#The Death of Louis XIV

[mermaidlighthouse]

My headcannon is that Anne refuses to sell anything to anyone because she doesn’t think anyone is a true lover of beauty and that’s why they sell antiques to fuckin no one

[rabbitcruiser]

King Louis XIV of France died after a reign of 72 years on September 1, 1715, which is the longest of any major European monarch.

[steampoweredstrawberry]

Looking up historical documentaries on YT be like:

Me: [Searches Baroque era life]

YT: Do you mean Victorian era life?

Me: No. Let me specify that I mean mid 1700's.

YT: Oooooh. Do you mean Medieval peasant life?

Me: What? No. Wrong century. Like, specifically French life in like 1760-1790. The time leading up to the French Revolution.

YT: Okay. Got it. Do you mean Baroque by Malice Mizer?

Me: Fine. Sure. Not what I was looking for, but I acknowledge this is also good.

[agoodflyting]

Why Aziraphale is completely ridiculous in the Bastille scene (and I love him so much for it)

A while ago I posted a comparison of Aziraphale and Crowley's costumes in the 1793 flashback in Good Omens and I wanted to add these little tidbits. (Because they haunt me.)

I feel like most people know this but IF YOU DON'T, Paris in 1793 is right in the middle of something called La Terreur.

HISTORY LESSON If you didn't learn this in school the French Revolution was when, after years of escalating social tension, a coalition representing the working classes of France revolted against the monarchy, violently overthrew King Louis XVI, and declared France to be a republic.

The new National Convention governing France ruled that King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette were traitors to the people of France because of how they had spent ridiculous amounts of money on luxuries for themselves while vast numbers of the lower classes were literally starving to death. (keep the bold in mind - wealth and class disparities were one of the key causes of the whole-ass revolution)

In 1793 (year of the flashback) both the King and Queen were executed by guillotine for their crimes.

This kicks of something called The Reign of Terror (La Terreur if you want to be French about it). A multi-year-long period in which the National Convention goes on a bloody witch hunt for any and every member of the middle or upper classes who could even possibly be considered a traitor by those same standards.

If you A) had money or privilege, and B) had ever used your money or privilege to treat yourself, you were getting executed. Over 25,000 people died during the Reign of Terror, half of them by guillotine. In fact, the iconic guillotine was used because it was physically impossible to keep up with the sheer number of people they were executing in Paris every single day.

Some things that could get you killed (actually and completely seriously) during the Reign of Terror:

Implying in any way you were sympathetic to the monarchy

Having a noble title

Having expensive things

Wearing expensive, luxurious clothes (*cough* AZIRAPHALE)

helping or sympathizing with anyone who did any of the above

a working-class person saying you were mean to them once

And then there's this bitch...

I AM NOBILITY PLEASE KILL ME So we have established that Paris in 1793 is in the middle of a frenzied, state-sanctioned bloodbath in which the working classes are massacring everyone even remotely nobility-adjacent. And in the middle of this frenzy, Aziraphale proceeds to roll up in Paris in this outfit:

How will this outfit get him killed? Let me count the ways...

First off- at this point everyone with even the tiniest shred of self- preservation is hiding the fact that they are in any way associated with the monarchy. The wealthy are straight-up abandoning mansions. The middle-class are plastering over decorations to make their house look 'poor'. The only people dressed remotely decent are the guys leading the National Convention and that's just because nobody can stop them. Everyone else is in 24/7 peasant cosplay or else they are covering themselves in cockades and sashes on to show they're pro-Republic.

Aziraphale is basically a giant shiny white sign saying I AM NOBILITY PLEASE KILL ME.

First off the lace jabot and lace cuffs are both associated with the old-school wealthy in the 1790's.

His coat is also decorated in gold braid and silver buttons, which are both marks of wealth and luxury.

He basically looks like he works for Louis XIV - not just rich, but old school rich.

We know it's his natural hair color, but hair powdering (with clay and starch) had been a big trend with the rich all throughout the 18th century to get that clean white venerable look . To someone who doesn't know it's natural, it would very much look like he's wearing hair powder.

He's wearing shades of cream and white, which are very hard to keep clean and clearly states that the wearer is rich and can afford the upkeep necessary to keep an outfit like that stain-free.

He's wearing white knee-breeches and stockings, also called culottes. See above about laundry and how rich you had to be to wear white, but also working-class men wore long pants like this:

A large faction involved in the Revolution were the Sans-Culottes (no-culottes aka we wear long pants LIKE GOOD OLD WORKING MEN). Culottes are specifically associated with everything the revolution hated. That's right - Aziraphale is literally wearing The Fanciest of Fancy Pants in a city where a group called The Men Against Fancy Pants are running around murdering people.

And then there are his shoes.

Oh god his shoes

I could do a whole post about Aziraphale's blessed little white satin pumps and how ridiculous they are.

Actually I might just do that because this is getting so long and I still have to talk about the brioche.

So I can't remember if it's in the script book or if it's from Neil Gaiman's tumblr, but it's apparently canon (?) that Aziraphale was going around in that outfit asking people where he could get crepes and brioche when he was arrested.

The Affair of the Brioches

So... uh... we've all heard the line attributed to Marie Antoinette- how when she was told that her people were starving because there was no bread left in Paris, she famously said...

It's morphed into 'let them eat cake', but the line is first recorded as, "Then let them eat brioches."

While it's unlikely she ever actually said it, the important thing is that... people in 1793 would have thought she said it. It was used as political smear to show how arrogant and out of touch the monarchy was. Marie Antoinette in particular was reviled by the people of France, who thought she was the main cause of their economic problems. That's why she was executed too.

Bread and brioche and the lines between poverty and privilege were a big thing in Revolutionary France. There was a lot of political connotation to what you ate. The French Revolution came about because of decades of suffering among the lower classes of France. It wasn't something that some dudes just decided to do. The people of Paris have been through years of the absolute worst, most oppressive poverty and starvation you can imagine, all while watching the rich throw money around crazy.

So let us recap.

Aziraphale is dressed so ridiculously posh that he looks like a joke parody of a nobleman... and he is bumbling around Paris during the Reign of Terror. Asking people. For brioche. How I imagine everyone looked at him:

It is so astoundingly tone deaf and tactless. He is basically cosplaying as Marie Antoinette and then going around asking the poor for cake.

I just.... Aziraphale. babygirl. no. oh no. You're lucky they even bothered to take you to prison. I am amazed Crowley ever let him live that down.

I have no conclusion other than this. Aziraphale is ridiculous and I love him so much.

