#William Bulmer

[uwmspeccoll]

Marbled Monday

This week's example of marbling is used in the binding of Poems by Goldsmith and Parnell printed by W. Bulmer of the Shakespeare Printing Office in 1795. English printer and typographer William Bulmer (1757-1830) established the Shakespeare Press in 1790 and published over 600 volumes during its operation.

Irish poet, novelist, and playwright Oliver Goldsmith (1728-1774) was a poor student but a good writer, especially noted for his pastoral style. English-Irish poet and clergyman Thomas Parnell (1679-1718) is considered one of the "Graveyard Poets," whose work often contained ruminations on mortality and were considered precursors to the Romantic and Gothic movements. Goldsmith wrote a biography of Parnell that was often published with collections of the latter's works.

The binding of this book shows great attention to detail. The marbled paper is, I believe, a Stormont Pattern in red, ten, green, and black. The corners and spine are covered with dark green goatskin featuring gold tooling and the title stamped on the spine. The corners and the edges of the goatskin leather covering the spine have a blind-tooled design on them. It's a very good example of a well-considered and designed binding.

View a post on the wood engravings in this book.

View more Marbled Monday posts.

-- Alice, Special Collections Department Manager

[graphicpolicy]

Preview: My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #4

My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #4 preview. A dark force looms over Maretime Bay despite Misty and her friends solving each of the ghost's riddles! #comics #comicbooks #mlp #mylittlepony

[comicbookclub]

IDW Preview: My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #4

Read a preview of My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #4 from IDW Publishing, written by Stephanie Williams with art by Abigail Bulmer.

[comicbookclublive]

IDW Preview: My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #4

Read a preview of My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #4 from IDW Publishing, written by Stephanie Williams with art by Abigail Bulmer.

[wonder-worker]

"If anonymity was required [for reconnaissance and espionage] the woman going about her business, between markets, was the perfect messenger. The Compaignon's news was taken to Lille by a female courier. Writing to the English government on the eve on a projected Scottish invasion Sir William Bulmer was interrupted by the arrival of the wife of one of his spies who had come because 'hir husband was suspect, so that he durst not come hyself. . .'. Equally, Sir William reported that among his spies in Scotland in 1523 he numbered one he called 'the Priores'. In the border war of intelligence it was reported, two years later, that the Scots had lost a female spy at Durham where she was captured and interrogated. There should be little surprise at this, for as Philippe Contamine points out women were much involved in medieval warfare and were employed as messengers and spies throughout the Hundred Years War. But again it is to Edward IV, and the great crisis of his reign, that we must turn. With Warwick and Clarence in France allying with Margaret of Anjou, the king sent Lady Isabel Neville one of her servants bearing an offer of peace. The woman's real business was to plead with Clarence not to be the ruin of his family, and to remind him of the deadly feud between York and Lancaster. Did he really take Warwick at his word when, having done homage to Henry VI's son, he said he would make Clarence king?* The choice of this woman was made because of her shrewdness and because she could gain access to her lady, and thus Clarence, quicker than any male agent."

-Ian Arthurson, "Espionage and Intelligence from the Wars of the Roses to the Reformation", Nottingham Medieval Studies (1991)

*The source for this is the memoirs of Philippe de Commynes, who later served in the French court and was very cognizant of espionage in contemporary politics and warfare. It's not proven or disproven by any other source.

[desimonewayland]

The Costume of Turkey. London: William Bulmer for William Miller, 1804 - hand-coloured aquatint.

Sotheby's

[brookstonalmanac]

Birthdays 8.31

Beer Birthdays

Johanna Heileman (1831)

Theo Flissebaalje (1949)

Michael J. Ferguson (1953)

Five Favorite Birthdays

James Coburn; actor (1928)

Van Morrison; Irish singer (1945)

Frank Robinson; Baltimore Orioles OF, manager (1935)

Glenn Tilbrook; English singer, songwriter (1957)

Gary Webb; journalist (1955)

Famous Birthdays

Richard Basehart; actor (1914)

Julie Brown; comedian, actor (1954)

Agnes Bulmer; English poet & author (1775)

Caligula; Roman emperor (12 B.C.E.)

