (and Norse, but we aren't going there now). And while Richard was one of the "good ones", they were still foreigners.

Hence Robin, Marian, and most of the others are English animals, but the Angevin rulers were lions - who are, notably not to be found in England.

Why One Detail of Disney’s Robin Hood Bothers Me And Always Will

Hi, welcome to my Ted Talk, today we will be dealing with something that has bothered me about Disney’s Robin Hood since I was a kid and I still cannot get over to this very day.

And it all stems from THESE THREE PEOPLE:

Maid Marian, Prince John, and King Richard

I’m going to preface this entire thing by saying THIS version of Robin Hood is very very VERY different than the source material, much like all Disney animated films, but it wasn’t really DISNEY who did the big changes… those just came over time with making things more… I’m just going to say “normal for society”, which is ultra double lame.

BUT that’s not the point, because that stuff happens everywhere and with everything, and if I started to complain about THAT we’d be here all day, and I’m already going to take more of your time than needed to complain about something SUPER unimportant from a children’s animated movie made in 1973.

ANYWAY!

So, in the movie the titular character, Robin Hood, is a fox.  Makes total sense, foxes are crafty, hard to catch, cunning, and known for getting into and out of situations that other animals would have difficulty with.  Take that and turn it into an anthropomorphic character and you’d get someone who would easily be against the normal laws, not BAD, but would do BAD to do GOOD. Robin is a show off when he wants to be, and quiet when he has to be.

He’s a pretty perfect Robin Hood, especially in the case of animated kids movies, his characteristics just work SO WELL with his personification as a fox. GOOD STUFF, if I do say so myself!

Little John, meanwhile, is a bear. Not just any bear, but a big ol’ lovable brown bear. This plays on the idea of Little John being a cheeky nickname because Little John is a big, strong, and above all the calm, cool, and rationally smart one of the two. Robin may be clever, but John is the big picture guy. Pun intended.

These two designs and animal choices work SO well with each other, and it’s because these two are so different yet they get along and honestly NEED one another that makes the differences so perfect.

ALAN-A-DALE IS A ROOSTER. BRILLIANT. I don’t even have to go into this, do I? What a GREAT call by making Alan-A-Dale a rooster.  Though, I feel a bit of his characteristics were also borrowed from Will Scarlet for the Disney version, but even that still fits everything. And, honestly, I don’t mind the blending of Alan and Will, it kinda works? Especially with the movie being as short as it is.

ROOSTER BARD. ROOSTER. BARD. So good, I mean c’mon. It’s perfection.

The Sheriff of Nottingham being a wolf is… okay. It’s okay. I get it though, having the wolf hunt the fox. Haha. Cheeky. Cliche, but cheeky.

I really have nothing to say about him, he’s just…okay. Dude’s a cop, so whatever. Not a fan of bootlickers, and the fact that they’re dragging wolves in the mud by making a wolf into a cop is… whatever. /He’s A Wolf Cop/

Personally, I don’t like Friar Tuck as a badger. It really doesn’t make sense to me, and I lowkey hate it that they totally missed so many opportunities. DOVE OF PEACE? LAMB OF GOD? Like FOR REAL, you coulda done something super cute like that, but NOoOoOoOoOoO… he’s a badger. And they kinda pick on him for half the movie, for no reason, and I don’t like that.

Still, Friar Tuck is cute, and a really fun character and they do some clever animation stuff with his “badger”-ness. Still a bit of a missed opportunity.

OKAY NOW THAT WE’VE GOT THESE OTHER BIG ONES OUT OF THE WAY, IT’S TIME FOR MY ACTUAL PROBLEM!

MAID FRICKIN MARIAN IS A FOX.

WHAT THE FRICKEN FRICKITY FRACK?!

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Disney did this JUST because they wanted Maid Marian and Robin Hood to be THE SAME ANIMAL, and that’s ABSOLUTE BUNK!

WHY? Well there’s two BIG reasons that is irks me!

First, the idea that they HAD to be together because they were the same animal or they were made to be the same animal so it wouldn’t be “weird” that they were together.

LAME! UNINSPIRED! BULLSHI-

*ehem* Nonsense. Nonsense.

And it’s even MORE nonsense because of this little fact…

PRINCE JOHN AND KING RICHARD ARE HER RELATIVES!

MAID MARIAN THE NIECE OF PRINCE JOHN AND KING RICHARD!

Okay, you could argue that Maid Marian was adopted, or that King Richard married a lovely fox woman and the fox woman’s relative had a daughter and THAT was Maid Marian. And YES, that would make the situation plausible…

EXCEPT!

