#anyway. sources for my claims:

[bisupergirl]

fools will try and tell you that kara is a science nerd, but true supergirl understanders know that she's a jock (participated in the kryptonian equivalents of chariot racing, hockey, and track-and-field back on krypton when she was younger) with a passion for the humanities (former actress, nearly joined the artist guild on new krypton, and preferred history to science).

[anderstrevelyan]

Have you ever wondered exactly what's going on with all the dead bodies in the Wyrm's Rock audience hall, if you leave and come back after Gortash's coronation?

I did some in-game research while working on a fic recently, and in the name of sparing anyone else from having to lay all this out, too—here's a list of the victims, and some notes-based educated guessing on Gortash's motivation here.

(Beyond Iron Counsul Nuff's summary in the screenshot above: "My lord requires a clear path to his magnificent future. We cut away the troublesome bramble.")

Lord Petric Amber

Lord Amber's Bodyguard

Lady Ailis Belt

Lady Haeril Birch

Baron Callem Bormul

Lady Alia Durinbold

Lady Durinbold's Bodyguard

Lady Durinbold's Attendant

Lord Sarken Eomane

Admiral Peil Hullhollyn

Lady Winstra Hullhollyn

Lord Raylen Jannath

Lord Jannath's Bodyguard

Duke Dillard Portyr

Lord Portyr's Attendant

Lord Portyr's Bodyguard

Lady Beatrice Provoss

Lord Myer Ravenshade

Lady Silifrey Sashenstar

Lord Rugger Shattershield

Lord Shattershield's Bodyguard

Lord Shattershield's Attendant

Lord Milton Tillerturn

Lord Randolf Vammas

Lady Madeline Whitburn

9 Unnamed Patriars

First I'll note that not everyone you see lingering after the coronation ends up dead: I could talk to Lady Eshvelt Guthmere, Lady Ruth Linnacker, and Lady Freida Oberon, and their bodies aren't present in the hall later.

It also doesn't seem to be connected to vocalizing support for Gortash or not—you can overhear Portyr and Shattershield challenging him in the ambient dialogue after the coronation, but when you walk around and talk to everyone else the only one who has anything negative to say is Silifrey Sashenstar. Everyone else on the list above sings Gortash's praises.

So, here's what I think it is!

In the corner of the audience hall, you can find this note:

The Parliament of Peers is the body that's responsible for electing new dukes, and they held a formal vote to raise Gortash as Archduke and dissolve their own political body. Note the numbers: there's 23 members.

So who are these members? Up in Gortash's study, you can find this note discussing bribing, blackmailing, and threatening members of the Peers, which gives us the names of eight:

Five of these eight end up dead in the audience hall (Portyr, Jannath, Whitburn, Sashenstar, and Eomane).

As for the three Peers listed who don't end up in dead in the hall—Lady Ruth Linnacker, Lord Hir Rillyn, and Lady Haeril Vanthampur—let's look to this note:

Gortash has leverage against Ruth Linnacker through the abduction of her granddaughter, and I don't think it's unfair to assume Hir Rillyn and Haeril Vanthampur are similarly under Gortash's control, whether tadpoled or blackmailed (this is the one big assumption I had to make—bear with me!).

The other two with non-murderous leverage against them in the note above do end up dead, but I think there's some added context: I imagine Raylen Jannath is the husband of Wisteria Jannath, who Gortash canonically had an affair with (maybe it's personal? Maybe Raylen didn't care enough about the leverage of his own affair, if he knew she'd had one too?). For Portyr, there's the following in Gortash's study, noting he considers him a threat that shouldn't be underestimated, so he may not have wanted to stop at threats:

The inclusion of Portyr on the list of eight Peers could imply that the other three dukes are members of the Parliament of Peers, too. There's a book in Franc Peartree's house about the current state of who the dukes are, which I don't have my own screenshot of, but here's the relevant text from the wiki:

We know Belynne Stelmane is dead as part of the Bhaalist plot. Ulder Ravengard is tadpoled. The fourth duke was Thalamra Vanthampur, who's dead. They were waiting to replace her until Ravengard was found or confirmed gone—and Gortash was given this seat.

So, back to the original list of people murdered after the coronation. I bolded the names of those who aren't seemingly collateral damage (the bodyguards and attendants, and the unnamed patriars): there's 17.