Eldridge Cleaver; activist (1935)

Roger Dean; English illustrator, artist (1944)

Lowell Ganz; screenwriter (1948)

Richard Gere; actor (1949)

Debbie Gibson; pop singer (1970)

Arthur Godfrey; actor (1903)

Buddy Hackett; comedian, actor (1924)

Georg Jensen; Danish silversmith (1866)

György Károly; Hungarian poet and author (1953)

Foghorn Leghorn; cartoon rooster (1946)

Alan Jay Lerner; lyricist (1918)

Helen Levitt; photographer & cinematographer (1913)

Bernard Lovell; English astronomer (1913)

Fredric March; actor (1897)

Jean-Paul-Égide Martini; French composer (1741)

Maria Montessori; educator (1870)

Edwin Moses; olympic runner (1955)

Itzhak Perlman; violinist (1945)

Hugh David Politzer; physicist (1949)

Amilcare Ponchielli; classical composer (1834)

William Saroyan; writer (1908)

Montgomery "Scotty" Scott; Star Trek character (2222)

G.D. Spradlin; actor (1920)

Anthony Thistlethwaite; English saxophonist & bassist (1955)

Chris Tucker; actor (1972)

Bob Welch; singer & guitarist (1945)

Herbert Wise; Austrian-English director (1924)

Raymond Williams; Welsh author (1921)

[lboogie1906]

James Robinson Johnston (March 12, 1876 – March 3, 1915) was a Canadian lawyer and community leader.

He was born in Halifax. He was the eldest of the five sons of William Johnston, a shoemaker, and Elizabeth Ann Thomas. His maternal grandparents were Reverend James Thomas, a white man from Wales who headed the African Baptist Association (1861-79), and Hannah Saunders, an African Nova Scotian woman.

He was restricted from attending public school due to Nova Scotia’s segregation laws. Under the system in place, Black children attended separate schools which suffered from underfunding. At the age of six, he began attending school at the Black Maynard School. In 1884, the segregation of schools was repealed and by 1887 he was attending the Albro Street School, making him the first Black student to attend a White school. The following year he transferred to the Halifax Academy. He was recognized as a brilliant student and upon graduating at the age of sixteen enrolled at Dalhousie College. He graduated with a Bachelor of Letters and entered Dalhousie Law School. He was the first Black Nova Scotian to graduate from university. He articled and was called to the Bar in 1900.

He worked for John Thomas Bulmer. In 1901, Bulmer died suddenly and he assumed the practice. He did not restrict himself from taking cases of only defending Blacks or minor cases to be heard in the minor courts; as White society of the time expected. He represented those who needed his legal services, regardless of being Black or white, rich or poor, residing in Halifax, or if need be traveling to other areas of the Province. He defended his clients in the police court, county court, as well as the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

He married Janie (Jennie) May Allen (1902). Their only son died in 1911 of meningitis. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence

[scifi2feature]

[dwellordream]

Adultery and Fornication

“Meinill was one of the leading members of North Riding society. He was around four years older than Lucy and had succeeded his father in May 1299 when he was twenty-four. His family was of rather higher standing than the Latimers and the Thwengs because it had been established since around 1100 and antiquity was an important element of the lineage’s status. By the latter part of the thirteenth century there were three junior branches established in the locality at East Rounton, Hilton and Middleton.

Nicholas bought out his cousin Sir John de Meinill of Middleton in 1303 when this manor was settled on John for life with remainder to Nicholas and his heirs. The estate, like Lucy’s, lay chiefly in Cleveland and consisted of the castle and manor of Whorlton, and the nearby manors of Potto, Trenholme, Ingleby Greenhow, Seamer, Eston, Hutton Rudby and Carlton, and the advowson of Rudby and, by 1314, the manor of Middleton, with Aldwark and Boynton some distance further away. Most of these manors made up what was called ‘the Canterbury fee’, held of the archbishops of Canterbury.

…In January 1300, he was one of the Yorkshire knights who were summoned to attend the Exchequer at York, representing the North Riding alongside the younger Latimer. In early 1302 he and Sir John de Meinill of Middleton were among the group assembled at Yarm to witness John de Aslackby’s grant to the Dominicans and the confirmation by William and Lucy Latimer. By the end of that year, however, Latimer and Meinill were enemies. 