YES YOU REALLY SHOULD SIR.

[enigma-the-mysterious]

"You will never step foot near the Queen or the Dauphin again. I will make sure of that."

Task failed successfully

love how louis told aramis he would never step foot near the queen or the dauphin again but at the end of the exact same episode he meets anne in secret and after louis dies, aramis get the job which is as close to anne and the dauphin as possible 💀

[fatehbaz]

"The most fashionable bathing station in all Europe". British industrialists and American mining investors plotting the colonization of the Congo, while mingling at Ostend's seaside vacation resorts. Extracting African life to build European railways, hotels, palaces, suburbs, and other modern(ist) infrastructure. "Towards infinity!"

---

In 1885, King Leopold II achieved an astonishing and improbable goal: he claimed a vast new realm of his own devising, a conjury on a map called [...] the Congo Free State. [...] [A] fictional state owned by the king, ruled by decree, and run from Brussels from 1885 to 1908. [...] This was [...] a private entrepreneurial venture [for the king]. The abundance of ivory, timber, and wild rubber found in this enormous territory brought sudden and spectacular profits to Belgium, the king, and a web of interlocking concession companies. The frenzy to amass these precious resources unleashed a regime of forced labor, violence [millions of deaths], and unchecked atrocities for Congolese people. These same two and a half decades of contact with the Congo Free State remade Belgium [...] into a global powerhouse, vitalized by an economic boom, architectural burst, and imperial surge.

Congo profits supplied King Leopold II with funds for a series of monumental building projects [...]. Indeed, Belgian Art Nouveau exploded after 1895, created from Congolese raw materials and inspired by Congolese motifs. Contemporaries called it “Style Congo,” [...]. The inventory of this royal architecture is astonishing [...]. [H]istorical research [...] recovers Leopold’s formative ideas of architecture as power, his unrelenting efforts to implement them [...]. King Leopold II harbored lifelong ambitions to “embellish” and beautify the nation [...]. [W]ith his personal treasury flush with Congo revenue, [...] Leopold - now the Roi Batisseur ("Builder King") he long aimed to be - planned renovations explicitly designed to outdo Louis XIV's Versailles. Enormous greenhouses contained flora from every corner of the globe, with a dedicated soaring structure completed specifically to house the oversize palms of the Congolese jungles. [...]

---

The Tervuren Congo palace [...]. Electric tramways were built and a wide swath of avenue emerged. [...] [In and around Brussels] real estate developers began to break up lots [...] for suburban mansions and gardens. Between 1902 and 1910, new neighborhoods with luxury homes appeared along the Avenue [...]. By 1892, Antwerp was not only the port of call for trade but also the headquarters of the most profitable of an interlinking set of banks and Congo investment companies [...]. As Antwerp in the 1890s became once again the “Queen of the Scheldt,” the city was also the home of what was referred to as the “Queen of Congo companies.” This was the ABIR, or Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company, founded in 1892 with funds from British businessman “Colonel” John Thomas North [...].

Set on the seaside coast, Belgium’s Ostend was the third imperial cityscape to be remade by King Leopold [...] [in a] transformation [that] was concentrated between 1899 and 1905 [...]. Ostend encompassed a boomtown not of harbor and trade, like Antwerp, but of beachfront and leisure [...] [developed] as a "British-style" seaside resort. [...] Leopold [...] [w]as said to spend "as much time in Ostend as he did in Brussels," [...]. Ostend underwent a dramatic population expansion in a short period, tripling its inhabitants from 1870–1900. [...] Networks of steamers, trams, and railway lines coordinated to bring seasonal visitors in, and hotels and paved walkways were completed. [...] [A]nd Leopold’s favorite spot, the 1883 state-of-the-art racetracks, the Wellington Hippodrome. Referred to with an eye-wink as “the king incognito” (generating an entire genre of photography), visitors to the seaside could often see Leopold in his top hat and summer suit [...], riding his customized three-wheeled bicycle [...]. By 1900, Ostend’s expansion and enhancement made it known as “the Queen of the Belgian seaside resorts” and “the most fashionable bathing station in all Europe.” Opulence, convenience, and spectacle brought the Shah of Persia, American tycoons, European aristocrats, and Belgian elites, among others, to Ostend.

---

Leopold’s interventions and the Congo Free State personnel and proceeds played three pivotal and understudied roles in this transformation, all of which involved ABIR [British industrialists].

First, it was at Ostend that an early and decisive action was taken to structure the “red rubber” regime and set it in motion. In 1892, jurists such as [E.P.] had ruled, contravening [...] trade laws, that the king was entitled to claim the Congo as his domanial property [...]. Leopold [...] devised one part of that royal domain as a zone for private company concessions [...] to extract and export wild rubber.

Soon after, in 1892, King Leopold happened to meet the British “Colonel” John Thomas North at the Ostend Hippodrome. North, a Leeds-born mechanic [...] had made a fortune speculating on Chilean nitrates in the 1880s. He owned monopoly shares in nitrate mines and quickly expanded to acquire monopolies in Chilean freight railways, water supplies, and iron and coal mines. By 1890 North was a high-society socialite worth millions [...]. Leopold approached North at the Ostend racecourse to provide the initial investments to set up the Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company (ABIR). [...]

---

One visible sign of Ostend’s little-known character as Congo boomtown was the Royal Palace Hotel, a lavish property next to the king’s Royal Domain, which opened in 1899. With hundreds of rooms and a broad sweep of acreage along the beachfront, the palace “occupied the largest space of any hotel in Europe.” [...]

King Leopold met American mining magnate Thomas Walsh there, and as with North, the meeting proved beneficial for his Congo enterprise: Leopold enlisted Walsh to provide assessments of some of his own Congo mining prospects. The hotel was part of [...] [a major European association of leisure profiteers] founded in 1894, that began to bundle luxury tourism and dedicated railway travel, and whose major investors were King Leopold, Colonel North [...].

At the height of Congo expansionism, fin-de-siècle Antwerp embodied an exhilarated launch point [...]. Explorers and expeditioners set sail for Matadi after 1887 with the rallying call “Vers l’infini!” (“towards infinity!”) [...].

---

Text above by: Debora Silverman. "Empire as Architecture: Monumental Cities the Congo Built in Belgium". e-flux Architecture (Appropriations series). May 2024. At: e-flux.com/architecture/appropriations/608151/empire-as-architecture-monumental-cities-the-congo-built-in-belgium/ [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Italicized first paragraph/heading in this post was added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism.]

