#guys whether it’s real or not just be respectful. i don’t think louis wants to see all this hate

[princesslouist]

twitter getting ready to yell at larries, and larries getting ready to pointlessly argue with them after the louis interview:

[louisisalarrie]

https://www.tumblr.com/louisisalarrie/768442856463548416/i-think-a-lot-of-people-on-both-sides-of-the

Sorry but this theory does not support Freddie not being Louis�� child. Very unfair to compare parenting styles. Zayn lives in the US so can be closer to his daughter plus he doesn’t have to deal with damaging comments about his child not being his when he does post pics.

Louis has chosen not to live in the US so has to work that bit harder to spend time with his son. We see very little social media of Louis being a dad because he doesn’t want us to. In fact he chooses to share very little of his personal life. This isn’t just about Freddie. This extends to all aspects of his life outside of his work. This doesn’t mean he isn’t regularly with his son. Even if you did see tons of photos of him and Freddie, would this fandom believe it?? No! People would continue to come up with wild theories about the child not being his so it’s no wonder he doesn’t want to publicise it. His little boy will start to read this very soon - what a terrible thing to be part of.

I love quite a lot of your blog, and I love your responses to people. You are always kind even when opinions differ from yours. I can’t agree with you on the Freddie theory though and I think that opinions like this are damaging to Louis and make him feel very unsafe. I can’t understand why those of you that love Lou as much as you say you do, would continue to publicly push this theory. It is not ok to make someone feel unsafe - would you like to be made to feel that way? You’re entitled to your opinions but it’s not ok to continue to publicise them. You are not so aggressive in your responses to be fair but other blogs are and it’s pretty shocking.

hey anon, thank you for the kind words and happy to have you here! welcome to the (very respectful) show

I do think if you’ve been following me long enough, it is quite clear I do not believe for a second that F is Louis’ kid. this is incredibly important to note, because it’s hard for me to actually try and imagine the situation if this was real, simply because it’s so damn bogus. None of it adds up. but I digress

correct. Louis has not chosen to live in the US. which, I could argue, is a pretty shitty thing to do when he already has an LA house and chooses not to spend as much time there. You can argue that he’s a private guy, but it’s a pretty shallow argument when you look at the exposure of this kid over the past 9 years. so, if we do pretend he’s a dad for a second here, he’s not been private of that kid, including everything being papped from the get go, plastered him all over Instagram, continues to allow his sisters to have him all over Instagram, didn’t take legal action against TMZ and the other media outlets that posted F’s birth certificate, had the kid at one of his shows without security and pointed him out to the crowd (which, mind you, that kid should’ve been in a box because there is always gona be people who don’t believe that F is his son and that’s something louis knows and I doubt any fan would be aggressive but ya know… take some precautions here pal), had a whole segment of him in AOTV, and the list goes on and on.

so, apart from that, we also have the knowledge of this fandom. This fandom is fucking crazy and always has been. In both the best and worst ways. Don’t get me wrong, I love being here. It’s beautiful, and a sense of community, and supporting the boys and their music comes before anything. whether you’re a solo, ot5, anti, larrie, whatever. We love their music and music is so important and it’s why I’ve dedicated so much time to get where I am. anyway

this fandom knows a hell of a lot about the boys locations. Earlier days more so than now, but it’s clear louis spends a lot of time not in LA. He doesn’t even have custody of the kid. No paternity test, nothing. SO that’s also important. He can’t spend all his time with F in LA if he doesn’t have custody, even though he pays child support allegedly idk the legality of it all is a shit show

so, anyway, this kid is still constantly posted by the Tommo sisters, B’s family, and he was presented to the public like craaaaaazy when he was born. Louis gives a fuck about privacy, you’ve acknowledged that, but if he gave a single FUCK about privacy this kid wouldn’t have even been announced to the world, let alone publicised at every given chance.

[bao3bei4]

fan language: the victorian imaginary and cnovel fandom

there’s this pinterest image i’ve seen circulating a lot in the past year i’ve been on fandom social media. it’s a drawn infographic of a, i guess, asian-looking woman holding a fan in different places relative to her face to show what the graphic helpfully calls “the language of the fan.”

people like sharing it. they like thinking about what nefarious ancient chinese hanky code shenanigans their favorite fan-toting character might get up to⁠—accidentally or on purpose. and what’s the problem with that?

the problem is that fan language isn’t chinese. it’s victorian. and even then, it’s not really quite victorian at all. 

--------------------

fans served a primarily utilitarian purpose throughout chinese history. of course, most of the surviving fans we see⁠—and the types of fans we tend to care about⁠—are closer to art pieces. but realistically speaking, the majority of fans were made of cheaper material for more mundane purposes. in china, just like all around the world, people fanned themselves. it got hot!

so here’s a big tipoff. it would be very difficult to use a fan if you had an elaborate language centered around fanning yourself.

you might argue that fine, everyday working people didn’t have a fan language. but wealthy people might have had one. the problem we encounter here is that fans weren’t really gendered. (caveat here that certain types of fans were more popular with women. however, those tended to be the round silk fans, ones that bear no resemblance to the folding fans in the graphic). no disrespect to the gnc old man fuckers in the crowd, but this language isn’t quite masc enough for a tool that someone’s dad might regularly use.

folding fans, we know, reached europe in the 17th century and gained immense popularity in the 18th. it was there that fans began to take on a gendered quality. ariel beaujot describes in their 2012 victorian fashion accessories how middle class women, in the midst of a top shortage, found themselves clutching fans in hopes of securing a husband.

she quotes an article from the illustrated london news, suggesting “women ‘not only’ used fans to ‘move the air and cool themselves but also to express their sentiments.’” general wisdom was that the movement of the fan was sufficiently expressive that it augmented a woman’s displays of emotion. and of course, the more english audiences became aware that it might do so, the more they might use their fans purposefully in that way.

notice, however, that this is no more codified than body language in general is. it turns out that “the language of the fan” was actually created by fan manufacturers at the turn of the 20th century⁠—hundreds of years after their arrival⁠ in europe—to sell more fans. i’m not even kidding right now. the story goes that it was louis duvelleroy of the maison duvelleroy who decided to include pamphlets on the language with each fan sold.

interestingly enough, beaujot suggests that it didn’t really matter what each particular fan sign meant. gentlemen could tell when they were being flirted with. as it happens, meaningful eye contact and a light flutter near the face may be a lingua franca.

so it seems then, the language of the fan is merely part of this victorian imaginary we collectively have today, which in turn itself was itself captivated by china.

--------------------

victorian references come up perhaps unexpectedly often in cnovel fandom, most often with regards to modesty.

it’s a bit of an awkward reference considering that chinese traditional fashion⁠—and the ambiguous time periods in which these novels are set⁠—far predate victorian england. it is even more awkward considering that victoria and her covered ankles did um. imperialize china.

but nonetheless, it is common. and to make a point about how ubiquitous it is, here is a link to the twitter search for “sqq victorian.” sqq is the fandom abbreviation for shen qingqiu, the main character of the scum villain’s self-saving system, by the way.

this is an awful lot of results for a search involving a chinese man who spends the entire novel in either real modern-day china or fantasy ancient china. that’s all i’m going to say on the matter, without referencing any specific tweet.

i think people are aware of the anachronism. and i think they don’t mind. even the most cursory research reveals that fan language is european and a revisionist fantasy. wikipedia can tell us this⁠—i checked!

but it doesn’t matter to me whether people are trying to make an internally consistent canon compliant claim, or whether they’re just free associating between fan facts they know. it is, instead, more interesting to me that people consistently refer to this particular bit of history. and that’s what i want to talk about today⁠—the relationship of fandom today to this two hundred odd year span of time in england (roughly stuart to victorian times) and england in that time period to its contemporaneous china.

things will slip a little here. victorian has expanded in timeframe, if only because random guys posting online do not care overly much for respect for the intricacies of british history. china has expanded in geographic location, if only because the english of the time themselves conflated china with all of asia.

in addition, note that i am critiquing a certain perspective on the topic. this is why i write about fan as white here⁠—not because all fans are white⁠—but because the tendencies i’m examining have a clear historical antecedent in whiteness that shapes how white fans encounter these novels.

i’m sure some fans of color participate in these practices. however i don’t really care about that. they are not its main perpetrators nor its main beneficiaries. so personally i am minding my own business on that front.

it’s instead important to me to illuminate the linkage between white as subject and chinese as object in history and in the present that i do argue that fannish products today are built upon.

--------------------

it’s not radical, or even new at all, for white audiences to consume⁠—or create their own versions of⁠—chinese art en masse. in many ways the white creators who appear to owe their whole style and aesthetic to their asian peers in turn are just the new chinoiserie.

this is not to say that white people can’t create asian-inspired art. but rather, i am asking you to sit with the discomfort that you may not like the artistic company you keep in the broader view of history, and to consider together what is to be done about that.

now, when i say the new chinoiserie, i first want to establish what the original one is. chinoiserie was a european artistic movement that appeared coincident with the rise in popularity of folding fans that i described above. this is not by coincidence; the european demand for asian imports and the eventual production of lookalikes is the movement itself. so: when we talk about fans, when we talk about china (porcelain), when we talk about tea in england⁠—we are talking about the legacy of chinoiserie.

there are a couple things i want to note here. while english people as a whole had a very tenuous knowledge of what china might be, their appetites for chinoiserie were roughly coincident with national relations with china. as the relationship between england and china moved from trade to out-and-out wars, chinoiserie declined in popularity until china had been safely subjugated once more by the end of the 19th century.

the second thing i want to note on the subject that contrary to what one might think at first, the appeal of chinoiserie was not that it was foreign. eugenia zuroski’s 2013 taste for china examines 18th century english literature and its descriptions of the according material culture with the lens that chinese imports might be formative to english identity, rather than antithetical to it.

beyond that bare thesis, i think it’s also worthwhile to extend her insight that material objects become animated by the literary viewpoints on them. this is true, both in a limited general sense as well as in the sense that english thinkers of the time self-consciously articulated this viewpoint. consider the quote from the illustrated london news above⁠—your fan, that object, says something about you. and not only that, but the objects you surround yourself with ought to.

it’s a bit circular, the idea that written material says that you should allow written material to shape your understanding of physical objects. but it’s both 1) what happened, and 2) integral, i think, to integrating a fannish perspective into the topic.

--------------------

japanning is the name for the popular imitative lacquering that english craftspeople developed in domestic response to the demand for lacquerware imports. in the eighteenth century, japanning became an artform especially suited for young women. manuals were published on the subject, urging young women to learn how to paint furniture and other surfaces, encouraging them to rework the designs provided in the text.

it was considered a beneficial activity for them; zuroski describes how it was “associated with commerce and connoisseurship, practical skill and aesthetic judgment.” a skillful japanner, rather than simply obscuring what lay underneath the lacquer, displayed their superior judgment in how they chose to arrange these new canonical figures and effects in a tasteful way to bring out the best qualities of them.

zuroski quotes the first english-language manual on the subject, written in 1688, which explains how japanning allows one to:

alter and correct, take out a piece from one, add a fragment to the next, and make an entire garment compleat in all its parts, though tis wrought out of never so many disagreeing patterns.

this language evokes a very different, very modern practice. it is this english reworking of an asian artform that i think the parallels are most obvious.

white people, through their artistic investment in chinese material objects and aesthetics, integrated them into their own subjectivity. these practices came to say something about the people who participated in them, in a way that had little to do with the country itself. their relationship changed from being a “consumer” of chinese objects to becoming the proprietor of these new aesthetic signifiers.