On 26 November 1302, according to a presentment made by the Langbaurgh jury before local justices in May 1305, Latimer and a gang went to Meinill’s manor at Ingleby Greenhow to kill him but, not finding him, had hunted in his chase and killed his deer. It was said that some of them had done this in revenge for a similar raid by Meinill on Latimer’s chase at Danby. 

A number of Latimer’s party were dressed in haketons and armed with swords, bows and arrows, and a destrier was killed with a lance, but, while some of them were found guilty of the hunting offence, they were acquitted of trying to kill Meinill. Three years later, in 1305, the feud between the two men was widely known. The jurors of Ryedale and Bulmer wapentakes thought that Meinill might act against Latimer because of the enmity he held towards him and knew that this was an ancient hatred.

These judgements were made in connection with a famous accusation brought by Latimer against Meinill. Latimer came before the justices on 11 May (1305) and showed them his privy seal letter of 21 April, which granted him full power to recapture Lucy and instructed all the king’s ministers to assist him. He then said that three men had been procured to kill him and requested that they should be examined immediately. 

The men were Robert de Bordesden, Thomas de Roston, and Robert, son of Philip le Marshal of Scampston, of whom Bordesden was the ringleader. When asked who it was who had procured him to arrange this, Bordesden answered that it was Nicholas de Meinill. The justices then asked Latimer whether he wanted to proceed against Meinill, Latimer agreed, and was bound over to prosecute Meinill at the next session on 18 May, along with his two pledges, Sir Robert Ughtred and Sir Henry de Boys. 

The three hitmen were committed to gaol to await the next session. Meinill was summoned to attend and duly turned up, as did Latimer, and the hitmen were brought from gaol. Bordesden was called up to be examined again but this time he gave a completely different story. He said that he had been seized by Latimer on 6 May (1305) on the highway at Scampston, beaten and wounded, taken to Latimer’s manor of Kirkburn, and imprisoned there.

On the following day, Latimer had told him that he was to go before the justices at York and tell the tale against Meinill. If he did not do so, he would be taken to the Tower of London by virtue of Latimer’s privy seal letter, but, if he did, he would have fifty marks (£33). Latimer made out the bond promising to pay Robert the money and handed it to Robert de Boulton for safekeeping, and he also promised that he would protect Bordesden and ensure that he suffered no ill consequences. 

In particular, he promised that he would not have to go to gaol. As Bordesdon and his two accomplices had been thrown into gaol, he felt that he was freed from his promise, which in any case had been extorted from him, so he made a full confession. The jury believed this tale and acquitted Meinill, although Bordesden remained in prison for some time. He petitioned for justice and, as a result, a writ of 28 October (1305) instructed the justice Mauley to send without delay the documents and records of the case, including Latimer’s bond to Bordesden. 

Another writ of 12 November notified the justices that Ralph de Sandwich and William Inge had been appointed to deliver the gaol of Bordesden and Roston, but Bordesden petitioned again because he was still in prison, after which the king’s council directed that he should be released on bail. Some doubt about the truth of his second account may be cast by the fact that he is known to have been associated with Meinill before and after 1305. 

He had campaigned with Meinill and his father in 1298, he was named as one of the gang with Meinill when he took Lucy from Everingham in 1313, and he campaigned with Meinill in 1314. This raises the possibility that Meinill really had incited him to kill Latimer, but it is equally possible that Latimer seized on him as his agent because he would be able to get close to Meinill. The detail in the second story that Bordesden had been threatened by Latimer’s use of the privy seal letter also perhaps implies that this was the true one. 

…Whichever of Bordesden’s stories was the true one, there is no doubt that Meinill’s acquittal was a very public debacle for Latimer, a humiliation before a major gathering at the county town. The case was probably a local cause célèbre because the third version of the record (membrane 22d.) was copied into the Guisborough Cartulary. There is no obvious reason why this should have been done because it did not involve the priory in any way. 

The item is headed ‘De Nicholao de Meynill’ and follows the copy of Lucy’s later confirmation to the priory while widowed. The priory’s interest may have been because Lucy later made over her rights in the patronage of the house to her granddaughter by Meinill, but it is still remarkable. The most important question is whether the feud between Latimer and Meinill, already at a potentially murderous level in November 1302, was connected with Lucy. 