17 killed after the coronation

Plus three Peers controlled through blackmail or other means

Plus Duke Stelmane and Duke Ravengard, dead and tadpoled respectively

That adds up to 22.

Add in Gortash's own vote, which he would have from taking (Thalamra) Vanthampur's seat, and you get 23.

The same number as the members of the Parliament of Peers.

Gortash didn't just orchestrate the Peers naming him the city's first Archduke, and he didn't just influence them to dissolve the political body that could vote another duke in. He made sure the individuals were destroyed, too.

[pigeon-butch]

I certainly have my own concerns about the treatment of moo deng but um. well i think some of you may just be racist

[anxiously-awaiting]

hi his outfit is a fucking MESS rn but <3 bedi alter for your thoughts

[purpleshadow-star]

Here's a reminder that ANDREW DOES HEAL AND LEARN TO FEEL. Nora never said that Andrew never heals or that he doesn't get less apathetic. She said the opposite, actually. If you don't like the extra content, that's fine, but please actually read it before deciding to spread the incorrect assumptions people have made up about it. Just because Andrew never gets to the point where he smiles and laughs all the time doesn't mean he doesn't heal.

(Also, Nora never said Andrew never smiles, just that it's hard to imagine, and if he did, it'd be with only Neil around)

[e-louise-bates]

I will admit that it never occurred to me that I would need to check the history book that claimed to be scholarly to see if it used references and footnotes, because how could a book be a scholarly work on history without such things, BUT NOW I KNOW BETTER.

[percabeth4life]

Thanks for the updates! I don’t want to spread misinformation so I’ll go ahead and delete the post.

I'm glad to help.

I do think playing with the possibilities of reincarnation is a lot of fun mind you, I play with it in my fics too. It just doesn't have much mythological support lol. There may be some philosophical support of course, but I'm not the *most* educated on all the various philosophers of Ancient Greece, haven't made them a focus yet beyond what I studied in rhetoric.

I do wanna talk to your professor sometime cause I'm wondering what his sources are for the Achilles stuff and Thetis mythology. I know the Metis myth fits what he claims of Thetis but no source I've read on Thetis mentions the prophecy the way he mentioned it.

Anyways, I do hope you have fun with your fic idea? I mean, idk if you plan to write it lol but if you do that would be an interesting play. I do enjoy playing with reincarnation (my fav is Pallas reincarnating as Percy).

[savage-rhi]

@nemo-of-house-hamartia Hope this answers your questions 😂

[bunnyboy-juice]

GRAAAAAAAH MISREPRESENTING DATA DOES NOTHING FOR ANYONE EXCEPT FEED TROLLS WHO ARE TRYIGN TO TAKE OYU IN BAD FAITH ANYWAY OH MY GD

[gotta-bail-my-quails]

ngl i think my new fave artist might be klimt, not because of his art (which is extremely cunty, like have you SEEN Judith I and Medicine?? bad bitches to the core) but because this guy literally made a painting for his critics making fun of them with a lady pointing her butt at them, AND took the paintings he was criticized for back from the state BY POINTING A SHOTGUN AT THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO TRY

[jewelleria]

You need to examine some of these shady sources you're presenting. Makes you seem even dumber than you actually are

how, exactly, is video footage and photographic evidence “shady”? the fact that you won’t come off anon and say this to me with your full chest is what’s really shady, if you ask me. seems like you’re just pissed off i haven’t cited al jazeera as a source.

[fideidefenswhore]

What are your thoughts on Jane Boleyn, and the role she supposedly played in the fall of 3 Queens (Anne Boleyn, Anna of Cleves, Katheryn Howard)? Do you think she has been too maligned by historians for centuries, especially when it comes to the relationship with the Boleyns (it seems she got along with Anne)?

Now that I've read both works and compared them side by side, I suppose I would say my stance on Jane Boleyn falls somewhere in between that of Julia Fox and James Taffe ('Somewhere in between' is not, btw, Alison Weir); although closer to the former than the latter. Offering critique of both biographies, I would say that of JF is too apologetic (smoothing out wrinkles that exist in her arguments rather than acknowledging them) and JT is too severe.