--------------------

i want to talk about this through a few pairs of tensions on the subject that i think characterize common attitudes then and now.

first, consider the relationship between the self and the other: the chinese object as something that is very familiar to you, speaking to something about your own self vs. the chinese object as something that is fundamentally different from you and unknowable to you. 

consider: [insert character name] is just like me. he would no doubt like the same things i like, consume the same cultural products. we are the same in some meaningful way vs. the fast standard fic disclaimer that “i tried my best when writing this fic, but i’m a english-speaking westerner, and i’m just writing this for fun so...... [excuses and alterations the person has chosen to make in this light],” going hand-in-hand with a preoccupation with authenticity or even overreliance on the unpaid labor of chinese friends and acquaintances. 

consider: hugh honour when he quotes a man from the 1640s claiming “chinoiserie of this even more hybrid kind had become so far removed from genuine Chinese tradition that it was exported from India to China as a novelty to the Chinese themselves” 

these tensions coexist, and look how they have been resolved.

second, consider what we vest in objects themselves: beaujot explains how the fan became a sexualized, coquettish object in the hands of a british woman, but was used to great effect in gilbert and sullivan’s 1885 mikado to demonstrate the docility of asian women. 

consider: these characters became expressions of your sexual desires and fetishes, even as their 5’10 actors themselves are emasculated.

what is liberating for one necessitates the subjugation and fetishization of the other. 

third, consider reactions to the practice: enjoyment of chinese objects as a sign of your cosmopolitan palate vs “so what’s the hype about those ancient chinese gays” pop culture explainers that addressed the unconvinced mainstream.

consider: zuroski describes how both english consumers purchased china in droves, and contemporary publications reported on them. how: 

It was in the pages of these papers that the growing popularity of Chinese things in the early eighteenth century acquired the reputation of a “craze”; they portrayed china fanatics as flawed, fragile, and unreliable characters, and frequently cast chinoiserie itself in the same light.

referenda on fannish behavior serve as referenda on the objects of their devotion, and vice versa. as the difference between identity and fetish collapses, they come to be treated as one and the same by not just participants but their observers. 

at what point does mxtx fic cease to be chinese? 

--------------------

finally, it seems readily apparent that attitudes towards chinese objects may in fact have something to do with attitudes about china as a country. i do not want to suggest that these literary concerns are primarily motivated and begot by forces entirely divorced from the real mechanics of power. 

here, i want to bring in edward said, and his 1993 culture and imperialism. there, he explains how power and legitimacy go hand in hand. one is direct, and one is purely cultural. he originally wrote this in response to the outsize impact that british novelists have had in the maintenance of empire and throughout decolonization. literature, he argues, gives rise to powerful narratives that constrain our ability to think outside of them.

there’s a little bit of an inversion at play here. these are chinese novels, actually. but they’re being transformed by white narratives and artists. and just as i think the form of the novel is important to said’s critique, i think there’s something to be said about the form that fic takes and how it legitimates itself.

bound up in fandom is the idea that you have a right to create and transform as you please. it is a nice idea, but it is one that is directed towards a certain kind of asymmetry. that is, one where the author has all the power. this is the narrative we hear a lot in the history of fandom⁠—litigious authors and plucky fans, fanspaces always under attack from corporate sanitization.

meanwhile, said builds upon raymond schwab’s narrative of cultural exchange between european writers and cultural products outside the imperial core. said explains that fundamental to these two great borrowings (from greek classics and, in the so-called “oriental renaissance” of the late 18th, early 19th centuries from “india, china, japan, persia, and islam”) is asymmetry. 

he had argued prior, in orientalism, that any “cultural exchange” between “partners conscious of inequality” always results in the suffering of the people. and here, he describes how “texts by dead people were read, appreciated, and appropriated” without the presence of any actual living people in that tradition. 

i will not understate that there is a certain economic dynamic complicating this particular fannish asymmetry. mxtx has profited materially from the success of her works, most fans will not. also secondly, mxtx is um. not dead. LMAO.

but first, the international dynamic of extraction that said described is still present. i do not want to get overly into white attitudes towards china in this post, because i am already thoroughly derailed, but i do believe that they structure how white cnovel fandom encounters this texts.

at any rate, any profit she receives is overwhelmingly due to her domestic popularity, not her international popularity. (i say this because many of her international fans have never given her a cent. in fact, most of them have no real way to.) and moreover, as we talk about the structure of english-language fandom, what does it mean to create chinese cultural products without chinese people? 

as white people take ownership over their versions of stories, do we lose something? what narratives about engagement with cnovels might exist outside of the form of classic fandom?

i think a lot of people get the relationship between ideas (the superstructure) and production (the base) confused. oftentimes they will lob in response to criticism, that look! this fic, this fandom, these people are so niche, and so underrepresented in mainstream culture, that their effects are marginal. i am not arguing that anyone’s cql fic causes imperialism. (unless you’re really annoying. then it’s anyone’s game) 

i’m instead arguing something a little bit different. i think, given similar inputs, you tend to get similar outputs. i think we live in the world that imperialism built, and we have clear historical predecessors in terms of white appetites for creating, consuming, and transforming chinese objects. 

we have already seen, in the case of the fan language meme that began this post, that sometimes we even prefer this white chinoiserie. after all, isn’t it beautiful, too? 

i want to bring discomfort to this topic. i want to reject the paradigm of white subject and chinese object; in fact, here in this essay, i have tried to reverse it.

if you are taken aback by the comparisons i make here, how can you make meaningful changes to your fannish practice to address it? 

--------------------

some concluding thoughts on the matter, because i don’t like being misunderstood! 

i am not claiming white fans cannot create fanworks of cnovels or be inspired by asian art or artists. this essay is meant to elaborate on the historical connection between victorian england and cnovel characters and fandom that others have already popularized.

i don’t think people who make victorian jokes are inherently bad or racist. i am encouraging people to think about why we might make them and/or share them

the connections here are meant to be more provocative than strictly literal. (e.g. i don’t literally think writing fanfic is a 1-1 descendant of japanning). these connections are instead meant to 1) make visible the baggage that fans of color often approach fandom with and 2) recontextualize and defamiliarize fannish practice for the purposes of honest critique

please don’t turn this post into being about other different kinds of discourse, or into something that only one “kind” of fan does. please take my words at face value and consider them in good faith. i would really appreciate that.

please feel free to ask me to clarify any statements or supply more in-depth sources :) 

[thiswaycomessomethingwicked]

Was Napoleon a tyrant? I don't necessarily think he was: at least, I believe he was a better alternative to the absolute monarchs he was fighting. But there are those who disagree. What are your thoughts on the subject?

This is a can of worms to be sure.

I mean....how are we defining the word tyrant? All monarchs are tyrants to someone. Monarchy, by its very nature, is tyrannical in one way, shape, or form, no matter who is at its head. Even in the more neutered forms we see now days with the British. The Queen still exerts a ridiculous amount of power, all things considered.

Napoleon was no better or worse than any other monarch in Europe at that time. Indeed, better than some, worse than others. Because you know, he was human!

-

This got VERY long. SO LONG. Choice excerpts from below the cut:

"'Power was encroaching with large strides behind the words order and stability,' as Thibaudeau put it."

"(And I suspect he was concerned about seeming too eager for power/setting up a monarchical system. Fouche: You're about as subtle as a canon going off right next door. Napoleon: Hush.)"

"Theeeeeen the little bastard (affectionate) became Emperor."

"Napoleon Vs. Jeff Bezos: fight! fight! fight! (I'm putting my money on Napoleon.)"

--

tl;dr: a more or less benevolent emperor who had his faults and who was intimately aware, for better or worse, more than most monarchs, that the head is only tenuously attached to the body. (Skim to the bottom for my thoughts on the personal things i.e. how I interpret Napoleon's actions and brain)

But, more seriously, as with most absolute statements, I am opposed to calling him a tyrant because it is reductive and serves no purpose except to make broad sweeping political statements that I believe are far more about the person making the statement exemplifying their modern political, republican position (as in, actual republican-I-support-the-existence-of-republics not the gop) rather than expressing any sort of truth about the past. (wHaT iS tRuTh.)

For historical purposes, it can over-simplify the situation and lead to skewed interpretations of events because you're coming in with this word that has a lot of modern, 20th and 21st century baggage to it.

And, because these people are coming in with this big, bad word of tyrant as a label for Napoleon, it doesn't allow them to engage with the nuance and complexities of his reign.

Anyway.

Napoleon, as emperor, supported centralized power held in his own hands, with support from other governing bodies (senate, council of state etc.). However, Napoleon had a lot of influence in the structuring of these governing bodies and the subsequent appointments as a means to exert control over entities that would otherwise be able to act somewhat independent from him and impinge his power.

We see this consolidation of power beginning, obviously, under the consulate. 'Power was encroaching with large strides behind the words order and stability,' as Thibaudeau put it.

There was the whole theatre around the Tribunate offering to extend Napoleon's tenure as First Consul for another ten years as a means of thanks/showing gratitude for all he did for France (Fouche was like: fuck that, let's just make a statue of the guy). Napoleon played the part of Humble Servant of the Public and refused both statue and the ten year extension. (Very Julius Caesar: You all did see that on the Lupercal, I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?)

In actuality, though, he was pissed because he wanted it extended for life.

This resulted in the Council of State deciding "independently" (i.e. Napoleon wasn't present but he sure as hell influenced that Council session) to hold a plebiscite in order to ask The People two key questions: 'Should Napoleon Bonaparte be consul for life?' and 'Should he have the right to designate his successor?'

Napoleon nixed the second question saying to Cambaceres, 'The testament of Louis XIV was not respected, so why should mine be? A dead man has nothing to say.' Which is to say, he knew people would vote for him to be Consul for life, but the prospect of him choosing a successor, a la the Roman Empire, and having that choice be without input from the people and respected upon his death? Less clear.

(And, I suspect he was concerned about seeming too eager for power/setting up a monarchical system.

Fouche: You're about as subtle as a canon going off right next door.

Napoleon: Hush.)

For the Plebiscite, there were around 3.56 million votes for Yes to the question of Napoleon as consul for life and only around 8,300 for No.

The turnout rate was 60% which is uhh...impressive! (To be fair, there was no real evidence of tampering with the vote. Unlike in subsequent Plebiscites, such as the results for Do We Make Him Emperor, which were absolutely doctored. But, considering the highest turnout ever seen in the French Revolution was around 30/35%, double that is certainly something.)

Lafayette was pissed with this. He kicked up a fuss in the Senate and wrote to Napoleon saying that his 'restorative dictatorship' had been well and fine for now but has Napoleon thought about restoring liberty? and that he was certain Napoleon, of all people, wouldn't want an 'arbitrary regime' to be installed!

Napoleon: Bold of you to assume that, Lafayette.

There were, at this time, some mumblings and grumblings about tyranny from the liberals and those still wanting to continue the experiment of the French Republic, to be sure. They increased as time went on and Napoleon's power continued to consolidate.

Theeeeeen the little bastard (affectionate) became Emperor.

Lafayette: WhAt Is tHiS??

Napoleon: Look into my face and tell me honestly that you are shocked.

--

His government, as Consul and as Emperor, was centralized and very top-down in how it operated. Little was done without Napoleon's input.

The seemingly democratic institutions that had propped him up into power were retained and Napoleon used them as a means to facilitate his rule. As noted earlier, Napoleon had a heavy hand in appointments and the processes in place to fill various offices. Nothing was really...independent of him and his influence.

Though, in terms of Image Building of Empire, Napoleon worked hard to try and maintain the façade of impartiality as emperor. That he was head of state, sure, but all state apparatuses operated independent of him.

(Why is Napoleon's hat so big? because it is full of lies supporting the imperial image making machine.)

That said, when it came to filling those offices, Napoleon focused on merit more than anything as he wanted his governing officials to be capable, hardworking and, above all else, loyal.

(A good quote from Napoleon in one of his more Eat the Rich moments of the consulate: 'One cannot treat wealth as a title of nobility. A rich man is often a layabout without merit. A rich merchant is often only so by virtue of the art of selling expensively or stealing.'

Napoleon Vs. Jeff Bezos: fight! fight! fight!

(I'm putting my money on Napoleon.) )

--

This is getting really long and I feel that I've not addressed anything in a useful manner, but am I going to stop? No.

--

Napoleon, himself, at least in 1803, did express some conflicted views about assuming an imperial title. To Roederer he said, 'So many great things have been achieved over the past three years under the title of consul. It should be kept.'

Cambaceres said to Napoleon that upon assuming an imperial title 'your position changes and places you at odds with yourself.' No longer are you merely a public servant, an upholder of the Republic's ideals. Now you are a man wearing a crown, trying to be the upholder of the Republic's ideals.

(nb: I feel that duality is something Napoleon never fully got a handle on. He would veer strongly into authoritarian monarch then have moments of Rousseau-ian Idealism.)

Napoleon was insistent that his rule be a parliamentary monarchy (keeping the governance framework implemented in the Constitution of Year VIII, if I am not mistaken. But don't quote me on that.) and that the French were not his subjects but his people.

So, the imperial government worked thus with the Legislative process divided between four bodies:

Council of State which would draw up legislative proposals,

Tribunate which could debate on legislation but not vote on it,

a legislative body which could vote on legislation but not discuss it, and

Senate which would consider whether the proposed legislation conformed to the Constitution.