It is easy to assume that it had arisen because she and Meinill had begun their relationship by that date, and that she decided to divorce Latimer a year later because of it. Nevertheless, there is some considerable doubt about this and the available evidence suggests that, to the contrary, their relationship began after she had left Latimer and probably after their divorce was decreed. 

Latimer’s deployment before the justices of his privy seal letter, issued the previous month, seems to suggest that he was trying to establish a direct link between Lucy’s flight from him and Meinill’s alleged plot to murder him, but nothing explicit was stated to this effect and he was probably using the letter improperly. The earliest evidence of the feud, manifested in mutual hunting raids, does not suggest a connection with Lucy. 

Most significantly, it is quite clear that Meinill was not involved in Lucy’s flight from Latimer in late 1303. This was organised by her uncle and carried out by family friends, and if Latimer had any idea that Meinill had been involved he would surely have accused him, particularly as they were already enemies. 

It seems likely that Lucy was living with the Constables in October 1304, when Latimer brought his lawsuit against them, and she was almost certainly still living with family, and not with Meinill, in June 1305 when the dean and chapter were urging that she should be allowed to remain in a refuge safe from Latimer while the divorce suit was pending. 

There is also the important allied point that they may not have been willing to decree the divorce, which they had done by October, if there was any doubt of Lucy’s motives because, as has been seen, divorces were not always granted when it was clear that the plaintiff ’s motive was simply a wish to marry someone else. The earliest explicit evidence of their relationship is the accusation of adultery in April 1307. 

This may have been prompted by the renewed threat to Latimer of excommunication for not paying the costs of the divorce. This was revived with the enquiry ordered on 15 March 1307; the summons for adultery was made on 28 April. The connection is emphasised by the fact that, on the day following the summons, Thweng demanded an inspection of Latimer’s response to the enquiry. 

Both her Thweng uncles were actively involved in this move, and they may have been attempting to put pressure on Latimer over the delayed divorce proceedings. The citation for adultery may have been instigated by Latimer as a riposte to this threat. Alternatively, it may have been an ex officio summons responding to widespread knowledge of the relationship, and this may have resulted from the birth of Nicholas, Lucy’s son by Meinill. 

There is only circumstantial evidence to suggest when he was born but one important fact is that he was not yet knighted in May 1324. This suggests that he was still quite young when his father died in 1322, but he was probably in his teens because he was old enough to act as one of his father’s executors, although jointly with a coadjutator, and to have been given the manor of Boynton by his father a few years before.

Perhaps most important is that Meinill had no doubt that this son of Lucy’s was also his son, which implies that their relationship was well-established by the time he was conceived, and this is not likely to have occurred until after the summer of 1305, when probably they were not yet living together openly. 

The implication is that they began their physical relationship, or at least that they did so on a regular or established basis, after the church court declared Lucy’s divorce in October 1305; their son may have been born in late 1306 or early 1307. Thweng’s continuing concern in Lucy’s affairs is also important in establishing the nature of her relationship with Meinill because he was on close terms with Meinill in May and September 1305. 

In May, he was one of Meinill’s mainpernors, along with his and Lucy’s kinsmen, Sir Robert Constable and his father Sir William, and Sir Walter and Sir John de Fauconberg, and other leading local figures, while on 29 September Meinill and Thweng together witnessed a charter of Gawain de Thweng, Lucy’s clerical uncle who was appointed to examine Latimer in March 1307. The Thwengs, who had earned Latimer’s enmity for assisting in Lucy’s flight, may have been drawn to Meinill because he was already Latimer’s enemy. 

For Lucy, in particular, faced with Latimer’s furious attempts to recover her, this may have been a strong attraction, although there is no doubt that their relationship developed into something far more than a simple shared enmity. The connection between Meinill and the Thwengs in 1305, and the concern of both uncles in Lucy’s affairs in 1307, after her relationship with Meinill had certainly begun, implies that this relationship had their approval, which further implies that Meinill and Lucy intended to marry.

….The references in the register not only imply that Meinill was single, but also reflect the ambivalent nature of Lucy’s marital status, her divorce having been decreed but not published because of Latimer’s appeal. Those referring to Latimer’s failure to pay the costs of the suit refer to her simply as ‘Lady Lucy, daughter of the late Sir Robert de Thweng’, as was the case with other women who became single again after divorces, but the references to the adultery, although naming her in the same way, also refer to her as ‘wife of Latimer’, except Meinill’s bond of January 1310 where she is again simply ‘Lady Lucy de Thweng’. 