[thegoldensanctuary]

Part VII Louis XIV’s Final Summer Set (N⁰ 1984)

The fate of this set is, like its entry, somewhat perplexing as contemporary sources contradict one another. Memorialists of the time claim that instead of inheriting the set, the Duke of Tresmes, First Gentleman of the Room, received financial compensation [162], while the Garde-Meuble, on the other hand, maintains that the Duke did in fact inherit the set alongside those present in the Antechamber and Cabinet [163]. The latter version is the most plausible, as it explains both the absence of set 1984 from the 1729 general inventory and the decision to create a new summer set for the bedchamber upon Louis XV’s return to Versailles in 1723.

Furthermore, the death inventory of the Duke of Tresmes in 1739 mentions a satin Persian-style crimson background, present on the second floor of his townhouse under the number 135 [164], corresponding to the set described in the death inventory of King Louis XIV, which was meant to be inherited by the Duke.

page from the Duke of Tresmes Death Inventory, Number 135 AN MC ET II 473

7.1 The Tapestry Itself

The brocades used in the creation of set 1984 came from earlier deliveries in 1687 and 1688 by the Parisian fabric supplier Charlier. Indeed, at the end of the 1705 entry, we learn that Lallié used brocades numbered 96, 991, 116, and 128 for the bed, seats, footrest cushions, tablecloth, and fire screen, described as “a satin Persian-style brocade,” also referred to as the small-pattern brocade. Brocades 95 and 98, called the large-pattern brocade, were used for the bed and alcove tapestry. These brocades were described on July 23, 1686, as “pieces of brocade one ell wide, with crimson background with patterns of gold and silver in Persian colors” [165]. The delivery of brocade 98 can be traced to February 4, 1687 [166]. Jules Guiffrey reconstructed a more complete description of the brocade by combining elements mentioned in several sources: “Five pieces of rich brocade, one ell wide, with crimson red satin background; featuring compartments, cornucopias, scrolls, and flowers woven in gold and silver, with contours around the ornaments in violet, green, and blue silk, in the Persian style, made by Mr. Charlier of Paris” [167]. For the 1705 delivery, eight pieces of large brocade were destined for the alcove tapestry alongside seven pieces of column brocade. These column brocades were part of a delivery from November 29, 1688, by Gautier and manufactured in Lyon. They were described as “columns of rich brocade with vine branches and grapes, with a base and capital woven in gold and silver, twisted, with musk, on a crimson satin background” [168] and received the number 124. Designs featuring twisted brocade columns were fashionable at the time; Swedish diplomat Cronström even discussed similar ones in his correspondence with Swedish royal architect Tessin, where they considered possible decor for royal apartments in Sweden. Cronström wrote, “One could also take satins from Turin and have twisted columns and borders or friezes made, cut according to the design of Mr. Berain. All of this would be appropriate, new, and in good taste.” Mr. Berain was indeed the royal ornamentalist for the King of France. The column designs Cronström referenced, which he sketched, are now in the Stockholm National Museum collection.

National Museum, Stockholm, NMH CC 1382 recto

This layout, however, differs from the one described in the King’s bedchamber at King Louis XIV’s death, where set 1984 is mentioned with an alcove tapestry of only five pieces of large brocade alongside six pieces of column brocade [169]. Moreover, the dimensions of the alcove tapestry as described in 1705 far exceed the size of the bedchamber’s western wall, given that each large piece of brocade was one French ell wide (1.18m) and the brocade column half that width, totaling 13.6 meters (44.52 ft). This discrepancy suggests set 1984 was used in the Versailles King’s bedchamber almost incidentally rather than as a planned choice. This discrepancy in the alcove layout of 1715 featured only five pieces of the large brocade, each one ell wide, and six pieces of column brocade, each half an ell wide, totaling eight French ells or 9.44 meters (31 ft), which is much closer to the actual dimension of the King’s alcove.

7.2 The Bed

The main element of set 1984 was its state bed, with its impressive dimensions. Its components were:

• No Headboard: None of the descriptions indicate the presence of a headboard.

• The Headcloth: Made of two pieces of the large brocade according to the 1705 Garde-Meuble diary [170] and four according to the 1715 death inventory [171].

• The Valences: Both the 1705 and 1715 entries spare details on the main fabric used, only noting crimson satin lining. It could be inferred that they were crimson to match the background of the brocade. Large gold fringes formed festoons at the bottom [172], and this style of valence, different from the previously used campanes, was increasingly popular at the time. Similar ones appear in a painting by Louis Silvestre depicting Louis XIV Receiving the Prince Elector of Saxony in his Fontainebleau bedchamber near the end of his life.

: Louis XIV reçoit à Fontainebleau le prince-électeur de Saxe, 27 septembre 1714, Louis de Silvestre and Hyacinthe Rigaud, oil on canvas, 1715, 120 x 155 cm, Château de Versailles, MV 4344

• The Curtains: Two bonnes grâces, four curtains, and two cantonières are mentioned, with gold fringes at the edges and bottom, lined with the same fabric. The brocade used is not specified, but we can infer that it was the smaller pattern given that the headcloth, mentioned afterward, is said to have been of “the larger pattern brocade,” implying the curtains were not.

• The Quilt: See above.

• The Case Curtain: Made of crimson gros de Tours taffeta, with gold fringes at the bottom and edges, hanging from a golden rod.

• The Columns: The two front columns were placed in a sheath of large-pattern brocade.

• The Vases/Finials: Four in total (one at each corner), filled with feathers and covered in the large-pattern brocade.

7.3 The Armchairs and Stools

Two armchairs were included in the 1705 delivery [173] and three in 1715 [174]. We can assume that an additional armchair was added once the set was transferred to the bedchamber, possibly used with the table. They were garnished with gold fringes at the bottom, and their wood was surprisingly painted red with gold floral decorations. The brocade used was the small pattern, specifically brocades 96, 99, 116, and 128 as described on July 23, 1686: “Two pieces of brocade, two feet wide, with crimson background and elevated patterns in gold and silver with Persian colors” [175]. In 1886, Jules Guiffrey attempted to enhance that vague description by referencing entries from the brocade chapter of the 1729 general inventory and brocade discharges from set 1984, creating this more precise description of the small pattern brocade of number 96: “Two pieces of brocade, two feet wide, with crimson satin background, cornucopias, rinceaux, and flowers of elevated gold and silver, with outlines in green and purple silk, in the Persian style, from the Charlier manufacture in Paris” [176]. The specifics of the colors are consistent with brocade discharges noted at the end of the entry for set 1984 [177].