Especially when it comes to the relationship with the Boleyns? Yes and no. Obviously she was married to George, she sent him a message of comfort while he was in the Tower, and wore only black the rest of her life, which was quite the potent statement. However, I would allow for the possibility that she potentially, inadvertently implicated him or AB (ie, testimony of hers was twisted to suit the crown's case). This is where I think there are flaws in the arguments of some of her defenders-- they cannot allow for even that possibility and so make claims that disallow it; some of which are untrue. 'Jane was only blamed as a means of absolving Henry in the whitewash of Elizabethan propagandists' is not true. Johannes Sleidan in 1545 claimed that Anne and George died by her 'false accusation'. Sleidan was a Reformer, so he would have been more sympathetic towards the plights of these two than the average person, and would have spoken to others that were as well, but the motivation to vindicate Elizabeth did not yet exist; she was at this point the very unlikely third in line to the throne.

I do appreciate that you said 'got along' with Anne, not 'besties', because...it's possible they were very close, certainly, but we must also allow for the possibility of animosity. The linchpin for the argument of closeness is the report from Chapuys that they 'conspired together' to banish Henry's mistress from court. Was this the precise truth? Considering the source I'm doubtful. Probably there was a lady Henry was serving at this time (although that we never have a name makes the story somewhat suppositious), but did they need to have 'conspired together' against her for Jane to be banished from court (which is what happened instead)? Jane might have merely made Anne aware of her, and Henry finding out that she'd been the source would have been enough for banishment. Or, as was presented plausibly in Adrienne Dillard's fictional rendition, Jane might have dropped hints to Cromwell that this mistress was a supporter of the two exiled and contumacious royal women that were Anne's adversaries, Cromwell might have passed this along to Henry, and Henry might have banished Jane for shattering the illusion that this woman had no independent ambitions or ulterior motives and merely let him hit for the sheer pleasure of his company.

If this was evidence of closeness, and it might be, then we also have to remember that the end result was Jane's banishment from court, and that there is, as JT fairly pointed out, no evidence that any of the Boleyns spoke in her defense, favor, or for her return. It would take an extremely magnanimous person to accept all that with equanimity and not feel any resentment whatsoever. So, if there was intimacy, there might have also been rift.

That leaves the question: enough 'rift' for her to seek vengeance? I doubt that much for all the reasons Fox outlines in her biography, but at the same time I wish there was not this relentless push to only defend women that we assert 'deserve' defense, on the premise they were entirely selfless, accepted every insult with grace, never kept any grudges, never had personal ambitions (the actions she took during the queenships of those you mentioned would suggest otherwise), mixed emotions, or conflicting loyalties; that we could acknowledge that acknowledging the agency of historic women also means acknowledging they were capable of making mistakes.

[300iqprower]

I wonder how Seijin Takenoko (Suzuka Gozen's writer) and Hiroshi Hiroyama (Chloe's writer) feel when Nasu write their Servants? Takeneko is definitely isn't happy about this at all

Oh you mean you're saying the guy who wrote Suzuka to be this insanely tragic story of love and sacrifice doesn't like that FGO has slowly been flanderizing her more and more until going from a fairly well written if unmeaningful role in Seraph allllllll the way to the point of becoming nothing more than high schooler fetishbait like we only ever see now? The original writer of Foxtail doesn't like that?

I'm shocked, really.

[elftwink]

when I'm bored at work sometimes I read academic articles about fandom just to see what everyone is up to in that sphere and occasionally u will see the funniest claims imaginable. in discussing spn, one author said about hurt/comfort fic that people using that to explore sadomasichism represented a "small minority of non-Americans" (paraphrased) and I almost lost my mind. americans are NEVER writing with themes of sadomasichism that is an UNAMERICAN derivative. americans are only exploring dynamics of pain and catharsis in completely chaste, non-erotic ways. in their supernatural fanfiction. ok.

[snickerdoodlles]

*sees this post pop up in my notes*

*twitches*

I’d made some generalizations in that (which I standby, they’re just coming from an opposite direction) but had to break out the sources and numbers when someone told me I was making generalizations in the same way as the people who “””uncovered””” that AO3 was scraped for AI (no) did and anyways I get tempted to post those notes here sometimes before I have to bonk myself on the head and remind myself no one cares

[euclydya]

how to be a human being is soooo