This is MEDIEVAL ENGLAND and they are ROYALTY and that kinda stuff wouldn’t fly even IF King Richard is the King.

WHAT I’M SAYING IS…

DISNEY ARE COWARDS FOR NOT HAVING A BIG LIONESS LADY DATE A TINY FOX MAN AND WE WERE ROBBED!

[thewritermuses]

The Adventures Of Robin Hood

The Adventures of Robin Hood - Michael Curtiz & William Keighley

Unedited Thoughts - This is part of my unedited thoughts series. In my review of The Matrix I talk about the production houses logo's been modified and we know we are in for something special. Well turns out this wasn't anything new. The Warner Brothers logo is presented as heraldry here - neat stuff. A huge focus of this telling of the tale is Saxons vs Normans. I had never seen this reading before and it was not nuanced at all. Ten to fifteen mentions in the first ten minutes - just in case we forgot. All the characters are well handled and everyone has agency - there are no bit parts. Maid Marion is a stand out here - she is no damsel in distress. Errol Flynn is great as Robin. It has dated pretty well apart from a few action scenes. The large fight at the end is almost comical because of the 'clink clink' of fake swords. There is another scene where you see a halberd bend - presumably because it is foam or plastic or something. All of our favourite supporting characters are here from Little John to Friar Tuck. All well played and distinct from each other - a great supporting cast in all. The story is pretty well done but there are some big problems as well. A key plot point is that Prince John learns of Kind Richard's return shortly after his return. This is handled rather poorly. The Bishop, who is on Prince John's side just happens to be in the inn that the King is staying at.  The plot surrounding Main Marion toward the end is questionable. Guy of Gisborn accuses her of aiding Robin escape hanging. Which apparently she did - but because we didn't see how or what she did the whole threat and her ordered execution just feels hollow. There isn't anything that indicates that it is an inside job apart from her saying that she has a plan. What actually occurs could easily have been done without her involvement so how Guy comes to this conclusion is anyone's guess. Without seeing her involvement OR how guy decides that she is involved is just bad storytelling. If you thought that was bad her rescue is much worse. Her servant tells her lover to get word to Robin. The lover attacks an assassin who is going to kill the king - fine up until this point. The lover is left knocked unconscious in the forest somewhere. Will Scarlet just happens to find him and takes word to Robin - all in time to save Marion. The contrivance and coincidence is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. Overall the film is good. Great performances and a good story around well known characters. The interwoven plot falls to pieces at the end and the whole film suffers greatly for it. Read the full article

[adventure-showdown]

What is your favourite Doctor Who story?

ROUND 3 MASTERPOST

synopses and propaganda under the cut

The Invasion

Synopsis

The Doctor, Jamie and Zoe return to Earth and meet up with an old friend, former Colonel and now Brigadier, Lethbridge-Stewart - now in charge of the newly formed UNIT who are investigating electronics manufacturer International Electromatics. IE's managing director, Tobias Vaughn, is working with the Cybermen. He is planning to transmit a hypnotic signal through IE's products, leaving the Earth paralysed and allowing the Cybermen to emerge from the London sewers and take over...

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

The Time Meddler

Synopsis

The Doctor, Vicki, and new companion Steven Taylor arrive in Saxon Northumbria on the eve of the Viking and Norman invasions. It is 1066, a pivotal moment in British history. The hand of a mysterious Monk is at work in the nearby monastery, intending that history takes a different course.

Propaganda no propaganda submitted

[1001framesofmind]

Edward vs. Harold

One day after the death of Edward the Confessor on 5th January 1066, Harold Godwinson was crowned as King of England at Westminster Abbey. In the same year, he was first attacked by Vikings from Norway and then massively invaded by an an army of Normans. The latter took place on 14th October and is known as the Battle of Hastings. This decisive battle led to Harold's demise and opened a new chapter in the history of England, with William the Conqueror being the first Norman king of the sought-after island.

The defeat of King Harold marked the end of the Anglo-Saxon period in England, which had lasted for over 600 years. The Normans brought their own language, customs, and feudal system, replacing the existing Anglo-Saxon institutions and aristocracy.

The Norman Conquest had also a profound impact on the English language and culture. The Normans spoke Old French, which became the language of the ruling elite, while English was spoken by the common people. Over time, English absorbed many French words, leading to the development of Middle English.