The twelve folding stools were similar in terms of brocade and style to the armchairs, with gold fringes and woods painted in red with some gilded ornaments.

6.4 The Fire Screen

The fire screen was similar to the seats, with the small-pattern brocade, gold braids around the edges, and wood painted to match the fabric. A braid with a lead pear covered with gold bouquets is also mentioned [178].

7.5 The Table and Tablecloth

The set came with a tablecloth made of the smaller brocade, with fringes on the sides and at the bottom, lined with taffeta, along with a red leather table rug with gold fringes. The table mentioned in the 1715 death inventory under these tablecloths was likely the fir table previously listed in the 1708 inventory and used with set 1379 (see Part 6.6) [179].

7.6 The Portières Tapestries

At the time of the 1705 delivery, no portières were included, and they only appear in the 1715 death inventory [180]. They were made from five pieces of brocade each and described as “assorted to the one of the bed.” Each of the four doors was equipped with one, embellished with gold fringes on their sides, and lined with crimson taffeta.

6.7 The Portieres Tapestries

At the time of the 1705 delivery, no portieres were included; they are only mentioned in the 1715 death inventory [160]. Made from five pieces of brocade each and “assorted to the one on the bed,” each of the four doors was equipped with one. They were embellished with gold fringes on their sides and lined with crimson taffeta.

[135] AN O1/3308 f⁰ 9 r⁰

[136] AN O1/3298 folder 3, item 4, f⁰ 1

[137] Verlet 1961 and Castelluccio 2016 mention set 1379 while omitting set 1984, while Meyer 1980 and Richard 2018 mention set 1984 while omitting set 1379.

[138] Hans 2022 confuses sets 1379 and 1984 and provides a description combining elements from both sets.

[139] AN O1/3308 f⁰ 9 r⁰

[140] Ibid f⁰ 134

[141] AN O1/3298 folder 3, item 4, f⁰ 2 v⁰

[142] The folio 135 of the 1705 Garde-Meuble diary (AN O1/3308) is missing.

[143] Saint-Simon, tome XXIII, p. 213; Dangeau Journal, éd. E. Soulié, Paris, Firmin Didot, 1854-1860, tome XVII, p. 177

[144] AN O1/3298 folder 3, item 2

[145] AN MC/ET/II 473

[146] AN O1/3306 f⁰ 31 v⁰

[147] Ibid f⁰ 59 v⁰

[148] Guiffrey, Jules. Inventaire général du mobilier de la couronne sous Louis XIV (1663-1715), deuxième partie. Paris: Au siège de la société, 1886, p. 198

[149] Ibid f⁰ 111 r⁰

[150] AN O1/3298

[151] AN O1/3308 f⁰ 7 v⁰

[152] AN O1/3298

[153] AN O1/3308 f⁰ 7 v⁰

[154] AN O1/3308 f⁰ 7 v⁰

[155] AN O1/3298

[156] AN O1/3306 f⁰ 31 v⁰

[157] Guiffrey, Inventaire général du mobilier de la couronne sous Louis XIV, 1886 edition, vol. 2, p. 198

[158] AN O1/3308 f⁰ 8 r⁰

[159] Ibid

[160] Ibid

[ex0skeletal-undead]

Vampire Louis XIV by Scarlet Death on ArtStation

[whencyclopedia]

Anne, Queen of Great Britain

Anne reigned as Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1702 and then, following the 1707 Act of Union, over a united kingdom as Queen of Great Britain until her death in 1714. The last of the Stuart monarchs, Anne's reign witnessed the Spanish War of Succession which helped Britain establish itself as a major world power.

The Stuart Family

James II of England (r. 1685-1688) took over the throne from his late brother Charles II of England (r. 1660-1685) since the latter had no legitimate heir. James was a Catholic, but part of the deal which allowed him to succeed his Protestant brother in 1685 was that he promise to raise his two daughters as Protestants. James' first wife was Anne Hyde, the daughter of the Earl of Clarendon (m. 1660). The couple had two daughters: Mary (b. 1662) and the younger Anne, born on 6 February 1665 at St. James' Palace. Anne Hyde died of illness in 1671, and King James married again, this time to Mary (d. 1718), the daughter of the Duke of Modena. The royal couple had a son, James Francis Edward, who was born on 10 June 1688. There were rumours that the prince was an outsider brought in for convenience, and Anne herself had her suspicions about his legitimacy. The birth relegated Mary and Anne to second and third in line to the throne respectively. For Anne, in particular, the improbable likelihood of her becoming the monarch meant that she did not receive the education or preparation enjoyed by other future sovereigns.

The arrival of a new heir to the throne, who would surely be brought up a Catholic like both his parents, coupled with the king's pro-Catholic policies and authoritarian manner seriously worried many in Parliament. In order to maintain the integrity of Parliament and the achievements of the English Reformation and the primacy of Protestantism in England, several nobles now looked abroad for an alternative king. The obvious choice was William, Prince of Orange. The Dutchman was a Protestant and, in command of a powerful navy, he would be a very useful ally. Further, William was closely connected to the British royal family. William was, through his mother, the grandson of Charles I of England (r. 1625-1649), and he had married James II's daughter Mary in 1677. William was keen to have England's navy, professional army, and resources to aid him in his ongoing conflict with Louis XIV of France (r. 1643-1715).

As it turned out, William's invasion of England was remarkably tranquil, and King James, seeing desertions left, right, and centre – including by his daughter Anne – took the prudent action of escaping to France. This was the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The Prince of Orange became William III of England and his wife Mary II of England (r. 1689-1694). The two ruled jointly until Mary died of smallpox in December 1694. Anne had an uneasy relationship with William whom she described in letters with derogatory terms such as "the Dutch monster" (Cannon, 308). Largely, the royal in-laws kept their relationship distant and formal.

Continue reading...

[royalty-nobility]

An Equestrian Portrait of the Young King Charles II of Spain

Artist: Sebastián Herrera Barnuevo (Spanish, 1619–1671)

Date: 1665

Medium: Oil on Canvas

Collection: Private Collection

Charles II of Spain

Charles II of Spain (6 November 1661 – 1 November 1700), also known as El Hechizado, or the Bewitched, was King of Spain from 1665 to 1700. The last monarch from the House of Habsburg which had ruled Spain since 1516, he died without children, leading to a European conflict over his successor.

Charles became king at the age of four, but for reasons that are still debated, he experienced extended periods of ill health throughout his life. This made the question of his successor central to European diplomacy for much of his reign, historian John Langdon-Davies writing that "…from the day of his birth, they were waiting for his death".