The Senate and the Legislative body could, theoretically, curtail Napoleon’s freedom/power. However, considering the fact that he was involved in the appointment process of these offices, and the general rhythm of daily governance, how much power they were able to exert over him was limited.

(This is at his height! Of course, towards the end we see a shift in that. But that's largely tied up in his military defeats and the British banging the door knocker demanding to be let in. Also they brought with them some friends. You might have heard of them? Bourbons?)

The initial terms the Senate brought to Napoleon with their offer of accepting him as a hereditary monarch included, but weren't limited to:

liberty cannot be infringed

equality cannot be jeopardized

sovereignty of the people must be maintained

the laws of the nation are inviolable

all institutions were to be free from undue imperial influence (e.g. the press)

the nation should never be put into a position where it needs to behead the head of state. Again.

Napoleon was uh. Not best pleased with this and had a new version drafted up that included acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the people, but a lot of the other things (e.g. freedom of the press) were cut out.

Yet, Napoleon maintained certain parts of the French Revolution's values which were reflected more in the 1804 Code Napoleon and other legislative and legal pieces than in the initial terms of Senatorial acceptance of his imperial title.

Some of the things enshrined in the Code that were carry-over from the Revolution include, but aren't limited to, the abolition of feudalism, equality before the law, freedom of conscience (to practice their own religion), gave fixed title to those who had bought church and émigré lands during the 1790s, and the equality of taxation was maintained (tax those aristos and the church). Also, there was affirmation of the idea of careers being "open to talent" rather than an accident of birth (as touched on above).

The Freedom of Conscience clause in the Code was a further formalization of several Articles Napoleon amended onto the Concordat in 1802. The Articles guaranteed the principle of religious toleration and made the Protestant and Jewish churches similarly subject to state authority (alongside the Catholic).

These are just a brief summary of some of the more liberal/revolution-informed aspects of Napoleon's governing.

The non-liberal ones I believe we're all pretty familiar with: suppression of the free press, roll-back of rights for women (women are for babies!), reinstatement of slavery (which he later reversed circa 1810/12-ish), top-down Emperor-has-final-word approach to ruling (Napoleon was all about Authority From Above, Trust From Below) etc. etc.

At the end of this, I would say Napoleon's empire falls into that "benevolent monarch" situation. For a given value of "benevolent." As stated at the start, he was like most other monarchs in Europe at the time. Better than some, not as great about certain things as others.

--

Really, it all ties back to Order and Stability.

Napoleon's assent, and his approach to strong, centralized ruling, was a result of uncertainty and constant government change over ten years of revolution alongside the growing belief, by 1803, that a republic like the Romans or Greeks was not going to happen any time soon. Not without constant warfare and the forever looming threat of a Bourbon restoration.

In addition, Napoleon was doing imperial drag. (If that makes sense.) He was dialing the notch of Emperor up to 11 - being the most emperor of all emperors. So, state control was absolute because he couldn't show any signs of weakness - either in his own body, his familial body, or the body of state. The court protocols were intense and over-the-top at times because he had to prove he was not just a second son of a parvenu lawyer from the sticks. No! he was worthy of this pomp. He was worthy of imperial majesty. He was worthy of the crown and scepter.

Napoleon was not raised to be anything other than a military officer and a middle-class head of a family (would have been a MASTER at doing Sunday Dad Puttering About the House). When he dawned the mantel of power, particularly that of empire, he had to make it up as he went along. For such a self-conscious and proud man, this was difficult. He never wanted to misstep and be embarrassed - on a personal level, political or military.

At the same time, he was reared on Rousseau and Revolution so still had those values and ideals imbedded in him, and those fears and memories. Napoleon knew as well as any Frenchman that a monarch's head is easily removable should it become necessary. Therefore, he sometimes ran roughshod over the liberty to ensure security. For better or worse, that was the choice he made.

--

Napoleon was a flawed leader with a complex approach to governing that was focused on a centralization of power within him while, at the same time, trying to be the Successor of the Revolution, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Layers! Like an onion.

His approach as emperor really was within the realm of normal-for-the-times when compared to most other monarchs on the European stage in 1800. He also granted liberties to his people that were unheard of in other countries.

I feel like all my Napoleonic ramblings end with the same message: Dude was nuanced. Dude was complex. Dude did good things and bad things. Dude helped people and hurt people. Dude contained multitudes. Because he was simply human, at the end of the day.

--

ANNNNNNND we are done.

Gods bless all y'all who made it this far.

Have my favourite picture of Napoleon at Tuileries as a prize.

hmm that beautiful heavy, handed symbolism.

[frevandrest]

Everything Wrong with Saint-Just's Introductory Scene in La Révolution française (1989)

As promised, here is an analysis of Saint-Just’s first scene from La Révolution française (1989). You can watch the scene (with English subtitles) here. It sadly misses the dramatic entrance part, but everything else is there. SPOILER: This analysis will not, in fact, cover everything wrong because there’s so much trash you can’t adequately address it in only 1000 words. 

In the scene, we see a young man with that hair rushing down the steps of the Convention (in what will be his signature dramatic! style). He pushes people way without even looking at them. There is someone at the rostrum, and many people wait to address the Convention. Saint-Just doesn’t give a fuck. “I demand to speak.” Some deputies murmur a weak protest, but they are shit out of luck because it’s time to introduce a new character, and we need to know what a jerk he is. So of course he’s granted the word. 

At first, nobody pays attention, but “just like you, I would die for this Republic”, seems to work. He delivers the speech (which contains maybe two lines from the actual one), and by the end, Marat claps, the Convention claps, Danton and Girondins are suspicious; Robespierre is in love. Camille, oh Camille, does he know he’s just been replaced? Saint-Just pouts slightly (my interpretation) but doesn’t show much emotion. Next scene: Louis receives news that he’s being put on trial. Good job, new boy. 

As first scenes go, this is a good introduction to Saint-Just as depicted in the film. But it’s also very wrong for SJ as a historical personality (what we know of him). Which sucks, because it’s not like it’s impossible to make an unsympathetic yet historically accurate SJ, if one wants to go that route. See, Saint-Just in La Révolution française is a prop; he’s not a character with his own complexities, goals or motivations. He is just there to be pretty and evil, and to take Robespierre away from Camille.

So, why is this introduction wrong? 

Let us remember that this was Saint-Just’s very first speech at the Convention. He got elected days after his 25th birthday; he was the youngest out there. Also, even with Robespierre’s support (that some claim he already enjoyed), he was an unknown; a peasant provincial from Picardie barely out of his adolescence. He wanted to prove himself and demonstrate that he was a worthy representative. Being rude and pushing people away is not really a good way to achieve that. 

Here’s the thing about Saint-Just: despite all stereotypes of the contrary, he respected authority. However, he only respected authority that he felt deserved to be respected. In 1792, “monarchy” was not it. But National Convention? Revolutionary government? Of course he respected it. He fought so much to get there, and he respected the place he was given. 

Throwing his weight around, pushing people away, demanding to speak when someone else is at the rostrum, disobeying order... It was really not Saint-Just. He hated commotion and fights that happened so often at the Jacobin club. Even on 9 Thermidor, when Tallien interrupted him and shit hit the fan, he continued to attempt to deliver the speech. They pushed him, and he kept trying to speak, without, I don’t know, punching someone in the face (La Révolution française Saint-Just totally would, which is, admittedly, one of the many, many many reasons why it sucks that they shortened and condensed Thermidor). 

The film uses “blame Saint-Just for Robespierre’s turn to darkness” approach. SJ is there to encourage Robespierre into cruelty and cold violence, and, if Robespierre starts to doubt even for a moment, to reassure him that yes, this is how things should be done, you are right Max, let’s kill them all, but particularly Camille; I can’t stand that guy for having you first  ridiculing my poetry (wait... SJ’s poetry wasn’t in the film. Why does he hate Camille, again?) Who knows. The only explanation the film provides is that Camille is Good and Saint-Just is Evil, so of course he’d want to get rid of him. 

Now, let us see about the speech itself.

The Speech

The speech Saint-Just delivers in the film contains maybe a few lines from the actual speech (notably: “this man should reign, or die”). I don’t have a problem with them not replicating the speech word for word because it followed on what other deputies talked about (which we didn’t hear)*, and because nobody has time for Antoine’s ramblings about antiquity. (And it would take around 10 minutes to act, which would probably provide us with more glorious shots of Robespierre falling in love being impressed, but it would take too much of the running time. I get that.)

So, in theory, I am fine with shortening the speech and paraphrasing, as long as the meaning and content is there. Which... it did on a surface level while also missing the point substantially.  

*Not showing SJ addressing what others said before him was understandable (condensing runtime), but it’s another thing that made it seem like he didn’t listen nor paid attention what others were doing. Also, it’s a missed opportunity to characterize him as a jerk full of himself, since his real speech basically opened with: “all that the previous guy said is bullshit, and here’s why”. 

Speech in the film: I would die for the Republic and I would fight the enemies of the Republic. We all know the name of the enemy, and I, like none here, am ready to fight against this enemy. Louis is a symbol of traitors among us. We should not hesitate; the king is an usurper. 

In short, speech in the film is, kind of, less about Louis and more about what SJ will be important later: his own sense of revolutionary righteousness and for weeding out “traitors” from the Convention. 

Another issue with the speech is that it wasn’t just about the speech - it was part of Saint-Just’s introductory scene, so we had to learn about his character through the speech. In the film, SJ is rude, cruel and cares only about... well, we are not sure, because there are no motivations whatsoever, but he is there to push Max when something bad needs to be done. I feel that his rudeness during the introductory scene and the way the speech was delivered fulfil this purpose nicely. However, I am not sure that we actually understand what Saint-Just’s speech was about, except vague “we must kill the king” vibe. 

The Aftermath

The scene following Saint-Just’s speech is that of Louis, a doting father, reading a book to his son. Men come and rudely tell him to send the child away. He is to be put on trial. The implication? Saint-Just’s speech won the crowd over and they decided to kill Louis, or at least put him on trial. 

In reality, while Saint-Just’s speech was highly noticed (his real-life dramatic entrance into Convention), the deputies did NOT listen to him. The whole point of the speech was that Louis should not be put on trial - trials are for the citizens, which he is not. Louis’ crime is not treason - the monarchy is a crime in itself. Saint-Just argued against the trial. Yes, his speech was highly influential but presenting it in this way puts way too much weight on this newcomer’s words and implies he was the key factor behind the trial.  

Other Observations

- There is a long debate among historians whether Robespierre was present for Saint-Just’s first speech on 13 November 1792. (I think the conclusion is “probably not”.) But I don’t mind this change, if nothing else, for those glorious shots of Robespierre’s heart eyes and Camille’s “wtf did this guy come from and why is Max looking at him like that?”

- Marat. It is true that he generally praised Saint-Just as an orator, but he disagreed with this speech (Marat was for trial). 

- The reason why this post is dedicated to SJ’s first scene is because I was asked/challenged to write about it. It doesn’t mean that his other scenes were any better (I’d say they were worse). In fact, the entire SJ’s character was a Thermidorized mess. 

- That being said, I don’t hate this SJ. I cannot; LRF was my introduction to the whole Frev thing and will always have a special place. Christopher Thompson was ok, particularly in some aspects of SJ. However, the whole thing was a mess and it should be criticized. 

- Hair. I promised to dedicate one full paragraph to SJ’s hair, but I... can’t. I simply cannot. I am sorry. I tried, but the words failed me. 

- This was more fun that it should have been and there are so many things I didn’t get to say (the entire performance and what this scene means for SJ as a character in the film, a more detailed analysis of the speech and comparison with the real one, etc.) But it did show that I can still vomit write 1000+ words about anything that I have any interest in, which is... good to know, I guess? (Let’s just say that I won’t be winning any SJ contest prizes for laconicism). 

[alltheselights]

Random question but how come the majority of fics where there is wealth gap between hl Harry is usually the one who is richer and the same thing goes with like careers or fame it always made wonder like cause I know most larries don’t are very far into fanfic belief and it’s kinda silly but I always get offended sometimes lmao it always makes me wonder like do people have a hard time seeing Louis in this positions against Harry like Harry is far better and more capable of success then him it’s silly but that’s how I feel😭😭 I just want a more balance with them I guess

Interesting question! I can see why you feel that way, so let me break down some of the things that I think have contributed to this.