These bonds are particularly important testimony because oaths to abstain from sex with one another until marriage was solemnised were imposed on couples cited for fornication (not adultery) who were generally ‘caught somewhere midway along the trajectory toward full, regularized marriage’. It therefore seems clear that Meinill was free to marry Lucy and intended to do so as soon as her divorce was finalised. 

There is no evidence as to where Lucy was living during the seven years between the decree and the publication but it seems likely that she lived with Meinill, bringing up their son in his household in a pseudo-marital atmosphere. They probably had another child because Meinill had a daughter, Christine, who was almost certainly illegitimate. This is indicated by the marriage he arranged for her in 1321; her husband was Robert, son and heir of William de Sproxton, of Sproxton (Yorks.). The Sproxtons were an ancient and respectable family, but hardly of the quality that was appropriate for a legitimate daughter of Meinill. 

Bastard daughters were disadvantaged by their illegitimate status, which placed them a rung or two below their legitimate sisters, even if fully acknowledged and assisted by their fathers. During this limbo period, while Lucy was still technically married to Latimer, he retained all his physical and financial rights over her. Residence with Meinill no doubt gave her some protection against the dangers of recapture, and there is no further evidence of attempts by Latimer to seize her, although this may have been an ever-present threat. 

It also addressed the problem of how she was to support herself without access to her own lands, but their relationship may have been responsible for extending that period. It can be assumed that Latimer’s primary practical reason for resisting the divorce was the consequence that he would lose possession of her lands and this was addressed by the compromise reached in early 1311, which was weighted heavily in favour of him and his son. 

Without this, her entire estate would have passed back into her sole possession after the annulment and into Meinill’s control after her remarriage. It is possible, therefore, that the limbo period was extended until this compromise was reached and Latimer ceased his opposition, allowing the decree to be published in due course. Lucy’s son by him remained, and would always remain, her heir apparent while he lived, but once her lands had passed out of his control they could have been settled away from him, and probably in favour of her younger son by Meinill. 

It is equally probable, in the light of Meinill’s subsequent actions, that he intended to regularise the position of their pre-nuptial son by a settlement after their marriage, as was done by others. Preparation for this, in anticipation that the divorce was about to go through, may be suggested by his licence, obtained in July 1311, to settle the reversion of Castle Leavington after their mother’s death on his brother John and his issue. 

Although it was not unknown for a landholder to grant land to a brother, this was comparatively unusual, especially as John had already been provided for by their father with the manor of Tanton. The grant therefore suggests a special motive and this may have been because John, as Meinill’s heir presumptive, was about to be disinherited Lucy’s relationship with Meinill, the cause of her reputation for moral frailty, was therefore far from being a casual sexual fling.

It remains possible that it had begun before November 1302 and that, like some other wives, she had left her husband and divorced him because of it, but the weight of evidence suggests that this was not so. Her flight from Latimer in 1303 was arranged by her uncle and Meinill had no part in it, although he and Latimer were already enemies. By the summer of 1305, when Latimer’s tactics had already drawn out the divorce proceedings to inordinate length, her uncles were on close terms with Meinill and it is likely that his marriage with Lucy was already in prospect. 

They precipitated matters by beginning a regular sexual liaison before the annulment was published, but they may not have anticipated that this would take another seven years. Her uncles were still supporting them in the spring of 1307 when they were closely involved in the renewal of the threat of Latimer’s excommunication and Lucy and Meinill were first cited for adultery.

Her ambivalent marital status was recognised even by the church. The fact that they did not ever marry may cast some doubt on this interpretation of the circumstantial evidence and imply that their relationship was merely a casual affair, but it seems likely that there was a particular reason for them not marrying, and that they were prevented from doing so.”