The two main candidates were the Austrian Habsburg Archduke Charles, and 16-year-old Philip of Anjou, grandson of Maria Theresa of Spain and Louis XIV of France. Shortly before his death in November 1700, Charles named Philip his heir, but the acquisition of an undivided Spanish Empire by either France or Austria threatened the European balance of power. Failure to resolve these issues through diplomacy resulted in the 1701 to 1714 War of the Spanish Succession.

[dresshistorynerd]

I had the idea of writing about some historical queer figures I find interesting and drawing them for this pride month as a little project of mine. I will see how many I'll have time to do, I have in mind at least four other historical people, but knowing myself, I'm not holding my breath for all of them. Julie d'Aubigny she been one of my favorite historical figures for years so I decided to start with her.

Historical Queer Figures - Julie d'Aubigny

Julie d'Aubigny, also known as Mademoiselle Maupin and La Maupin, was a French opera singer and fencer in the late 1600s. She was infamous for having sapphic relationships, being aggressive and dramatic, having androgynous presentation by occasionally dressing in men's clothing in public and being a fencer and duelist. Trans and genderqueer readings of her are very possible, but because none of the accounts of her (at least those I've read) suggests she ever used any other than feminine first names or terms or she/her pronouns about herself, I will use she/her pronouns when talking about her.

The French court absolutely loved to gossip and people were constantly making up libel about the people they didn't like, and Julie had a lot of enemies and was very controversial figure. During the 18th and 19th centuries she was written about a lot in these highly sensationalized Encyclopedias, where the rumors from her lifetime got increasingly wilder and sensational. She was accused for example of seducing noble women in court balls, burning down a convent and murder. There's not much primary sources left or available from her actual lifetime so distinguishing truth from fiction is not an easy task in her case. Kaz Rowe did great job in their youtube video about her to try to actually find out where the stories of her life comes from. They go through some great context too about the rumor industry in the French court at the time so I highly recommend checking it out.

CW: very brief mentions of child sexual abuse and self-harming

The Timeline of Most Concrete Events

Let's first go through the things that have at least a bit more backing than a rumor started 100 years after her death. Julie d'Aubigny was born between 1670 and 1673. Her father was Gaston d'Aubigny, the secretary of Louis of Lorraine, count d’Armagnac, who was Master of Horses to King Loius XIV, and her mother is unknown. She was probably brought to the Versailles court in 1682, where she got a full education including academic subjects, riding and fencing, usually only thought for boys. She was married off to a Sieur de Maupin (first name unknown) probably around 1687, when she would have been 14 to 17 years old. He apparently got a position from a southern province as a tax collector. The stories about her claim she remained in Paris, but I don't think there's evidence of this, though what we do know of her adult life does suggest she was estranged from her husband and lived apart from him. Nevertheless, she did end up in Marseilles, where she first appeared on stage in Marseilles Opéra between 1687 and 1690. She didn't have education in music, but her good looks and beautiful voice landed her the role.

Her first appearances in the Paris Opéra are listed to 1690, so that is probably when she had her debut there. She became a very talked about figure and she gained both friends and enemies in the opera and the court. She performed in the Paris Opéra for probably four years, after which she went to Brussels, Bavaria, where she performed with the Opéra du Quai au Foin at least during 1697 and early 1698, after which she returned to France to perform again with the Paris Opéra.

It was the period when her career peaked and she got a lot of leading female roles. Those roles in French opera were at the time soprano roles, but Julie's natural voice range was lower, contralto. (There's a whole thing where at the time she was described as mezzo-soprano, but the music historian consensus is that her range matches contralto in modern terms as opera was sang on lower cords across the board at the time. (I understand nothing about music theory so I just hope I managed to explain this correctly)) She excelled in secondary female roles of goddesses and warrior women. For the leading roles she had to sing on higher notes than was natural to her and the naive and dainty personalities of those roles clashed with her own personality. Some later retellings of her life claim she performed male roles for female singers (which was common practice, and these roles were often those of young boys), but all known records of her roles are female roles. In 1702 on the leading composers of the Paris Opéra, André Campra, wrote her a leading lady role in Tamcréde, which is often credited to have the first leading female role for contralto. But her perhaps most famous role was as Médée in Medus, which was considered to be a very difficult role. Apparently the original leading singer had fallen ill before the debut so Julie was quickly trained in her stead, but succeeded well and got a lot of praise for the role.

In 1703 Julie started an affair with Madame la Marquise de Florensac, who was said to have been the most beautiful woman in France. This is the affair of hers of which there's most evidence. De Florensac was married and had children, but she was also rumored to have many affairs. Julie lived quietly together with her for two years. They were described by a contemporary to have lived in perfect harmony, always spending time together and only appearing in public when necessarily. Julie deputed in her last role in 1705 and ended her career after De Floransac died of sudden fever. Nothing concrete is known about the rest of her life, not even how or when she died, but she is usually speculated to have died in 1707.

Parsing History from Fantasy

Chronologically the rumor that places earliest in her life was that she had "an affair" with count d’Armagnac (age 46 at the time), before she got married in the same year so as a 14 to 17 year old. There doesn't seem to be any actual evidence of this and even if that really happened, it wouldn't have been an affair, it would have been grooming and sexual violence. Related to it is the rumor that the count arranged her marriage and sent her husband away, but kept her in the court with him. Then she "got bored" of the count and ran away with an assistant sword-master, Séranne, to southern France. They got money by performing fencing matches in fairs and taverns while they were traveling till they got to Marseilles, where she first appeared in opera.

The stories of her in this period are generally written in a super nasty tone, and she (as supposed 14 yo) is written as the seductress and the adult men are written as the victims of her fiery temper and fitfulness. All these stories seem pretty unlikely though. The rumor about the count seems (unfortunately) most possible, but accounts from 18th and 19th century about these early events in her life don't seem to be based on any information from her lifetime. I find it most likely that the writers in 18th and 19th centuries were filling out the blanks we don't know from her life and painting her as this (in their eyes) degenerate seductress from an early age. An alternative possible explanation could have been that she indeed accompanied her husband to south, perhaps near Marseilles, where she then performed with the Marseilles Opéra. Many sources claim though that she performed with her maiden name there, which would be odd if she was living with her husband. I don't know where that claim comes originally, but it could be false of course. Although the generally proposed year of her marriage could also be false, which would explain why she at first performed with her maiden name, and later in Paris and always after that with her husband's name. That would not explain how she ended up going to Marseilles though.