1) Harry vs. Louis’ images

Since going solo, Louis and his team have tried very hard to market him as a very normal, relatable guy from Doncaster who doesn’t care about going to expensive places or wearing expensive clothes (even though Louis does go to expensive places and does wear expensive clothes). He doesn’t hang out in the Hollywood scene and doesn’t hang out with other celebrities, instead sticking with his old friends from home. Louis’ team has also worked to make it seem like he doesn’t prioritize his own success and is just writing music for himself and existing fans without any interest in charting - despite the fact that we have evidence of the contrary - and unfortunately, a lot of fans buy into that.

In contrast, Harry and his team have marketed him as a wealthy rockstar who sets fashion trends and only dates and hangs out with other wealthy, famous people like Kendall Jenner, James Corden, and Adele. They want you to know Harry’s a nice guy, but you’re not supposed to relate to him. His image is supposed to make him untouchable and a level above the rest.

I think those images bleed into peoples’ real perceptions of the boys, regardless of whether they’re accurate or not, and that does impact how people write them in fics. It’s easier for a lot of writers to picture Harry being rich and wearing expensive suits and performing at Madison Square Garden and it’s easier to picture Louis wearing joggers and hanging out in a pub in London with regular people because those are the images that are being pushed on us constantly.

2) Misconceptions about their childhoods

A lot of people believe Louis’ family was lower class and that Louis grew up poor, which I don’t think is true based on things I’ve read over my years in the fandom. I don’t think Louis’ family was wealthy and of course Jay was a single mom to Louis for a period, but I don’t think there are many indications that they really struggled, particularly once she married Mark Tomlinson, and then of course, many years later, when she married Dan Deakin after Louis had already hit it big. I think people falsely assume that because Jay was a single mother for a period of time, because Louis’ biological father was a deadbeat who abandoned them, and because Jay had a lot of kids, Louis must have been in poverty throughout his childhood. Jay also said that Louis sent money home from the X-Factor, which probably helped further these ideas in the fandom. A lot of it is just based on stereotypes though, I think.

With Harry, his parents went through a divorce when he was younger as well, but because Harry is still in contact with both his parents to this day and because he only has one sibling, I think people don’t stereotype his upbringing the same way that they do for Louis’. Those ideas about their different childhoods, even if they’re inaccurate, have definitely influenced some people in terms of deciding who should be wealthier in fics.

3) Some writers just don’t like Louis

It’s DEFINITELY not every writer who does wealth or fame gaps in fics (I’ve done them myself and Louis is my favorite always!!), but there are people who write fics who just don’t really like Louis and think he’s less capable of success, so that’s something I try to watch out for. I feel like it’s very easy to tell when a fic writer doesn’t really like or respect Louis because it comes across very clearly through the way that they write him compared to the way they write Harry. You should be able to write a character with less money or less fame without making them seem less capable, less talented, less intelligent, less beautiful, or less kind, so when somebody doesn’t do that and when it’s always Louis, they probably just don’t like him very much. (And they’re also classist.)

4) Sometimes it just fits the story better

I’m guilty of writing fics with a wealth gap (The Space Between and Secret’s Safe With Me), but for me, and I think for a lot of authors, I did it because it just fit the story better. For example, in my fic The Space Between, it was based on a prompt where Harry had insomnia, and I decided it would be fun if Harry was a rockstar who had to hide his insomnia problem from the world. Since Louis was going to be somebody hired to help him sleep (also part of the prompt), it wouldn’t make sense to also make him a wealthy rockstar. I think that happens with a lot of authors where a person just gets an idea, tries to assign Harry and Louis to the characters that best fit them or best fit the story, and then lets the chips fall without any kind of negative bias being behind it.

5) Existing fics inspire future fics

And finally, I also think that once a common trope is established in a fandom, it just continues to grow. A lot of people get vague ideas for future fics based on things they’ve read previously, so once something has been well-established in a fandom, it’s natural that there will be more of it in the future.

Anyway, those are my theories on this! If those fics make you uncomfortable though, I don’t think it’s wrong to avoid them. Fics are meant to be fun and if there’s a trope or concept that upsets you, don’t hesitate to avoid it.

[1d-discourseoftheday]

Thurs 14 Jan ‘21

Nobody Is Listening, officially out tomorrow, has already arrived in some parts of the world! As of press time it's #1 on itunes in 24 countries and racking up more by the minute, we should have some exciting stats by tomorrow, plus we'll have heard the whole thing! And not only that, the official listening parties begin very soon, and will hopefully have their tech issues sorted by then, cause yes, I bet you can guess what already happened.... YEP WEBSITE CRASH! Yeah baby, that's what we do! But maybe people are right to be excited the chat does include... maybe Zayn? Someone official (“Zayn admin”) anyway! And just because the event hasn't started is no reason not to gather and start screaming about the album, whether it's out in your area, you're listening to a leak (Niall voice: No Judgement... except he would actually be mad about that lol), or you only are looking at the lyrics which tbh is about more than I can handle all by itself. You guys there is a LOT there, I was going to pull a few things but it's SO MUCH. We'll be unpacking (and soaking in) all this for a while to come, wow.

Niall popped on twitter to promo the new JC Stewart song he co-wrote, and he picked a question about whether he was interested in doing more writing for other people to answer; he said “always writing something, this one just felt right for JC and he put his twist on it.” He followed Olivia Rodrigo and posted about how much he likes her new song, Driver's License (“this song is the real deal... beautifully written”), defended his comment (a series of laugh cry emoji) on a meme post using a pic from the WMYB video, said not drinking this month has been “easy!” and he did a “can't sleep talk to me” AMA-- he recommends MGMT, Kacey Musgraves, Artic Monkeys, and, for crossover excitement, Lucius (who feature on TPWK) and DMA'S (who feature as Louis' fave band)! He also agressively rejected some fan fashion suggestions (“no no no no” “I will not”) of outifts that, uh, look AN AWFUL LOT like ones he has worn to me? If he's serious (and not quietly seething about how we don't get his humor) I have to respect that kind of passion about nearly invisible detail tbh. And speaking of attention to detail! An article about the RAH livestream came out in a crew trade publication so there's just reams of very specific tech detail; but there's also plenty of people saying nice things about Niall! “Niall was very involved in every step of the process. He really gained a full grasp of the situation and during the promotion of the show, he really wanted to educate the public, and his fanbase, about what was going on in the sector,” for example. Tonight Niall told us he would want to do another virtual concert but he'd “need a good reason... a music launch or something.”

Liam has a new video for Hugo Man (that's a perfume in case you were wondering); he says about 2020, “I think we've all learned to rest a little bit more this year, I hope we all keep a little a bit of time for ourselves.” HAVE YA learned to do that though Liam, HAVE YA? Where is this sabbatical you said you were taking right now that you definitely were in great need of? Honey please-- just take a break! We worry! Sigh. Anyway also he changed his social headers and bio in honor of the new projects (SIGH) he's doing right now- it says “here's to the future...” (was previously ticket lnks) which would be a great bio to have up indefinitely while taking a break... or something... maybe he should do that...

Hey remember that YA novel about closeted boybanders in love that we were like, well, at least we won't have to deal with that until next year? WELL GUESS WHAT YEAR IT IS NOW-- the release date isn't until Dec 7 which is VERY FAR AWAY but I guess the hype is beginning now; the title and cover art for If This Gets Out, by Sophie Gonzales and Cale Dietrich, have been revealed. Becky Albertalli (who once wrote a book [Love Simon] about a gay football player with Louis in his name whose secret code name was “bluegreen”) posted to hype up the book, but then followed up with a long post to tell people that in fact you-know-who were NOT the source of those details in Love Simon, and that she is now a new Harry Styles fan but knows nothing about any of that. Sophie Gonzales, who drew the cover art for her new book- a picture of a light haired guy with a long fringe and a curly haired brunet locked in eye contact and a silhouette of the fictional band they're in that looks just like the famous Steal My Girl video shot (or Louis' Walls video reference of same)- says “this book is fictional, and while we're aware of what Larry is, this book was not written about that.”

And in today's Holivia corner, not much action! A mere trickle! Cosmo published a timeline of events that reads just like a tumblr masterpost, complete with 'what is the truth' gifs at the blatant contradictions, but that's about it. “You live in my imagination**,” indeed; much like the rumor started by a single galaxy brained anon claiming that Harry definitely fucked... wait for it... LIAM'S DAD (like, his actual father, Geoff Payne, not some kind of euphemism.) Someone tell Page Six! I have no comment until I get some good analysis of astrological compatibility from their expert...

(**Harry Styles, Olivia, 2015)

[schraubd]

I Have To Talk About Omar and Melton-Meaux, Don't I?

I really don't want to. I really, really don't. But sometimes something falls too close to your wheelhouse to ignore it. And with separate antisemitism controversies hitting both Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and her main Democratic primary opponent Antone Melton-Meaux within a few days of one another, I -- writer on antisemitism and former resident of Minnesota's 5th congressional district -- probably can't sit this one out. As much as I want to. Which I do. Both candidates are under some fire for things put in campaign communications. Melton-Meaux released an "FAQ" which included the questions "Why do you have so much support from Jewish people/pro-Israel people" and "Will the money you received from the Jewish community influence your policy decisions?" (to the latter of which he replied "no" and noted his opposition to many policies undertaken by Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu). Omar's allies said that by implying that Jews only care about Israel-related issues and supposedly conflating "Jewish people" and "pro-Israel people", he was invoking in veiled fashion a dual-loyalty trope. Omar sent out a campaign mailer accusing Melton-Meaux of being in the pocket of conservative, big money interests, with all of the named donors being Jewish (plus a "Michael from Scarsdale, New York"). This was alleged by Omar's opponents to be an allusion to his opponent being "bought" by Jews (cf. fellow Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer (R) sending out a mailer naming three Jewish billionaires who had "bought" control of Congress). What do I think? Most importantly, while I don't think there is no fire behind this smoke, obviously a lot of the high dudgeon on display here from both sides is really just shots-of-opportunity. That's not exactly surprising, given the nature of politics and all, but still disappointing. I also reiterate my point that while people outside of the 5th District only care about this race for Israel/antisemitism/Islamophobia reasons, the dynamics within the district are generally concentrating on other things (including whether Rep. Omar is more concerned with her national profile than with the particular needs of her district). On the specifics: Melton-Meaux's FAQ is clearly styled as responding to "questions" that amount to hostile whisper-campaigns (i.e., that he's a stalking horse for far-right Jewish and/or pro-Israel interests). On one level, this is why I don't really see the first question as conflating "Jewish" and "pro-Israel" -- aside from the fact that they are listed separately, in context it denotes two variants of a similar question he receives (and the questioners probably aren't too fastidious about the distinction). But the problem with such whisper-campaigns is that it can be really hard to respond directly to the allegation without in some way legitimizing or retrenching it. Imagine being asked if a candidate supports "the gay agenda" -- you can't really answer "yes" or "no", because the entire way the question is framed makes answering it a trap. This is why you don't accept your opponents' framing of questions, as any halfway competent campaign should know. Doing otherwise means you suddenly are putting out statements answering questions like, well, "Will the money you received from the Jewish community influence your policy decisions?" There's no good answer to that question, which is a good sign that Melton-Meaux shouldn't be asking it to himself. To the extent that some Jews cringe while reading it, he has no one to blame but himself. As for Omar. While all of the named persons in her mailer are Jewish, none of them are specifically identified as Jewish (the theme of the mailer is that many of his opponents' donors are backing him solely because they hate her, which is probably true).  But on face, this doesn't distinguish her mailer from Emmer's, or Trump's 2016 "closing argument" ad which featured Hillary Clinton and then three Jews associated with money -- George Soros, Janet Yellen, and Lloyd Blankfein (none of whom were explicitly identified as Jewish either). For those in the right circles, Scarsdale is well-known as a very Jewish and very rich town (hence its appearance in the "JAP battle rap", featuring "two hard-as-nails she-brews from SCARSDALE!"). It is fair to say that few people in Minnesota are likely to know this though (had she called out donors from St. Louis Park, by contrast, everyone in her district would know what she meant even as nobody outside the Twin Cities would have a clue). On the whole, my real takeaway is feeling more convinced than ever about the need to think about antisemitism less as a question of motives and more as a question of impact. It strikes me as implausible that Melton-Meaux was intentionally trying to antagonize the Jewish community by loudly disavowing his support; it was an awkward effort by a novice campaign staff to respond to a smear -- but one that nonetheless retrenched the perception that the Jewish community is a force one needs to declare his independence from. Melton-Meaux may be a political newbie, but he has an obligation to be attentive to that dynamic and not blunder into traps quite that obvious. With respect to Omar, I likewise find it highly unlikely that her campaign staff went on a hunt for rich Jewish donors to her opponent in a sly bid to dog-whistle at her opponent being owned by the Jews. Nonetheless, it is probably the case that the Jewish associations of the people cited -- while not likely to be picked up by many if not most of her readers -- likely do help make the attack land more effectively for those who do spot the pattern. I've written elsewhere about how one thing antisemitism does is it greases the wheels of plausibility; when you're trying to tag your opponent as in the bag for big Wall Street money (or Marxism, or "globalism" for that matter) it just feels more right when there's a Jewish hook to go along with it. It's in accord with deep-seated background intuitions, it makes the entire package feel more harmonious. This is one reason why I think someone in the Omar campaign could have reasonably been expected to check and see whether everyone they're talking about is Jewish -- and if not, find some different names (one has to think that there are some non-Jewish rich people who also are pumping money into her opponent's campaign, yes?). But ultimately, I think this is all relatively small fries. The hypocrisy is perhaps more bothersome than anything else. I get the frustration from Omar's allies that they think she's constantly being pelted with small-ball nonsense on the antisemitism front, and so perhaps they think turnabout is fair play when they can accuse Omar's opponent of being the "dual loyalty" trope guy (you can almost feel the catharsis from here!). But either they think stuff at this level is fair game or they don't; they can't have it both ways unless they really do believe that antisemitism can legitimately be treated as instrumental political football. And on the other side, regarding the conservative media ready to stand up and shout about "yet another instance of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic!" -- unless they're willing to concede that the bulk of the Jewish community was absolutely correct in saying that the contemporary GOP, what with its brazen targeting of Soros, Bloomberg, Steyer, etc., is shot through with antisemitism from root to branch, they need to sit the hell down. As always, however strong or weak you think the case for Ilhan Omar being antisemitic is, it's far less strong than the case for the GOP being antisemitic. If I have to listen to one more attempted gotcha from the Republican Jewish Coalition about Jewish Democrats staying out of the 5th District endorsement game, when they're affirmatively trying to put this guy into a Minnesota U.S. Senate seat, I'm going to have an aneurysm. Okay, I've done my duty. As a palate-cleanser, please read this lovely column by a Minnesota Jewish Republican explaining, in touching and heart-felt terms, why he considers Ilhan Omar a dear friend. It really is a nice piece of writing from a man whom I have to assume has decided he never wants to have any role in Republican Party politics again, because any public dictation about Ilhan Omar that's friendlier than "she's a she-devil" is grounds for immediate ex-communication from the party. And, just so nobody thinks I'm endorsing one way or the other (I'm not, and will not), read as well this column from Avi Olitzky explaining why he is such a fan of Melton-Meaux. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/2ZUSIUn