🎞documentary: 1066: A Year to Conquer England (2017) - Ep. 3 🎬director: Robin Dashwood

[werothegreat]

Well, English is a mish-mosh of Anglo-Saxon (a Germanic language) and Norman French. Anglo-Saxon didn't have a future tense, and you often still get that vibe in archaic phrases ("we ride at dawn" rather than "we will ride at dawn", or "I take the test on Monday" is equally valid as "I will take the test on Monday"). Modern German does the same trick Modern English does, using a helper verb, werden.

Now in an AU where Modern English leaned more heavily on Norman French, well to me, the French future has always seemed liked taking the infinitive and tacking the personal endings onto it. In Anglo-Saxon, infinitives end in "-n" or "-an", so a Modern Anglo-Norman future tense might look like this:

I eatan

You eatan

He/she/it eatans

We eatan

Y'all eatan

They eatan

Now understandably this would get confusing with the Modern English present participle/gerund ending in "-ing", often pronounced closer to "-in". To ameliorate that, I propose the "-an" taking the stress. So, "I'm EATing" vs "I eatAN"

while we're at it english verbs should have future forms. "he will eat" denotes a grotesque lack of imagination. in french we go "il mange > il mangera". what would that look like in english

[longwindedbore]

Today’s reminder that JUNETEENTH is both a celebration of the last day of the abomination of illegitimately legalized slavery in the US AND a Memorial Day for the 360,000 of the multi-ethnic US military who gave their lives so that slavery would be abolished.

Juneteenth is the ONLY National commemoration of either that Emancipation or that profound Sacrifice.

The deliberate historical belittling of that Emancipation as well as European decesdants’ amnesia of that Sacrifice demonstrates that the rotten cancer of Bigotry still stains our country’s spirit long after the first Juneteenth.

The whitewash of bigotry has acted to suppress the history of bigotry through a pattern of mislabeling and misdirection.

====Supporting Argument====

(OK, more of a rant. But that’s because belief in the lies below form d the bedrock of my ideology as a Conservative. Only because I have an attraction to and memory for odd bits of history did I begin to notice that a lot of lies didn’t make sense at n larger contexts)

—————————

American bigotry was honed in Europe over millennia as succeeding waves of invaders (Franks, Anglos, Saxons, Norse/Normans) from the eastern lands colonized Western Europe ‘clearing the land’ and oppressing & marginalizing the surviving inhabitants.

This pattern was transplanted by European colonizers to other Continents - initially by English, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Danes 1600s to 1800s. Then by the Germans, Belgians, and Italians in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Consider how you USA history classes largely ignored the history of the 134 years between the First Thanksgiving in 1621 and French and Indian War (No. 3) in 1755.

In that 134 year time period ‘British English-speaking people’ were forged out of Dutch, British, and French colonies through local wars, through spillovers from European wars, by German refugees from the Christian vs Christian (from 2.5 to 8 million estimated dead). The lands of the eastern seaboard ‘cleared’ of Indigenous peoples and legalized forced labor ‘force’ imported from Europe and Africa.

Our history texts and media performances create an false whitewashed of the history we do acknowledge with accurate milestone dates but misdirected explanations. Our cultural History…

‘Celebrates’ the First Thanksgiving when the Puritan invaders are saved from starvation by the Pequot Indians. But ‘forgets’ the slaughter of the Pequot by the Puritans a few years later.

———————-

‘Celebrates’ the Boston Tea Party of 1773 ostensibly by common people rioting because of a beverage tax on a drink favored by the Rich. But ‘have wiped from the records’ the more probable explanation of how the wealthy colonials were terrified because their slave-based economy was threaten when a legal case in 1772 ended slavery in England. The case emancipated all black people INCLUDING those temporarily brought over by visiting colonials (without compensating the colonials for the loss of their property!!!). Also, we ignore the Intolerable Act of preventing colonizing Indigenous lands west of the Appalachians.

———————-

‘Commemorates’ those who died at the Alamo but ‘forgets’ that the TYRANNY threatened by Santa Ana’s Mexican army was the abolition of illegal slavery introduced into the Mexican territory of Texas by white illegal ‘wetbacks’ who crossed the Mississippi.

——————

‘Commemorates’ all the 620,000 Dead of the Civil War as if they died over some undefined principal or matter of regional honor rather than the issue of slavery that is explicitly spelled out in the documents of secession issued by each of the 11 States of the Confederacy.

———————

The 11 States of the former Confederacy still maintain that the Civil War was the ‘War of Northern Aggression’. Of course forgetting that most of the Confederate dead died on battlefields in the Border States. States which the Confederacy tried to capture to expand slavery. No battles were fought in the South until Sherman’s March to the Sea a few months before war ended.