The next and perhaps the most infamous and coolest story of her sets somewhere shortly before 1690. In that story she fell in love with a girl in Marseilles and the girls parents sent her to a convent to avoid a scandal. Julie went to the convent with the premise of wanting to become a novice. They tried to frame the girl's death by putting a dead nun's body into the girls bed and setting it on fire and then went on the run for couple of months. While on the run Julie was sentenced to death in absentia, but after returning to Paris and rekindling her relationship with count d'Armagnac, he got the king to pardon her. As amazing as this story is, it's very likely not true. It seems quite unlikely that the 15 to 19 year old Julie would have done that, but even more unlikely that she'd just get all her charges dropped and these crimes wouldn't have hindered at all her career, which hadn't even properly begun yet. The first surviving description of this incident comes from a letter of her contemporary court lady, Madame Dunoyer, who was basically an early gossip columnist and despised her. Her story doesn't mention Julie at all, but talks about a nun, who tried to frame her own death in a similar manner to escape with her male lover (which still sounds very unlikely story). The first surviving description that attaches that story to Julie, comes year after her death from the very suspect writings of a known liar, Cardinal Debois, who did personally know and hate Julie. He claimed that Dumenil, who was an actor in Paris Opéra the same time as Julie, related him the story, while also acknowledging he probably did it because he too hated her. So very likely not a true story, but possibly something that was rumored during her lifetime already.

In the stories of her, after escaping from the convent and before going to Paris, she traveled again in male attire and met Louis Joseph d'Albert de Luynes von Grimberghen, commonly known as count d'Albert. He was an interesting character in his own right, roughly her age, and like her, his real story is a little hard to parse from the legend (though in his case, he was a nobleman so there's also a lot of actual records of his life). In the story though, he thought she was a man, they had some disagreement, a fight broke out, she won, injured him and nursed him back to health. And then they had a brief affair before d'Albert went to war again. They were lifelong friends, so this is not entirely made up. It's entirely possible they had a brief affair (and according to many stories an on and off type of affair that was re-kindled at many points in their lives) and there was rumors about it even in her lifetime, but the story of this first meeting seems to lack validity.

Next in her stories she met Gabriel-Vincent Thévenard, who was another famous singer and her contemporary, either right before or right after she arrived in Paris. They became lovers and after Thévenard auditioned and got accepted into the Paris Opéra, he helped to get Julie accepted too. It is true that as far as we know, they both debuted in 1690. They were also said to have been life long friends and again it's possible they were lovers at some point, but the details of their meeting are difficult to know.

There are many stories about her antics of both of her times in the Paris Opéra. In those stories she fought duels, assaulted Dumenil with a cane, robbed Dumenil, had fights with men after they insulted her or another women or harassed other women, tried to kill herself after her love was not reciprocated, threatened to shoot a duchess in the head, threatened to slit Cardinal Debois' throat, bit Thévenard in the ear on stage and had affairs with men and women. According to Cardinal Debois the feud between Dumenil and Julie started because Dumenil was interested in her but she rejected him. The Cardinal was a liar but it does sound pretty believable. So if it's true and he spread in retaliation a lie that she burned down a convent, her beating him up or beating him up, stealing his valuables and returning them to him by humiliating him in front of other actors, would align well with everything else told about her personality. Maybe her retaliation wasn't exactly as in the stories, but if the other things about Dumenil were true, I'm sure she retaliated in some way. Same applies to her threatening the Cardinal's life. He wrote about it, but he was a liar, but, but because he was a liar who lied about her, it sounds like something she might do. Madame Dunoyer wrote about her threatening the Duchess of Luxembourg apparently because of jealousy over count d'Albert. The duchess was d'Albert's mistress at one point and apparently he even fought a duel over her in 1700. So there is some validity to this rumor, though the circumstances were perfect to fabricate that kind of rumor. I haven't found as much backing to other rumors, but many of them sound possible or at least maybe rooted in some reality and exaggerated.

The rumored explanation for why she left the Paris Opéra around 1694 was that she went into a court ball in men's clothing, kissed a woman on the dance floor and got challenge to a duel by three noblemen. They went outside and she won, but because dueling was illegal, she had to flee to Bavaria, and later when she returned, she was supposedly pardoned by the king again. In the more sensational versions of the story she killed the noblemen. This whole story is very unlikely. Even count d'Albert was imprisoned for engaging in an illegal duel (the one in 1700). He got eventually pardoned, but he was a nobleman and basically a war hero. The first surviving accounts of this story come much after her dead and it sounds more like a very exaggerated version of the other stories of her. There's many more plausible reason why she would have left to Bavaria. If her contemporaries descriptions of her behavior were even half true, those could have been scandal enough. Or if the rumors of her burning down a convent were circling that time already, that alone could have been damaging enough to her career that she thought it best to leave for a while.

In Bavaria, she's rumored to have another scandal. She supposedly became lover of the Max Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria, but she was too dramatic and after she stabbed herself with a real knife during a performance, the Elector decided she was too much, demanded her to leave Bavaria and gave her money for it. She supposedly threw the money to the feet of the messenger and left. The first surviving account of this story comes again from Madame Dunoyer, the details of which have changed, but were always quite exaggerated and unbelievable. Still the core events might be true, it's possible she was the Elector's lover for a while and it's also possible she stabbed herself on stage for real, being very dramatic as she was.

Was she queer?

There are enough accounts of her attraction and relationships with women from people who actually knew her, that I do find it very likely that she was sapphic. Cardinal Debois even implied she was exclusive interested in women or at least heavily preferred them, though other accounts by the people who knew her did talk about her attraction to men too. Her dressing in men's clothing is also mentioned enough times by her contemporaries that I do believe it. Because gender was so heavily tied to clothing and sexuality and fashion was less about what you wanted to wear and more about what you wanted others to think about you, I think she probably had some gender feelings. Even her aggressive and assertive behavior was very much seen as crossing gender boundaries. There's no more evidence of her feelings on gender than her androgynous presentation, so it's mostly speculation.

In conclusion, she was definitely a flavor of queer.

Julie circa 1700 in opera costume.