[margridarnauds]

I have an Irish ask! How did the regional kings hierarchy work - was there a high king irl? How did you rule, and what over, and how did you get to be high king, if so? (From - a descendant of the Kings of Desmond, but very confused about what's shit, and what's legit, in Irish History?

Kingship in an Irish context is an endlessly complicated topic, and it seems like for every question we get, someone’s written or plans to write a dissertation on it. You accidentally tripped over a landmine when asking me this one. Which is DEFINITELY not your fault, I don’t resent you for it, it just means you are getting a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGG answer.

But. Anyway. Kingship. I will preface anything I say with the acknowledgment that I am a mythological literature person, not necessarily a law/contracts/history person. Also that, tragically, there are a LOT of law tracts that remain untranslated. (And a lot of things. In general.)

So, this is…complicated, since a LOT of the work in the legal tradition revolves around the notion of kingship (seriously, my closest friend in the department is a legal scholar and we have had some long bitchfests about how much attention is paid to kingship VS the common people, simply because…..guess who was paying for these manuscripts to be made? Yep, it ain’t Farmer Cormac. The single most important thing you can ever remember about these texts is that they were made by and for an elite audience); you have a lot of kings in a fairly condensed space, and it gets to the point of whether we should even really properly translate rí as “king” or whether a more generic term like “leader” is actually more accurate, though it IS cognate with Latin “Rex” and Gaulish “Rix.” (Aka “Vercingetorix”, “Cunorix”, “Asterix”…all the most important “Rix”s of the ancient world.) So. Kings. Definitely kings. But not really in any way we would generally consider “kings” to be. Fergus Kelly estimated that there could be as many as 150 KINGS throughout Ireland between the 5th-12th centuries (17), which….on a relatively small island that holds only about 5 million people in the present….**150**.

Traditionally, the idea of a singular high king of Ireland was….okay, so you have a LOT of guys who claim to be “King of Ireland,” but there’s a question of how real that power actually was, how much power they ACTUALLY wielded, and how stable they actually were. And, on one hand “King of Tara” is generally taken to be synonymous with “king of Ireland”, (hence the Uí Néill’s LONG claim to power), but there are a lot of issues with that one, and it’s something that’s a matter of debate, not the least because it seems like the Uí Néill…..might have influenced the literature ever so slightly as a way of bolstering their own claims (Jaski, Early Irish Kingship and Succession, 215). Basically, no evidence that the kings of Munster paid tribute to the kings of Tara before the 9th century, making the claim that the King of Tara = King of ALL Ireland doubtful. 

And….well, I’ll let Bart Jaski explain the title of ardrí (high king), since he’s the man with the big book on it: “To keep up with [the political developments of Brían Boru’s victory at the Battle of Clontarf], the annalists of the tenth century introduce the title ‘high-king’ (ardri) as a title of recognition or flattery to denote a powerful king who achieved a remarkable domination over others. In later historiography, the old kingship of Tara came to be regarded as the ‘high-kingship’ of Ireland, which is both an anachronism and an inaccurate estimation of what the kingship of Tara meant, both in pre-historic times as in the documentary period. The title of rex Hiberniae given to the kings of Tara Domnall of Cenél Conaill and his grandson Loingsech does not lend support to the existence of a ‘high kingship’. as they were apparently subjectively awarded by partisan annalists and others.” 

Fergus Kelly was more to the point, “The king of Ireland (rí Érenn), who figures so prominently in the sagas, is rarely mentioned in the law-texts. Though the idea of a kingship of the whole isalnd had already gained currency by the 7th century, no Irish king ever managed to make it a reality, and most law-texts do not even provide for such a possibility” (18). 

Charles-Edwards disputed this conclusion in Early Christian Ireland (okay, technically, he disputed Binchy’s conclusions, but this line of thinking), discussing some further references to a single king of Ireland binding the other kings of Ireland to him, as Conchobar was said to have done with the men of Ulster, as well as the legal term tríath, with a line from an 8th century law text being “He is a burdensome tríath who penetrates Ireland of peoples from sea to sea” (519). Liam Bhreatnach suggested in his article ‘Ardrí as an old compound,” as the name suggests, that the term itself, while little used, is old. I can’t get ahold of it at present, but I’m going to presume he did make a solid case, given that Carey, Jaski, and Charles-Edwards all cite him, and they are all careful, respectable scholars. What John Carey would point out in “From David to Labraid” is that actually, several of those early references were in fact to the Christian as opposed to an earthly deity. AKA “The ULTIMATE high king, the highest of kings” (pg. 21-23). Something suggested by Carey in that same article is that the Church MIGHT have promoted the idea of high kingship as a way of appealing to kings who would be interested in it in exchange for their support of Christianity; a quid pro quo. 

Basically, the question of the extent of the high king’s power, both in a Christian and pre-Christian context, is HIGHLY controversial and something I reckon will never fully be satisfactorily resolved, not the least because it also has the misfortune of featuring two favorite, perennial topics of many Celticists: Etymological arguments and kingship. What I think we CAN gather from the debate is that it was very far from a SOLID title, more a matter of individual monarchs as opposed to stable dynasties. Medieval Ireland did not have a Versailles and a Louis XIV, there was not a singular sun king who decided their fates. 

Now, in general, kingship was not necessarily held with the same iron grip that you would see with, say, the Plantagenets in England. Primogeniture was not necessarily a thing here. You did have to be a nobleman to be king (Sorry, Farmer Cormac, you’re out, get back to your field, peasant), and you had to be descended from a king in either the first or the second degree to be king, but you did NOT have to be the firstborn son. If you have seven kids and the youngest is the only one who is qualified to lead….yep, Junior takes the lot. So, that’s the first thing. There’s a section of Mac Firbis’ Great Book of Genealogies (which is a LATE text, but includes basically a scrapbook of older material) that references that exact scenario. Youngest can take it, eldest can take it, eldest PROBABLY has a higher shot of it because…older, more time to be groomed for the kingship, more time to gather people loyal to him, etc. But. Like. All of the kids have a shot, and depending on where they’re fostered off to, their foster families will very likely support them if they want to make a bid for the kingship. (Irish dynastic politics were VERY turbulent.)

 A king is elected to the tribe through the popular acclamation of their major clients/family members; their power, while it is something that is expected to some extent, is not a GIVEN to the same extent. (Jaski 212). Which. Is where the role of tánaiste comes in, which is a late development, but it irons things out so it’s like “Okay, when the old fuck dies, this dude is king.” In a literary context, this is also why Bres’ kingship is kind of doomed from the beginning. Because it’s the WOMEN of the Tuatha dé who support his kingship, not the men.

 And, of course, even if Junior does take the throne, that does NOT mean that his brother’s kids are out of the running when Junior dies (or, more to the point, they might try to speed things along and arrange for a “hunting accident” to happen.) Because of the three generation requirement to maintain noble status, there was quite a bit of infighting (Jaski 197), as different offshoots of a given high king will want the throne in order to maintain their noble rank. Knives Out: The Medieval Ireland edition. 

One story that deals with this is Echtra mac nEchdach Mugmedóin (Adventures of the Sons of Eochaid Mugmedóin), which discusses how the future Niall of the Nine Hostages, born the son of a Saxon slave and the king of Ireland, hated by his stepmother, and the youngest of the lot of the sons ends up taking the kingship anyway. (Answer: He’s down to sleep with an old hag. Who is also the sovereignty of Ireland. And is like “Okay, that was some good D, here’s how you get the kingship now.”) Now, this is primarily a literary as opposed to a historical story, but…..well….that’s where a lot of our stuff for this. Does come from. For better or worse. And I’m not just saying that because I’m currently procrastinating on working on an edition of that very text. 

So, on the question of “How to rule.” The main relationship was between an overking-client king. So, let’s say that I am an underking in….IDK. Munster. What can I say? I like Munster. I’m not even a pronvincial king, but I’ve got my tuath, I’m chilling out, I’ve got my cattle, I’ve got some Nemed-class people with me, I’ve got a bit of land, and a couple of those people we don’t really talk about because they’re not important (Aka “Commoners, slaves, etc.” The people who do the work that the more privileged classes CANNOT do, like chop wood.) 