- Bridget Wells-Furby, Aristocratic Marriage, Adultery and Divorce in the Fourteenth Century: The Life of Lucy de Thweng (1279-1347)

[skygifs]

under the cut you will find 40+ names from the TUDOR ERA (1485-1603 England) including examples of their usage in history & a few common historical nicknames. please like/reblog if you found this useful!

feminine names

anne/ann/anna (anne boleyn, anne of cleves) common nickname nan

katherine/katheryn/kathryn/kateryn/catherine (katherine of aragon, katheryn howard, kateryn parr, kat ashley, katherine willougby) most often spelt with a “k” during the period, kate/kat was around as a nickname during this period

elizabeth (elizabeth i, elizabeth of york, bessie blount, elizabeth howard)- nicknames include bess/bessie

jane (jane seymour, jane boleyn, jane grey, jane dormer)

joan (joan bulmer) 

frances (frances grey)

mary (mary i, mary queen of france, mary howard, mary shelton, mary boleyn)

margaret (margaret queen of scots, margaret shelton, margaret pole, margaret douglas) common nickname madge

jocasta (jocasta culpepper)

agnes (agnes tilney)

isabel (isabel leigh)

joyce (joyce leigh)

bridget (bridget of york, bridget wingfield)

cecily (cecily of york, cecily arundell)

alice (alice more)

ursula (ursula pole)

lettice (lettice knolleys)

dorothy (dorothy stafford, dorothy howard)

susan (susan stafford)

margery (margery horsman)

amy (amy dudley)

elinor/eleanor (eleanor browne)

magdalen (magdalen dacre)

sybil (sybil hampden)

barbara (barbara hawke)

cordelia (cordelia annesley)

blanche (blanche parry)

masculine names

henry (henry vii, henry viii, henry howard, henry duke of cornwall, henry carey, henry fitzroy, henry norris)

thomas (thomas more, thomas wolsey, thomas boleyn, thomas culpepper (x2, brothers) thomas howard, thomas cranmer)

george (george boleyn)

arthur (arthur prince of wales)

edmund (edmund howard, prince edmund)

jasper (jasper tudor)

edward (edward vi, edward seymour)

john (john howard, john dudley, john blanke)

charles (charles brandon, charles somerset)

robert (robert dudley, robert devereux)

guilford (guilford dudley)

william (william courtenay, william brereton,  william paulet, william howard)

philip (philip howard, philip tilney)

francis (francis russell, francis dereham)

walter (walter devereux)

piers (piers butler, piers dutton)

ambrose (ambrose dudley)

reginald (reginald pole)

richard (richard pole, richard howard)

mark (mark smeaton)

[uwmspeccoll]

Wood Engraving Wednesday

English wood engraver and naturalist Thomas Bewick (1753-1828) began his long career in engraving in his early teens and by the 1790s had perfected his technique and popularized the wood engraving as an illustrative medium. His powerful reputation and distinctive style would drive the ever-expanding use of wood engraving throughout the 19th century and would singularly influence its development for the next 200 years. One might even say that without Thomas Bewick, there may not be a #Wood Engraving Wednesday!

Of his many works, there are four illustrated series of editions that he is most well known for: his British Birds, History of Quadrupeds (both of which we have highlighted in previous posts from our own copies -- Birds; Quadrupeds), Aesop’s Fables, and Poems by Goldsmith and Parnell, with wood engravings presented here from our first edition copy printed in London at William Bulmer’s Shakespeare Printing Office in 1795. The book includes the major illustrations by Robert Johnson and his cousin John Johnson engraved in wood by Thomas Bewick and his brother John (John Bewick’s work is not shown here), as well as numerous head and tailpieces by Thomas Bewick.

In the preface, Bulmer notes that the publication, printed on Whatman paper, is “particularly meant to combine the various beauties of printing, type-founding, engraving and paper making. . . . The whole of the types with which this work has been printed, are executed by Mr William Martin in the house of my friend Mr George Nicol.”

Oliver Goldsmith (1728-1774) was an Irish poet, playwright, and novelist  recognized for his pastoral style, perfectly suited to Bewick’s aesthetics. Thomas Parnell (1679-1718) was another Irish poet known as one of the so-called “Graveyard poets,” also a suitable genre for Bewick. Our copy of this edition is another donation from our friend and benefactor Jerry Buff.

View more wood engravings by Thomas Bewick.

View more posts with wood engravings!

[graphicpolicy]

Preview: My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #3

My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #3 preview. Misty and her friends take on the board game ghoul's next challenge #comics #comicbooks #mlp #mylittlepony

[comicbookclub]

IDW Preview: My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #3

Read a preview of My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #3 from IDW Publishing, written by Stephanie Williams with art by Abby Bulmer.