(Yea, yea, Fort Sumpter, 1861. However, Major Anderson had already informed the Confederacy of his intention to honorably abandon the fort and March north. The Confederacy attacked because their leadership wanted a surrender.)

—————————-

The 11 States of the former Confederacy still maintain that they were impoverished by the Damn Yankees. IGNORING that slave owners were compensated for the loss of their property. Look for other causes for 150 years of poverty - in red counties but not in blue.

——————————

Our Cultural mindset continues to ignore the armed resistance in the 11 States and Border States to the Secession and the Confederacy’s military draft.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Inspired to ‘Die for the Lie’.

Many of those who volunteered and sacrificed for the Confederate cause were undoubtedly motivated by ideals separate from maintaining slavery.

So many so that, perhaps, the Confederacy might not have survived any length of time without Fort Sumter as it’s “Remember the Main” or “Zimmerman Telegram” or “Gulf of Tonkin Incident”.

Lies and Exaggerations used to incited other generations to unite for mass slaughter.

[farieshades]

The runes on Excalibur 👀👀

They’re Nordic, wouldn’t they be Anglo Saxon runes based on the time? Or some sort of Celtic equivalent?

Which. Does the sword = norse or like, type of sword ≠ Norse???

Basically. Just a general Excalibur question and whether it’s historically correct.

Bonus: What do the runes even mean, I know they’re a random sequence and not what they say it means in the show buuttt…. 🤷‍♀️

The Problem of Runes

The runes used in the show are Elder Futhark, an anglo-saxon/norseman language in a time when one of the larger enemy forces are the anglo-saxons. Which… doesn’t make a lot of sense. Interestingly, should the sword exist, at the time they'd have used Latin letters, since Romans had already come and begun slowly making people Christian. Funnily enough, Old English only came after Arthur's time in real history. They most likely were also speaking Old Welsh/Hen Gymraeg. I think I may have mentioned it before, who knows, but language is diverse. Language in a post-roman conquest after rome also leaves but anglo-saxons haven’t shown up, even worse. Likely, it wasn’t all simple as it is in the show (due to audience understandings) and likely each Kingdom had its own language/dialect and the different parts of their land also had their own dialects. Likely, around Camelot to Mercia, and back to Caerleon, it’s likely that the language would have links to Latin, at least in the upper class due to Latin being the language of government and writing, but it wouldn’t be the only thing about. 

But back to Futhark, my base understanding is that in Britain, there is roughly a period between 400-900 in which artifacts with Runes of this type are found, although they did exist up to 1066 until the Norman Conquest, while King Arthur exists anywhere from 420-1100 (give or take - the show has of course anachronisms[Tomato / Potato / Sandwhich / Silk dresses for Morgana], but it also, then, has dragons).  

Also, Ogham may be used if they wanted a more ‘mystic’ feel of inscription. The language is attributed to the Druids, the irish, the pictish, and would use 20 letters.

According to the High Medieval Briatharogam, an irish literature explanation for kennings on the ogham alphabet, trees can be ascribed to specific letters. There is scholarly debate, however, if Ogham is a cipher based on either Germanic runes, Elder Futhark, Greek alphabet, or even Latin. This is due, largely to the “H/Z” letters present in Ogham, but unused in Irish and the vocalic/consonantal variant of “U” vs “W”. And again, at the time, Latin in Roman Britannia, specifically southern and the west, would be prominent (and outside of Ireland, the highest concentration of Ogham is in Wales). 

T - Tinne - Holly = Overcoming challenge

A - Ailm - White Fir = Look to past for future understandings

C - Coll - Hazel = Inspire others through skill/wisdom

E - Eadhadh - Poplar = Face challenge with determination

M - Muin - Vine = Trust intuition/Relax

E - Eadhadh - Poplar = Face challenge with determination

U - Ur - Heather = Healing and respite time  

P - Peith - soft Birch = New beginnings, change, good fortune 

-

C - Coll - Hazel = Inspire others through skill/wisdom

A - Ailm - White Fir = Look to past for future understandings

S - Sail - Willow = Period of learning 

T - Tinne - Holly = Overcoming challenge

M - Muin - Vine = Trust intuition/Relax

E - Eadhadh - Poplar = Face challenge with determination

A - Ailm - White Fir = Look to past for future understandings

U - Ur - Heather = Healing and respite time  

A - Ailm - White Fir = Look to past for future understandings

Y - Eamhancholl = wisdom/understanding  

(Notably Ogham does not have a ‘w’ as a letter so substituting of the sound /u/ is done or with a soft /v/ sound - same with the dual C as there isn’t a K (from what i can tell))

Translation

Based on Arthurian ‘lore’, there are two base sayings that are inscribed on Arthur’s blade “Take me up, cast me away.” This comes from Tennyson'sIdylls of the King, within which the sword is inscribed with the "oldest tongue of all this world". Should the sword be pulled from a rock and anvil, there is often the inscription accompanining it saying "Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil is likewise King of all England" (or something to that degree) which is seen in Malory’s works. 