Now, let’s say that you’re a provincial king, King of Munster. Your father’s just died, you’ve become king, or, alternatively, you’ve beaten the shit out of the other candidates, and you roll up to my people. Now, I could probably fight, but like. That’s a way to. Die. And maybe I do want the protection that comes from a Lord-Client relationship, since, hey, that DOES mean that you’re responsible for me. And if the King of Connacht rolls up and is like “Hey, I want to attack you and steal your cattle” you can roll up and be like “Hey, want to die?” Also, if one of your OTHER subjects kills a man in my tuath, you are expected to mediate, with me taking a hostage from your court until everything’s resolved, and you and I both getting a part of the resulting settlement (Kelly 23). And, of course, I’ll support you as well. It’s a mutual client relationship, just….an inherently uneven one. Most of the powerful subject kings, who were free but still subject to an overking were related to that king by a shared kinship, but there was a double edged sword: I support you, and then your brother Eochaid comes to the throne, I’m up Shit River with no paddle (Jaski 206). If I’m particularly useful/powerful to you, you might even foster one of your kids with me, so I can support him politically later down the line. (And also strengthen the relationship between our two peoples; that kid is going to be more mine than yours by the time that his fosterage is over, he will call you athair and me datai; one is a more formal term meaning “father,” [cognate with Latin pater and English father] one is more like “dad” and is cognate with the Welsh dat. Which seems to be related to….yep, the English diminutive dad.) Peter Parkes rather magnificently talks about this system as: “Clientage dressed in a false plumage of kinship: Cuckold consanguinity.” (”When Milk Was Thicker Than Water?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 6.3, pg. 606)

So, what would happen there? Well, the system of overking-client king was held together much in the same way as the relationship between individuals would be, ie through hostages. The giving of hostages is something that was EMBEDDED in the legal system. So, you and I would proceed to haggle over who I have to hand over. Now, I don’t want you to take someone too important, you will want to take the most important person you can. I’ll try to get you to take my third cousin twice removed who I might see once every few years, Conall, you’ll try to get one of my kids. And, let’s be real, since you have the most power in this situation, you’ll probably fucking win. “He who has the sword makes the rules”- NOT an official medieval Irish legal statement, but it might as well be. Now, it should be emphasized that hostages were HIGHLY respected and treated well, there was no particular stigma against someone who was a hostage at some point, and you do have accounts of hostages eating at the king’s table, in a position that denotes a degree of intimacy and companionship. And a couple who are brutally executed or maimed when their kings broke the terms of the agreement, but, hey, only a 2% murder rate or so; very good for the times. It could be that the king’s son had a role when it came to making sure the hostages were cared for. But there’s not been all that much work done on it and a lot of this is being remembered second hand from a PhD student in our department who did a STELLAR lecture on the topic; if and when he decides to formally publish it, I’ll probably make a big deal over it. Because….this shit is IMPORTANT. 

This is also why it’s Niall of the Nine Hostages. Because that’s how many peoples he extracted hostages from, that is a sign of his power as a king. You could NOT be king of Ireland without hostages. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Like, how are you going to be sure that your supporters are going to stick with you? And even if they do, where’s the signs of your authority? Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously? 

So, a king of Ireland’s reign would be held together by a similar system, whether it’s provincial or the famous ardri. A high king would take hostages from their client kings as a way of showing off their power and authority, and they would probably show them off when making a circuit of their territory. Your ancestor would definitely have had a group of hostages taken from the athech-thúatha, or client peoples. The Triads put it slightly more succinctly: “[220] Three things that constitute a king: a contract with other kings, the feast of Tara, abundance during his reign.” 

Now, again, this is an idealized literary context, but we’ve discussed the first one, the contractural nature. The feis Temro, or the Feast of Tara, was something that a High King of Ireland HAD to do as a way of securing his reign, and in the early days at least it seemed to involve some sort of marriage/sexual ritual with a representative of the goddess of sovereignty, a living embodiment of the land, and it would involve imbibing some sort of drink offered to him by her as well. (This is why Eochaid Airem HAS to marry Étain, because he needs a queen to have his feis Temro and become a king. This is also why Niall of the Nine Hostages secured his reign via sleeping with aforementioned hag.) 

And there were a number of different taboos and responsibilities tied to said kingship. For example, in The Tidings of Conchobar Mac Nessa, it is said that “Now Conchobar himself used to give them the (the feast of) Samaim because of the assembly of the great host. It was needful to provide for the great multitude, because everyone of the Ulstermen who would not come to Emain in Samain lost his senses, and on the morrow his barrow and his grave and his tombstone were placed.” The Adventures of Nera also features Medb and Aillil throwing a feast on the day of Samain for the entirety of the province. Baile in Scáil features Conn rising every day so that he can go onto the ramparts of Tara with his druids and poets to defend it from the possibility of otherworldly attack. Another obligation was “the Prince’s truth,” the idea that the king, when giving out judgements, should be able to INTUIT the true answer. Giving a false judgement = ruin for the land, everything goes to shit, the harvests fails, cattle die, aliens invade (okay….maybe not, but like. it would be cool if they did), the king of Leinster steals your wife, etc. until the bad king is replaced. (It has been SUGGESTED that that might be the reason for some of the bog bodies. Possibly.) He also HAD to go out with a retinue when he was out hunting, a king who didn’t lost his honor price, same as if he’d used an instrument of MANUAL LABOR (the horror, the shock) (Kelly 19). For what it’s worth, I do know of at least one case in….I believe the 16th century where a woman claimed that the king was the father of her child, there was no one who could dispute it since he was alone, he took a shine to the child anyway, and BOOM heir. Which further shows one of the social dangers of a king on his own.

More specific ones to each province are laid out in the Book of Rights, which Myles Dillon did an edition of in “Taboos of the Kings of Ireland”. An example (chosen at random) includes, “The five prohibitions of the king of Munster: to hold a court before celebrating the feast of Loch Lern from one Monday to the next; to spend a wet autumn night before winter in Letrecha, to camp for nine days on the Suir, to hold a meeting at the boundary near Gabruan ; to hear the groans of the women of Mag Feimin in their oppression. And his five prescriptions : to despoil Cruachain at the call of the cuckoo; to burn the Laigin to the north of Gabair; to chant the Passion in Lent at Cashel; to travel over Sliab Cua with a company of fifty after pacifying the south of Ireland; to go with a dark grey army on Tuesday across Mag nAlbe.” 

Either way, in Ye Olde Days, there was definitely an element of protecting the people of the region from the possibility of supernatural attack. That would obviously die down a little with the coming of Christianity, I don’t know whether a king in the 15th century, for example, would be expected to keep to it that rigorously, I lean towards “no” personally since this is generally talked about as an outdated custom, but it remained a popular trope in medieval literature. Dillon himself points out that, given that many of the taboos mentioned in here were only recorded in the 14th century, they were likely considered to be an odd, antiquarian quirk. That being said…..it’s ALL tied into the kingship, the idea of the king being tied to a certain series of obligations, the mutual relationship between king and people. 

Now, if a king failed in his duties and taboos, he could be ousted. Like “you fucked up, buster, get packing.” Some examples of kings who lost their sovereignty include Bres mac Elatha (my BOY, my SON, my ANGEL, my…..little piece of shit), who was satirized by a bard (this is why people REALLY tend to underline the power of bards, because like. This was an ACKNOWLEDGED power of theirs. They were held in a heady mix of respect and fear for this one), Fergus mac Roiche (didn’t lose it because of incompetence per se, but did hand it over to Conchobar, and the men of Ulster, inexplicably, liked Conchobar more, which….their mistake but.), and Congal Cáech (whose bid for king of Tara was, according to legend at least, ruined by an unfortunate bee sting. In his eye. Whether he was actually king of Tara is something that seems to be slightly disputed.) People often will ask me, when I mention how much I love Bres, why I love him so much, and I feel like the answer to that….there are a hundred answers, depending on my mood, and this is NOT a Bres post, but the one most relevant to the overall topic at hand is that he really experienced the full kingship experience: The rise, the fall, the absolute tumultuous political reality of a 9th century king, albeit a fictionalized one. 

Bibliography: 

Carey, John, ‘From David to Labraid: Sacral Kingship and the Emergence of Monotheism in Israel and Ireland’, Approaches to Religion and Mythology in Celtic Studies

Charles-Edwards, T.M., Early Christian Ireland, Cambridge University Press

Dillon, Myles, “Taboos of the Kings of Ireland,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History,Literature, Vol. 54

Jaski, Early Irish Kingship and Succession, Four Courts Press

Kelly, Fergus, A Guide To Early Irish Law, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies

Mac Cana, Proinsias, Celtic Mythology, Littlehampton Book Services 

Parkes, Peter, ”When Milk Was Thicker Than Water?”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 6.3

[louisisalarrie]

i still can't believe they chose to make louis a party boy having a random girl pregnant than letting him come out i mean really is that terrible for them? how many fans would they risk with him coming out that are not risking with the whole bg?

The primary theory, in which I believe to be true as well, was they were gonna let Harry come out (as bisexual, whether that is true or not) and that was the trade off. With how loud larries were back then, and 1d’s team constantly scrambling to “prove” they weren’t together, they couldn’t have just let one of them come out and not have a surefire way to remove any possibility of larry - so the best way was to ensure louis looked as straight as possible was “proof” that he had sex with a woman, and a stunt gf wasn’t enough if Harry was going to be out.

I think the thing is, is that it was such a different landscape back then to what it is today. It would be much harder to closet larry had it been happening these days, but SC was making good money and didn’t wanna ruin the marketability of 1d, because he’s a selfish prick. So anyway, he decided cool, if these guys are gonna still keep trying to come out, we’re gonna throw one under the bus to be totally straight, and the other more famous one can come out as a compromise.

In the industry, 1d is a reflection of SC. He’s going to try and make sure he doesn’t look like an idiot, as much as possible. He needs to make it look like he’s cool, calm, and collected, with an excellent boyband who do all the right things, and are perfectly marketable good little boys. This doesn’t include: two of them being in a relationship, mental health issues, substance abuse issues, videos of them smoking pot etc., but, in order to look like a super cool forward thinking high up dude who is down with the kids and is an empathetic and accepting boss to the larger industry and GP, he was like “alright cool, one of you can come out, and it’s going to be Harry. It can’t be both of you. So, it’ll be a small sacrifice for the greater good and you can both eventually come out, but you don’t wanna lose fans, do you??? We need to be careful about this, and separate you as much as possible. Wouldn’t you rather have a bit of freedom than none at all?” and then that’s kinda what happened, but it all ended up in a dumpster fire.

It’s kinda like having kids (not that I know what that’s like but it’s an apt comparison often used for folks who look after artists), you want them to reflect how good of a caretaker and person you are, always with a smile on their face and that nothing is wrong at all, even if its not always that easy behind the scenes, if you know what I mean? And Letting Harry come out was gonna be great for SC, an absolutely HUGE move at the time that he was happy to go through with because it was gonna make him look great, but it could never have been both of them coming out, and never the two of them together. Not for a long time anyway. It was baby steps.

And I just wanna point out, that while larry is known to be real within different parts of the music industry, this is a massive business and not everybody knows. Oftentimes I see people saying “oh everyone knows” but it’s literally not true. They have small inner circles, and the very high ups know, but it’s not some industry wide knowledge that they’re together. It’s still quiet in that respect.

And to your point, anon, they’d risk the overall marketability of their prime demographic, having them come out. And louis was going to be a lot harder to explain when coming out than Harry. Louis was in a long term relationship, committed, his gf’s initial tattooed on his hand, already didn’t get along well with SC, and it would’ve stopped Harry coming out. So, Harry was the easier choice and Louis’ stunt was gonna be short lived anyway. Except it wasn’t. And I just have to stress how different this was back then. Nothing like this at that scale was happening at the time, and never with this many fans unravelling the narrative. It truly was one of a kind and SC and team didn’t know how best to deal with it.

Anyway, truly a shit show.

[themummersfolly]

Ami du Roi - Ave, pt 1

@nuingiliath @skeleton-richard @ardenrosegarden @princess-of-france @shredsandpatches @harry-leroy @stripedroseandsketchpads

Well this wound up being a lot longer than I had anticipated. You guys are not going to like the ending.

-------

24 October, A.D. 1415

The words fell from his lips in soft, familiar cadence as he rolled each bead of the paternoster between his fingers:

Ave Maria, gratia plena

Dominus tecum.

He had said these prayers every day since childhood, seeking sometimes insight, sometimes solace in the rote words. Even now, they brought him some peace.

Benedicta tu in mulieribus

Et benedictus fructus ventris tui

Candlelight glowed on the gold beads: a New Year’s gift from his cousin, long, long ago in a happier time. As he reached the Amen, he bowed his head once more and whispered a final plea:

Pray for me, Marie.

She had been gone five years now, dead in childbed, giving him his youngest son. He still had not found it within himself to replace her, despite the turmoil, the need for alliances and heirs. If his cousin had been well, he would have urged him to remarry.

If his cousin had been well…

“Mon seigneur.” The tent flap moved and Thierry, his body servant, poked his face through. “Maréchal Boucicaut approaches.”

“Very good, I’ll receive him.” Charles D’Albret folded the paternoster carefully and returned it to its pouch.

If my cousin were well, none of this would be happening.

He stood and stretched – the damp chill brought out an ache in one leg that never really went away. Thierry held the tent flap as he ducked out, buckling on his sword as he went.

Jean Le Maingre, known to most as Boucicaut, stood outside, mud-spattered to the knee. He looked annoyed.

“My Lord Constable.”