[comicbookclublive]

IDW Preview: My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #3

Read a preview of My Little Pony: Maretime Mysteries #3 from IDW Publishing, written by Stephanie Williams with art by Abby Bulmer.

[steve-two-phones-mackabee]

The Tudors

I wonder if Jonathon Rhys Meyer’s jaw ever hurt from all that scenery he was chewing. Talk about over the top.

I question if it was a good idea to watch this right after the Spanish Princess. I mean, both play kind of fast-and-loose with historical record (Like Katherine performing some kind of samurai episiotomy on Bessie Blount? WHAT WAS THAT?), but overall, I found this series will just throw entire human people out the window.

Why, oh why, oh why did they decide to smush together Henry’s two awesome sisters into one shrewish wine-mom (Also, both Mary and Margaret were younger sisters, so why does.. um.. ‘Marygret’ look like she’s in her late 30s?).

Characters I loved:

William Compton. That guy just made me happy, whenever he was on screen. He was just smiling all the damn time (with the exception of when he like, had the plague and died)

THOMAS MOTHERFUCKING MORE. Way to stick to your guns and go out like a CHAMP. Who says martyrdom can’t be sexy as HELL?

Jane Seymour. I loved her, she was just so good and pure and was kind to Henry’s daughters and respected Katherine’s memory and was just gone too, too soon.

Charlie ‘Man-Slut’ Brandon, and later Charlie ‘I-am-too-old-for-this-shit” Brandon. All hail Henry Cavill’s ability to imply a perpetual facepalm without every bringing hand to head.

Characters I hated:

Henry VIII: We all know the history, he was not a nice dude. And to be totally honest, I’m not sure I could have made it through four seasons of JRM Shatnering his way through Tudor England were it not for the supporting cast.

Katherine Howard: I know she was supposed to be 15 in real life, but Gord she was annoying.

OTP

Call me a weirdo, but I really, really wanted Princess Mary to hook up with Eustace Chapuys. Nothing graphic, I just wanted them to kiss or something. They had really great chemistry in their scenes together and I could really feel how fond the two characters were of each other.

Characters I loved to look at:

Mark smeaton, that fiddler guy. Also, Charlie Brandon. and the King of France.

Characters whose presence I questioned:

Sir Dirtstache, the guy that seem to be there only for the sake of writing music, fucking Sir William, and generally looking like that one guy from Workaholics. (Tell me I am wrong).

Characters whom I thought were going to turn out way different than they did.

Joan Bulmer. I really thought she was going to be a schemer, a power-player, when she showed up and talked Katherine Howard into a place at court. Joan, however, wasn’t a schemer. Joan was that friend from college who asks you to get her a temp job at your new firm, then proceeds to tell your co-workers about your drunken vacation in Mexico. Well-meaning, but can’t read a room.

Stray Observations

- This show really liked to introduce characters and then just kind of kill them or disappear them (e.g. Sir Dirtstache, Eyepatch Pirate Guy, the Boulongne Bromance Duo) without a word.

- While Henry VIII was famous for all his wives, why wasn’t he more famous for his vendetta against guys named Thomas? Wosley, More, Cromwell, Culpepper...It got to the point where if a character was named Thomas, I was like “Welp, that guy is going to fuckin’ DIE.”

- Speaking of Thomas Culpepper? What was with the weirdly out-of-place rape scene? Why set the guy up as a villain in such an obvious yet out of place way, only to not actually make him a convincing villain? I mean, wasn’t him sleeping with George Bolelyn’s widow while plotting to sleep with the queen enough to say “Hey this guy is a bit of a douche?”

- Speaking of the Lady Rochford.. did she honestly think it was more plausible that her husband was sleeping with his sister than it was that he was just gay?

Unofficial Ranking of Queens from best to worst:

Jane Seymour, Katherine of Aragorn, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Parr, and Katherine Howard.

Faces I recognized: Henry Cavill (The Witcher), Natalie Dormer (Game of Thrones), Maria Doyle Kennedy (Orphan Black, Outlander), James Frain (The White Queen, Orphan Black), Peter O’Toole, Max Von Sydow (Game of Thrones), Sam Neill (Jurassic Park), David Bradley (Game of Thrones)

Historical Drama Watch List