To receive an answer of what should be on the sword and what is, is very different. And I am shamelessly pulling from Merlin.fandom as this has been a conversation before. “The runes on the Excalibur in the picture say 'ahefemupwiithstr' which isn't really a word” (https://merlin.fandom.com/f/p/2608657942446217361) However, that’s not to say someone didn’t solve what it should be written as “Translation for "Take Me Up" • Tiwaz - Ansuz - Kenaz - Ewhaz • Mannaz - Ewhaz • Uruz - Perthro • / Translation for "Cast Me Away" • Kenaz - Ansuz - Soliow - Thurasaz • Mannaz - Ewhaz • Ansuz - Wunjo - Ansuz •” 

Now, these runes given for the saying do indeed spell out Take me up/Kast me away, this is written with the intention of spelling the words completely assuming no ideography (using what the letters mean[as you ask] rather than what they show: Tiwaz meaning Tyr/Sky god + order/justice / Ansuz meaning As/Odin + order/inspiration/sovereign power / Kenaz being Beacon/Torch + knowledge/tradition/hearth / Ewhaz being Horse + transportation/Steady progress/change / Mannaz meaning Man/Mankind + The Self/human race/mortality / Uruz being Auroch/Ox + Physical Strength/speed/untamed potential / Perthro meaning Lot Cup/Vagina + Feminine Mysteries/occult/secrets/initiation /// Soliow being The Sun + Success/honour/health / Thurasaz(or redoing Tiwaz potentially in the spelling of it) meaning Thorn/Giant + defense/conflict/catharsis/purging / Wunjo being Joy + Comfort/pleasure/harmony --- In my understanding of these, it feels like “take me up” in these runes has indications of taking a throne, bringing in order to the human race, whereas “cast me away” has similar lettering but implicates successes having been done and a conflict having been finished, thus ‘casting away’ the sword once the battle is done). 

The show, as mentioned above, has the engraving that translates to 'ahefemupwiithstr' and I’m going to save myself a bit of research and info dumping by going to another source, and I also, unfortunately, don’t know how to link things in Tumblr so we get to suffer screenshots - but do check out the original link:  https://dollopheadedmerlin.tumblr.com/post/149429230626/so-guys-im-thinking-of-making-a-replica-of#notes,

Sword Types

Anglo-Saxon swords comprised two-edged straight, flat blades. The tang of the blade was covered by a hilt, which consisted of an upper and lower guard, a pommel (often decorated depending on need and use), and a grip by which the sword was held.

At the time BBC depicts Merlin, the Anglo-Saxons have yet to conquer Britain, thus implying the soldiers wouldn’t likely be using an anglo-saxon sword, however, they could be considering the flow of ideas surpasses the flow of war I suppose.

Excalibur has been depicted from everything from a Roman Gladius (likely in earlier prose when King Arthur existed near the time of Post-Roman Britain, and there are stories with King Arthur and Julius Ceasar meeting, which is very… interesting), to a medieval longsword. Based off the hilt and pommel of Excalibur that we see, it appears to be almost a form of Claymore/Broadsword or Longsword.

However, these range roughly 1100-1700s. In the myths we have, Excalibur is never actually described. However, in modern depictions (film and artwork) it is typically depicted as a form of arming sword, that is, one-handed straight+long-bladed with a double-edge with a crossguard. Which, is reasonable, this style was very popular in the middle ages.

The depiction of Excalibur, in my opinion, is fitting to the 10th and 13th century forms of such swords (the 13th century has that fancy pommel at the end that the sword has in the show). However, your ask was more is this sword norse? Which, the depiction given is kind of in answer, due to the style given at what should be 5th century >< which may look something more similar to this with shorter crossguards while maintaining the circular pommel. Also to note, the term Pommel connects to anglo-normal “little apple” as it was an enlarged fitting at the top of the handle.

[cromulentenough]

what's the origin of the whole blonde = dumb thing?

Is it like, a norman vs. anglo saxon high class vs. low class thing? or maybe viking vs. not viking? Is it more recent? is it to do with different immigrant groups in the US?