“God keep you, good Marshal. How now?”

“The Duke d’Alençon keeps sending me runners.”

D’Albret willed his jaw to unclench. “I’m not moving him. There’s no more room in the vanguard.”

“He’s afraid that by the time his division is brought into play, he’ll have missed his share of the glory. He told me he’s not a carrion bird, to be tasked with picking off the dead.”

“Alençon is a valiant knight, but he can be a fool. I’d have sent him home by now if I thought I could.”

Boucicaut’s mouth tightened in a straight line: agreement. “At least Orleans seems content with his placement, now.”

“I’m keeping him by me on the morrow. This will be his first real battle; I don’t want him getting more ‘glory’ than he knows what to do with.” An image came to mind, unbidden: Louis d’Orleans lying on the cobblestones, his blood and brains mixing with the filth from the street. Young Charles looked so much like him, it was easy to picture him in his father’s place… D’Albret forced the vision down. “The king would never forgive me if something happened to him.” The Marshal nodded. “What else?”

“You’re going to have to have a word with my brother.”

“Geffroi? Again?”

“I caught him and some of his men heading toward the sieur de Graville’s contingent. You know he has a score to settle –”

“Mon Dieu, are the English not foes enough?”

“I’m sorry to make you deal with this. I’ve tried talking to him – you know he won’t listen to me.”

“Well, he’ll listen to me or he’ll sit this one out.”

“Fair enough.” Boucicaut glanced over the Constable’s shoulder. “Pity.”

“Hm?” D’Albret turned, following his gaze into the darkness beyond the pickets.

“The English. They don’t seem to be having so many problems with discipline. We could use an ounce or two of their mettle.”

“I suppose it’s easier to order a smaller host.” Christ, there weren’t even watchfires over there. He realized his hand was clenched on the hilt of his sword; he made himself relax his grip. “The last group of scouts came in half an hour ago. They said the English are still there.”

“Maybe they mean to slip away in the night.”

“We can only hope to be so lucky.”

Boucicaut rubbed his jaw. A scar ran just in front of one ear; a grim souvenir of the Battle of Nicopolis, it had cost him the feeling in the lower side of his face and frozen one corner of his mouth in a permanent, lopsided scowl. “Their Henri doesn’t seem the type.”

“He isn’t. But if enough of his army has the wisdom, morning may find him with just one or two hundreds. Then we can force a capitulation.”

Boucicaut opened his mouth to reply, but at that moment splattering footsteps sounded behind them. The two commanders turned to see a page stumble to a halt.

“My lords – Clignet de Brabant sends word – the comte de Vendôme is telling the crossbowmen to go home – he’s telling them they’re not needed on the morrow –”

“WHAT – Dieu des batailles, I told him earlier to stop.” Boucicaut ran a hand through his hair. “I’m going to kill him.”

“No, you’re not.” D’Albret pinched the bridge of his nose. “Go find the sieur de Rambures, round up the crossbowmen before they get too far, and tell them to stay put. I’ll deal with Vendôme., it’s part of my office.”

Through the camp, past cookfires and armorers and lines of fretful horses, to the tent with the arms of the duc de Bourbon…

“Ah, cousin, welcome!” The duke smiled. He had a cup of wine in his hand; from the glazed look in his eyes, it wasn’t his first.

“Bourbon, where is your brother?”

“My…”

“Louis, comte de Vendôme. Where is he?”

“Uhhh…”

“Go find him and tell him to stop interfering with my crossbowmen. He’s this close to losing his command.”

Bourbon gestured with his cup, spilling wine onto his sleeve, then spilled more trying to brush it off. “Now see here, my lord Constable, they’re not really –”

“JEAN. Go. Find. Him.”

Bourbon froze, D’Albret’s tone snapping him back to the nine-year-old boy caught poking his older cousin’s horse with a stick.

“Ah…em, yes. I’ll go see to it, then.”

D’Albret glared after him as he shuffled off, shouting for the nearest page. His hand strayed unconsciously to the pouch at his belt, fingering the golden beads again.

If the king were well, none of them would dare step out of line.

“My lord Constable?” He turned at the sound of the voice. “Is something wrong?”

Charles, duc d’Orleans stood at the entrance to his own tent, a faint crease between his eyes. D’Albret sighed internally. Yes, of course, everything’s wrong. We shouldn’t even be here, half the camp is as ready to kill each other as the English, and every lordling with a feather to stick in his cap thinks he needs to challenge my command!

“It’s being taken care of,” he said instead.

Orleans watched him for a moment. Young as he was, he was remarkably good at reading people.

“I heard it said that the men from St. Omer thought they’d missed the battle, when they arrived.” He was trying to be light-hearted. D’Albret felt his jaw tightening again.

“Likely they wished they had.”

“Surely it won’t be even a half-day’s work tomorrow, there are so few English. They’re as timid as mice, they know we have them surrounded.”

D’Albret felt as if someone had squeezed his heart. Despite the young man’s looks, he reminded him less of Louis and more of Charles the king, Orlean’s uncle and godfather. Bright-eyed and smiling in spite of nerves, long ago, just outside Roosebeke… “Don’t worry, cousin, think of the glory to be won!”

“That’s not timidity,” he said quietly. “Never mistake it.” Then more harshly: “And I thought you spent time in conversation with the dame de Pizan. She could have told you as well as any that you never fight a cornered army. Men who know they’re doomed will fight all the harder. I’d as lief have her here than all the Princes of the Blood. The woman’s got more sense in her little finger than the rest of us put together.” He began to stalk away.

“My lord, wait.”

D’Albret turned, wondering what new nonsense was about to be thrown at him. The duc stepped forward, so as not to have to shout.

“I… I wanted to apologize for what I said earlier, in the council. I was out of line. I should have shown more respect for your authority.”

“You’re the king’s nephew,” D’Albret replied. “Your authority is at least equal to mine.” Hardly absolution; that was the greatest source of their problems at the moment, and Orleans knew it.

“Nonetheless, I am grateful that you gave me a place in the vanguard. I won’t let you down, I swear it.”

“I may give you orders, orders that you don’t like. Orders that may sound like they’ll cost you some feat of arms.

“I’ll follow them. Whatever you say, I’ll do.”

That squeezing feeling was back in his heart. “There’s something I need you to understand. This isn’t a joust; men will die tomorrow, and not just the English. You’re putting yourself in more danger than you know, and if you falter, whether in body or spirit, you as good as kill the man beside you. I need you to understand how serious this is.”

Orleans blinked. “I understand.”

And truly, D’Albret mused, he thinks he does.

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

[black eyes and busted lips]

Day 21: "I missed you.” #twdgdrabblechallenge

Note: This took so long to finish. I had two different ideas for this that I tried to combine but it wasn’t working so I had to rewrite it. Anyway, here’s some more Mitch. 

AO3

---

Justin’s in his bed. 

Which is bullshit because Justin has his own damn bed not even five steps away, a bed that he hasn’t even slept in for the past two weeks! 

But no, he’s lying face first in Mitch’s pillow, spread out across Mitch’s mattress, and rolled up in Mitch’s blanket. 

He’s never wanted to kick Justin’s ass as hard as he does now, and that’s saying a lot. 

After the initial shock of the sight before him, Mitch makes sure to slam the door shut extra hard, the wooden frame vibrating with such force that it makes Justin jump, but not much. He keeps his face hidden in the pillow and groans. 

“Hey, dipshit,” Mitch scowls. “What the hell are you doing?”

No response. 

Mitch kicks the frame. 

“That’s my bed.”

“Don’t see your name on it,” Justin snaps back without any real bite, words partially muffled by the pillow. 

“My name-” Is he fucking serious? 

Justin socks him in the face and then doesn’t talk to him for two whole fucking weeks- two weeks!- goes out of his way to completely avoid Mitch, going as far as to sleep in one of the empty rooms by himself, and now he’s back and curled up in his bed? 

No, he doesn’t just get to do that after the shit he’s pulled. 

Gripping the blanket, Mitch yanks it off.

Justin doesn’t move, but he lightly shivers, curling in on himself.

Fuck.

Rolling onto his back, Justin stares up at the top bunk, forcing himself to avoid Mitch’s hard stare rubbing his face with his hands. The spotting of healed over wounds still kiss his knuckles, red and angry. 

Arms folded over his chest, Mitch kicks the frame again. 

“What the fuck are you doing?”  Mitch demands, forcing his voice deeper, an attempt at being intimidating.

Justin’s dark eyes dart towards him quick beneath the mess of curls, but the weariness weighs heavy in them and through the contours of his thin face.  

“Hiding,” he answers quietly, unnaturally timid. 

Fuck. 

Mitch doesn’t even need any more of an answer. 

After the whole thing with Minnie blew up in Justin’s face- just like Mitch said it would- the news spread around the school just as fast as Minnie could run her mouth. 

It started out small and truthful: Justin asked Minnie to teach him how to dance, then he kissed her. Minnie got mad, pushed him away, and stormed out. 

By the time it got to Mitch, the story was that Justin professed his undying love for Minnie with a terrible dance, shoved his entire tongue down her throat, and cried when Minnie kicked him in the nuts. Then, Mitch confronted him about it because, apparently, he’s in love with her now, too- Jesus fucking Christ- and their little fight in the courtyard was about Minnie’s honor and affection and nothing else. 

And that’s just one of the stupid fucking versions. 

A miserable two weeks on all levels, but he didn’t bother explaining himself to the others. He wasn’t about to give them the satisfaction of taking his words out of context to play their little drama-filled game of telephone. 

He knows why he wrote that shit all over Ericson, he knows why that fight broke out between them, why he busted Justin’s lip open and tackled him to the ground, he knows why he’s pissed off. 

He does. 

Justin’s an asshole. That’s why. That’s the reason. 

Mitch’s got nothing to prove to anybody, no reason to explain himself. 

At least the others knew to leave him alone.

Justin wasn’t so lucky.

Most of the girls are avoiding him, opting to say nasty things about him rather than have any interaction with him. The guys were another story, most of them not caring about the stupid nonsense buzzing around and still willing to talk to Justin.

Except for Mitch. He hasn’t talked to him since the fight.

Never a dull fucking moment at Ericson.

Their room is quiet, awkwardly so, damn uncomfortable- Mitch has to roll his shoulders, turn away from the depressing sight of Justin and move. 

Justin’s gym bag rests on desk, dirty clothes pouring out from the opening along with a book- that’s where his bird book went the fucker- and something shiny. Snatching the book, Mitch inspects it for any sign of damage until a noticeable clang falls upon the wooden surface. 

A watch? 

A disgustingly expensive-looking watch, heavy with real silver and chip in the glass, one that Justin nor his family could ever afford in their lifetime. 

“What’s this?” 

The guilt is immediate.

“A watch, dumbass.”

“Uh-huh,” Mitch frowns. “Where’d you get it?”

“Found it.”

Justin’s good at a lot of things, theft being one of them, but he’s a shit liar and always has been. That paired with his sticky fingers is what got him sent here in the first place.

Mitch sighs, looking the watch over in hands in hopes of finding a name or something. A watch like this is usually engraved but not this one. Shit, he’d have to snoop around and see just where Justin “found” this later. 

He pockets it, waiting for Justin to throw a fit, but he doesn’t. He only stares at Mitch with such a despondent stare that Mitch wants to deck him in his stupid face, then maybe they could have matching black eyes. 

“How’s your face?” Justin asks suddenly as if reading his mind. Or maybe the bruising’s still that noticeable. “You can see, right?”

“Obviously.”

“I just mean it’s not swollen anymore, asshole,” Justin pulls himself up, slumping his shoulders, stare fixated on his hands. “I didn’t mean to hit you that hard.”

“Yes, you did.”

“...Yeah, but only because you’re a dick.”

“Oh, I’m a dick,” Mitch scoffs. “Fuck you.”

“Fuck you!” Justin’s off the bed, stumbling over the blanket curled up on the ground. “You wrote that shit all over the place! Everyone saw it! ‘Justin fucked a walker,’ God, what’s wrong with you!” 

“Yeah, well, you attacked me first!” 

“Because I knew you did it! And now Minnie won’t talk to me and every- everybody hates me-”

“Oh, shut up, no one hates you!”

“God, you’re so-” Justin chokes, and Mitch finally realizes that he’s crying. Justin falls back onto the bed, face in his hands as he sobs. 