The most notable source I used:

Julie D'Aubigny: the 17th Century Sapphic Swordfighting Opera Singer, video by Kaz Rowe - I mentioned this before but it bears repeating

Research page by Jim Burrows - This was great since there's gathered multiple sources on le Maupin, historical and more recent, some of which are hard to access fully otherwise

Julie d'Aubigny: La Maupin and Early French Opera, LAPL blog post - It repeats most of the rumors of questionable origin about her as truth, but the sections about her career, which have more backing than just rumors, are really helpful

Mademoiselle De Maupin; Biographical sketches & anecdotes, The Dublin University Magazine - One of those questionable biographies of her from 1854, really only good as a source of what the rumors were after her death

Chevalier, Louis-Joseph, prince de Grimberghen, essay by Neil Jeffares - Biography of count d'Albert, which includes a lot of unsourced rumors about both le Maupin and d'Albert, but recounts his life events in great detail, and references to each claim show which parts are sourced well

[rabbitcruiser]

King Louis XIV of France died after a reign of 72 years on September 1, 1715, which is the longest of any major European monarch.

[planet-gay-comic]

Kings and Their Lovers

Male Kings and Their Homoromantic or Erotic Relationships from Antiquity to Modern Times History offers numerous examples of male rulers who had homoromantic or erotic relationships with other men. These connections were often complex and influenced by cultural, societal, and personal factors. Here are some remarkable examples:

Antiquity

Alexander the Great (356–323 BC) The Macedonian king and famous conqueror had a particularly close relationship with Hephaestion, his childhood friend and confidant. Plutarch described Hephaestion as "Alexander's lover." After Hephaestion's death, Alexander was inconsolable and ordered a nationwide mourning. The Persian eunuch Bagoas is also mentioned in ancient sources as Alexander's lover.

Emperor Hadrian (76–138 AD) The Roman emperor is known for his passionate relationship with the young Greek Antinous. When Antinous drowned in the Nile, Hadrian was devastated. He had his lover deified, founded the city of Antinoopolis, and erected statues of Antinous throughout the empire. These actions testify to Hadrian's deep affection and grief.

Middle Ages

Richard the Lionheart (1157–1199) Richard I of England had a close relationship with Philip II of France. Contemporary chroniclers described how the two kings "ate from the same table and drank from the same cup every night" and "slept in the same bed." Although the exact nature of their relationship remains disputed, such reports suggest a very intimate connection.

Edward II of England (1284–1327) Edward II had an intense relationship with Piers Gaveston, which chroniclers of the time described as excessively intimate. Later, he developed a similarly close relationship with Hugh Despenser the Younger. These connections led to political tensions and ultimately contributed to Edward's deposition.

Modern Times

James I of England (1566–1625) James, also known as James VI of Scotland, had several close relationships with men. Particularly notable was his connection with George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham. In letters, James called Villiers "my sweet child and wife" and "my dear Venus boy." This correspondence indicates a passionate and intimate relationship.

Louis XIV of France (1638–1715) Although the Sun King is primarily known for his female mistresses, there are indications of intimate relationships with men. The Duke of Saint-Simon reported in his memoirs of several homosexual affairs at court, including one between Louis and his brother Philippe, Duke of Orléans.

Frederick the Great of Prussia (1712–1786) Frederick had close relationships with several men, particularly Hans Hermann von Katte in his youth. Although Frederick married, the marriage remained childless and distant. Instead, he surrounded himself with a circle of close male friends and confidants.

Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845–1886) Known as the "Fairy Tale King," Ludwig II had close and presumably romantic relationships with several men. Particularly well-known are his connections to Richard Hornig, his stable master, and Paul von Thurn und Taxis. Ludwig's homosexuality was an open secret during his lifetime and contributed to the accusations that led to his dethronement.

Modern Era

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (1868–1918) Although later married, the last Russian Tsar had a close relationship as a young man with his cousin, Prince Nicholas of Greece. In letters, he described their "special friendship" and the "wonderful nights" they spent together.

These examples show that same-sex relationships among rulers were not uncommon. The nature and perception of such connections varied greatly depending on the cultural and historical context. While some relationships were lived relatively openly, others remained hidden due to societal norms and political implications or were only hinted at in documentation.

It is important to note that modern concepts of sexual orientation and identity cannot be directly applied to historical figures. Many of these rulers would not have identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual, as these terms did not exist in their time. Their relationships must be understood in the context of their respective culture and time.

Nevertheless, these historical examples offer important insights into the diversity of human relationships and show that same-sex love and affection existed even at the highest levels of power.

Text supported by GPT-4o, Claude AI

Image generated with SD1.5. Overworked with inpainting (SD1.5/SDXL) and composing.

[dangermousie]

Your JoL posts have been amazing. I've loved posting my thoughts on them at times.

What do you think are Qing di's intentions about Fan Xian? Does he intend to let him succeed him as the emperor?

Thank you!!! I am so obsessed with this drama - to find something that is super smart AND emotionally engrossing at the same time is super rare but this really hits the spot for me.

Re: the emperor. You know, it wouldn’t surprise me if the emperor despite his brains is like many otherwise brilliant absolute rulers and doesn’t truly believe there will be an end to his rule and that he’s bound by mortality (think of England’s Elizabeth I, an amazing ruler who refused to even contemplate appointing heirs properly because it would mean her reign would end sometimes. Or Louis XIV of France who fought half of Europe and built Versailles and ruled for over 70 years and supposedly said “apres moi le deluge.” Or even the founder of the Qin Dynasty who was the first to unite China and yet was so obsessed with immortality his hastened his death taking mercury elixirs.)

I honestly wonder if some of his obsession with finding the Divine Temple isn’t just to get whatever weapons and secrets it may have or even see if he can take down something he can’t control but to see if there is a way to prolong life. If my theory that he’s a grandmaster is correct and Grandmaster Ye said other grandmasters don’t view themselves as human any more then why not escape the human limitation of death too?

But even if that’s not the case, I do not think he’s grooming Fan Xian to take over. First logistics - he’d have to appoint him on his deathbed because there ain’t no way he’s making him a Crown Prince and it’s not because he’s not in the royal family formally (face it, if the emperor wanted to manipulate things so Fan Xian never formally becomes a Fan and is somehow taken into the imperial family, he’d figure it out) or because to remove an appointed crown prince and son of the empress at that is a big deal (because ditto.)

It’s because the Emperor will never allow his Crown Prince to be someone TOO talented, it’s too much of a threat. Crown Prince is bloody minded enough to be an emperor but he’s only the third smartest out of his five sons (and frankly, third Prince is so young the jury is out on how smart the kid is so maybe he’d be smarter too.) Emperor wants someone he can control without expending titanic effort on the matter. Not someone with too many of his own ideas and a way of getting them rammed through.

The emperor is fond of Fan Xian insofar as it’s possible for him to be fond of anyone (which ain’t much - you get the sense he had more of that capacity when young though even there nothing mattered as much as power; if he’s 100% not related to FX’s mom’s death in any capacity I will be shocked) but as his comment in that pitchpot scene after CPP left indicates, to him strong feelings are a nuisance and stupidity and burden. So he’s fond when it costs him nothing important and is even beneficial but the moment Fan Xian steps out of line enough to be an issue or, even worse, the moment he decides he can’t control Fan Xian, he would not hesitate to murder him, fondness or not (in a way, FX loving so many people so much is Fan Xian’s safety - look how many levers the Fans and Wan’er let alone his followers like WQN give the emperor.) Actually, Fan Xian doesn’t even have to do anything super wrong; if the emperor thought it would give him a big enough advantage, he’d probably murder all his kids on the walls of the palace on the “I can make more” principle a la the father of William Marshal.

Ok I blabbed a whole novel but short version: I’d be surprised if he’s grooming Fan Xian to be the next emperor which is just as well since FX would be miserable as one and I hope at the end he gets his wish to live a joyful life traveling the world with Wan’er and enjoying the peace with his family.

Ultimately, I think the emperor wants to use him like he uses everyone and everything to achieve his goals and make his reign stronger and his kingdom stronger and balance the other princes in a stalemate (if his children fight with each other they are too busy to fight him) and just use him use him use him to the utmost just how he does with everyone else.

[aedesluminis]

Most ridiculous thing Carnot has ever done?

Sorry for the late, dear Anon.

This took me a while to reply, since, during his life, Carnot had put himself in rather problematic situations, that led him to act in ways that can be considered embarrassing (1) by various people with different views. So it was hard for me to choose just one thing: a specific thing that he did, which might be seen as foolish and careless by someone, might not be viewed in the same way by another person.

I'm pretty sure that what I'm about to say has a chance to the considered ridiculous by many - if not all - here on Frevblr. I'm referring to the fact that he accepted the cross of Saint-Louis, becoming de facto a member - a knight to be more precise - of the homonymous order, just a few months before the trial of the king. I don't know for sure when exactly he received it, but it definitely happened in 1792, according to L'Histoire de l'ordre royal et militaire de Saint-Louis (p. 493-494).

The order of Saint-Louis was an ancient cavalry order founded in 1693 by Louis XIV, the "Sun King". Until the latter's death it was intended as a prestigious and profitable (2) reward for officers who had distinguished themselves through their feats, but in later years, it started to be treated as a decoration which officers eventually achieved. It's also important to point out that non-nobles could be admitted in the order and it was easier to join for engineering officers, like Carnot. Requirements were further lowered in a series of decrees by the Legislative Assembly and sanctioned by Louis XVI (3) and the order was eventually suppressed on 15 October 1792.

Personally, I find questionable the decision to receive such a reward, after the flight of Varennes, or worse after the 10 of August (again I don't know exactly when he was granted that). On one hand, I can understand the desire for prestige and the conspicuous pension he would have received, allowing him to retire in peace, as well as the fact that he grew up in a world, in which being a knight of Saint-Louis was seen as honorable and worthy of praise. On the other one, we are talking about something which was intrinsically part of an old oppressive system, that Carnot himself was contributing to reform; not to mention that the highest authority of that system and head of the order was found guilty of treason against his people at the time Carnot accepted the cross.

Notes

(1) I'm referring to things that revealed themselves to be embarrassing for him only, so nothing that caused harm to other people. Framing his responsibilities in the arrestation of the Babuovistes as ridiculous would be an euphemism if what I read from bits here and there is true.

(2) Members of the order of Saint-Louis were granted a special pension which added itself to that of the military rank at the time of retirement.

(3) For the decrees see A. Mazas, T. Anne, L'Histoire de l'ordre royal et militaire de Saint-Louis, Tome 2 (1860) (p. 502-504).

[marytoppins]

All of the book owners (so far) are the fictional authors of fictional fables and stories.

Mother Goose collection has Cinderella, Master cat or Puss in Boots, the sleeping beauty in the wood, little red riding hood, the fairy (all written for Louis the XIV in the 1690’s appx… the Grimm brothers are more relevant retelling sod the stories for an 1800’s Germany

Scherezade from 1001 Arabian nights started as one thousand nights and evolved to what is is now known as titular and story content wise. Having the ebony horse, the thief and the merchant, the adventures of Sinbad the sailor, and Aladdin and the lamp.

An interesting tidbit if the most famous stories from the collection (Aladdin and the Genie, Sinbad the sailor and Ali baba and the 40 thieves) they were either independent and added in later editions or added for the French publication in the 1830’s

And Aesops fables are from Ancient Greece and contain the basis for all fairy tales and fables such as the tortoise and the hare, the boy who cried wolf, the lion and the mouse, and others.

All of these story tellers also share things in common, all of them are either historically (Aesop) or designed to be (Mother Goose and Scherezade) people who are not wealthy, do not hold a position of power but wants to help the future.

Aesop was a Greek Slave who wanted to document the oral stories being told amongst the common folk and to also make commentary on the politics happening as well. With the commentary being seen as moral lessons for the children to grow and learn with.

Scherezade is the extremely learnéd daughter of the Vizier who agreed to me the next bride for the king to stop him from killing all the virgin wives he had. She constantly gets him to postpone her execution with the fables and changes his mind so he doesn’t assume all women will cheat immediately after sleeping with him. Giving the reader an idea of what knowledge can do.

Mother Goose is supposed to be a village woman who met a goose who laid golden eggs for her and eventually spun tales for the children of the village, entertaining and imparting lessons to them.

They all have some aspect of their stories that undermines their influence on change as well. For Aesop is is his state of slavery, for Scherezade it is volunteering to try and avoid death as long as humanly possible, and for Mother Goose it is the witch connotations that came about.

All of these coincidences and similarity paints a beautiful picture of humanity and imparting knowledge to the youth reading them but to have them all be relevant? WHY BRENNAN LEE MULLIGAN! WHY?!?!?!?!?!!?! WHY ARE ALL OF THESE SIMILARITIES APPARANT?!?!!? WHAT IS THE REASON?!?!!? WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE?!?!!?

(Hi I am a Double Major in Psychology and History currently on a national scholarship research program, I just did a research paper on how popular media in each time reflects the politics of the time, meaning I did a LOT of digging into 1001 Arabian nights in terms of Orientalism, Mother Goose fables for the return of theatre (because of pantomime and an evolving comedia del arte) and Aesop was recent boredom research. Please message with questions if present!)