Fuck, fuck, fuck-

That’s not-

He didn’t-

Justin wipes his nose on his sleeve, practically hyperventilating as he tries to breathe through his tears. Mitch is frozen, heart hammering too hard and brain malfunctioning with the question what am I supposed to do?

“I didn’t even kiss her,” Justin chokes out. “I tried to but she didn’t want to because she doesn’t like- she doesn’t like me and I got mad and kicked her out and then she told everyone and then you- you’re supposed to be my friend and you write shit like that for no reason because you think it’s funny-”

“I-”

“-and now no one wants to talk to me except fucking Louis and God, I hate him so, so, so much I-” Justin hiccups, eyes red and glossy as he motions towards Mitch “-I’m- I’m such-”

He’s off the bed again, and Mitch thinks he’s going to hit him, and he’s going to let him, but the impact isn’t what he expects. Instead of a fist colliding with his jaw, arms are wrapping around his waist and his chin tickles with the brush of soft curls. 

The heat of it, the contact, it melts through his clothes, his flesh, and seeps down into his bones. His pulse vibrates in his cheeks, blood pumping so fast he might pass out. 

“I fucking missed you, man,” Justin shakes his head, “even if you are an asshole and I hate you because I got no one else.”

What the fuck...?

What the fuck?

Mitch is hugging him back, he realizes, and it’s awkward and weird but it’s not terrible, not really. Except for the crying part, he could do without that. 

When Justin pulls back, he’s cold despite the heat staining his cheeks and neck. 

Justin slaps him. 

“Ow, fuck!” 

“That’s for being a prick,” Justin sniffles. 

A fuck you is on the tip of his tongue, but Mitch bites it back, reaching out and yanking on a chunk of Justin’s hair. 

“Hey!”

“That’s for the black eye.” 

They glare at each other, but that hostility breaks when one of them snorts out a laugh. Mitch doesn’t know if it’s him or not, but they’re chuckling together with only Justin’s swollen eyes and Mitch’s flushed cheeks remaining from the fight. 

“Sorry,” Justin wipes his eyes. “Didn’t mean to turn into such a girl.”

“Eh,” Mitch shrugs. “Not much different than you usually are.”

“Oh, fuck off.”

“You’re like a clingy girlfriend.”

“Fuck you, don’t be gay.”

A jolt shoots through his gut, making him cough and quickly and loudly retaliate, “Then don’t be such a girl, dickwad!” 

“Jesus, okay,” Justin rolls his eyes, pushing him out of the way to begin filing his clothes back into their respective drawers. 

A sense of relief washes over him. 

Mitch wouldn’t ever tell him, not in a million goddamn year, that he had missed him, too. 

Justin, this little shit who thought he was six feet tall and unbreakable but really, was fragile, who felt impulses to take what wasn’t his and then would lie horribly about it when caught, who has lived in this room with him since their first days in this hellhole, who was too scared to move out because he hated being alone, who wanted nothing more than Minnie to look at him like he hung the moon in the sky and gave it it’s beautiful glow.

Justin, who was an asshole but who was also his best friend, whether he liked it or not. Who helped him take care of Willy even though he could barely stand the kid, who hated Louis for little to no reason just because, who once called Ruby a fat, hillbilly troll then cried when she whacked him with a wooden spoon so hard that it left a welt on his arm.

Justin, who liked comic books and kept a gross porn collection under his bed, who thought Almond Joys were the best candy bar in the world, who couldn’t shoot a bow straight to save his life, who gave Mitch a dumb book on birds, who told Mitch through his tears that he missed him. 

Justin, who Mitch had missed so damn much these past two weeks it nearly drove him to uncover that secret stash of booze Justin keeps under his bed and drink all of it, even if he loathes the taste of alcohol.

Justin...

“Can I have my watch back?”

“Your watch?”

“Finders keepers.”

“Well, in that case, I found it and it’s mine now,” Mitch smirks. “Finders keepers.”

“Asshole.”

Missed you, too, he thought. 

[wernerherzogs]

to be fair now i've watched some of his other stuff and yeahh, it's all pretty obvious and doubling down on stereotypes. i guess as someone who never really had close male friends or was interested in their dynamics when i was younger, it kind of helped me think about the biases i might have so i just wanted to share out of pure lockdown boredom, sorry haha. but yeah, fair enough, god knows we've had enough reaction videos to last us a lifetime :) thanks to the other anon for explaining better!

ahhhh you wanted to talk biases! got it! don't apologise, i just never realised bc i haven't seen those vids yet, and only that other anon's summary gave me more idea re: what you were after. i should watch them first before commenting, but to be fair, the guy can have his own biases, too. if he prefaces the hendall video with the statement that they're friends who've dated on/off again and then sees them being friendly and having a playful banter, he's more likely to read it as flirtation. similarly if he approaches the larry one with the assumption that they're straight guys who to his knowledge have only been with women but happen to have some rumours floating around them, he might see in there friendship dynamics only. the important thing is if he'd watched just one video for those analyses, i'd say, and did no other research? because i might have my biases, but my approach to larry is fuller given that i'd been witnessing it over a significant amount of time via many different media sources. so even if i re-check my bias and am willing to consider a possibility that maybe larry had never even gone anywhere in the first place, that doesn't mean that i wasn't seeing certain behaviour from them both over a prolonged time, behaviour that had made me personally believe something was going on. i mean, sometimes feelings happen, but they still aren't acknowledged by the parties involved. like, i didn't imagine louis getting a semi on stage because harry had whispered in his ear, for just one example, but whether they actually did something about it in private later is naturally just my assumption, and might not have been true.

my real tl;dr in the year of our lord 2020, aka after a long passage of time since any of us saw those two together in RL last, is that i'd say that both sides (truthers and antis, from the lack of better terms) have/had strong arguments for their respective cases. i think larries can still claim that something has at least happened in the past, while antis can quite comfortably believe that nothing's been going on for the last half of a decade.

[bisluthq]

When Karlie's pregnancy was announced, I saw a tweet saying a Larry-split amongst gaylors was imminent and wow, how true. So shoutout to you for the realistic kay timeline and reality checks. Because even TTB-haters on twitter do not realize how they sound and it's concerning. Makes everybody else look bad tbh

Well yeah because babygates always lead to the surfacing of the real tinhats (Larries, Markle tinhats, etc). Like a baby is a baby is a baby. You can say the baby is born to parents who don’t truly love each other maybe or that it’s part of an arrangement or that the mom used a surrogate or that the paternity is in question but it’s always a real fucking baby.

And if you publicly tie yourself to the person you publicly tie the baby to it’s a choice. So like whether Louis loved Briana (seemingly not lmaoooo) or Joshlie love each other (I mean IMO all signs point to yes but I’m not them) or if Zayn is Gigi’s bébé daddy (I don’t know and don’t care) it doesn’t matter these fucks had babies.

And I think most of us get that and know that just in standard non celeb life babies come off all sorts of circumstances. People claim paternity certain ways under all sorts of circumstances. Life’s messy and weird and complicated.

But for tinhats that’s not a comfortable thing to admit because they want their faves to be together 5eva even when that implies they’re miserable af and forced to do horrible things to one another and themselves and the “PR romance” partner. Like my favorite tinhats are the Robstens who GENUINELY BELIEVE RPatz and KStew - both an actual bearding arrangement and a clear stunt to promote Twilight - are sekrit marriedz and that their subsequent respective partners are all part of a “narrative”.

What’s also funny to me is the most ardent tinhats come from ships that were formally marketed (as friendships or on screen or formally as a romance). Like Kays - to this day - don’t look at the clear fucking stuntiness of the Vogue shit and go “ah so they were selling me something” they go TRUE!!!! 😍😍 LOVE!!!! Robstens point to stunts to show how happy and in love they were. Terry theorists literally use Scandal episodes to prove there was an affair. It’s never subtle shit like it’s... stuff that was sold. And like that doesn’t mean that stuff didn’t happen. (I mean Robsten never happened that was a lesbian and her straight guy friend lmao constantly on their way to talk bitches but the others like lmaoo who knows I’m not them). But “proof” isn’t stunty magazine editorials or scripted interviews or pap walks and if your ship did a bunch of those my dudes you were being sold a product.

PR is real. Stunting is real.

But if, as I say, a ship was being sold to you at some stage you should ask yourself if you really think you’re smarter than the people who did the selling 🤷🏻‍♀️

[margridarnauds]

4 & 5

Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not a trained historian and I'm an anglophone researcher, which means that my access to materials is HEAVILY restricted. As a result, I can't in good conscience stand behind EVERYTHING I say because, simply put, there might be another source out there.

But! Let's talk Arch-Thot Louis-Philippe Joseph d'Orléans, aka Philippe Égalité

4. In your eyes, what is their biggest strength?

He was a very brave man. We have accounts of him, say, going DEEP into coal pits to see for himself what conditions were like. He was THERE with the Montgolfier brothers with one of their experiments with balloon flights, taking off from Saint Cloud on the 14 August, 1784, and actually having to poke holes in the balloon itself when they rose too high. He jumped into a stream in order to save a groom of his who’d fallen in. You get this idea that he was very much a hands on type of guy who was constantly trying to be IN the action. 

On top of the physical bravery, this was also a man who was willing to openly defy the royal family, which sometimes came back to bite him in the ass. During the séance royal in November 1788, he said “That’s illegal” to Louis XVI in 1788, causing him to be exiled to one of his chateaus for 5 months sans visitors (Louis’ response was, naturally, “It is legal because I want it”). He was an openly liberal member of the royal family who supported the Revolution and, when the time came, took off his old surname and replaced it with “Philippe Égalite.” I won’t say that he did well with EVERYTHING, he was, fundamentally, a ROYAL trying to be a Good Revolutionary and sometimes I think he fell back on his 18th century patriarchal BS, but he had some really, really solid moments. You’ve got to respect the ATTEMPT at least. 

5. What is the most ridiculous statement on them you have ever read?

Like. Pretty much 90% of the currently existing secondary material on him. I have many Thinky Thoughts on why this is and why people still...never seem to have made their peace with him, but suffice it to say, I think that we’re still a long way from it as far as the historiography’s concerned, especially in terms of pop culture. The Royalists, I don’t think, have ever really forgiven him for not walking in line with them, and the Anglo-American take on the French Revolution is, historically, heavily pro-Royalist. 

But, let’s start with this page. Now, SOME things here are technically true. So yay. But it ALSO GAVE US. 

His son was so disgusted over his vote for King Louis' execution (for treason) that he abandoned him and defected from France, taking his brother (who was imprisoned with Philippe) and sister (who Philippe sent off with her governess, Madame de Genlis, and tried to take back before her name was added to the list of émigrés, though he was too late and so ended up ordering her to remain abroad for her own safety) with him. (Which is funny given that Louis-Philippe would devote considerable page time in his memoirs to trying to demonstrate his father’s innocence.)

He is strongly believed to have instigated the October march on Versailles by deliberately withholding grain from the starving peasants (because that’s in-character for the man who sheltered the poor from the cold in the winter of 1788), and by paying people to march on the Palace at Versailles.

He claimed to have been in Paris at the time of the march (Because he was), although (Biased) witnesses claimed to have seen him lead the angry mob chanting 'long live our King d'Orleans' to the Queen's bedroom (Funny that he doesn’t pop up in any of the eyewitness accounts of what went down in the Queen’s bedroom). Some accounts (Who?) also claim he was dressed as a woman. 

He was a sadist who, when the Princess Lamballe's head was brought to his window on a pike, merely stood up, looked at it, and sat back down to his supper.

Whatever ambitions he had to seize power went unrealized when he was arrested and executed by Revolutionaries along with the remaining Bourbons under suspicion (*cough* karma *cough*) (If you dare to hope that the world might be a better place, you deserve to be ripped away from your family and then executed. Sympathy for victims of the Terror is only to be extended to. Like. Royalists.).

Some of this, like the Versailles thing, are pretty much. Recognized as being false. Like, WHATEVER role he MIGHT have had in organizing the March (which...I honestly don’t like that line of thinking because it really does take the agency away from the women who DID PARTICIPATE, and ties into the usual Royalist take that the people were incapable of independently rising up, there HAD to be an evil, aristocratic genius on the sidelines), he was not IN THE AREA. We have multiple ACCOUNTS of him not being in the area at the time. 

The Lamballe thing...MIGHT be true, I have read the accounts of that one, though Grace Dalrymple Elliot, who renounced her friendship to him after he voted for Louis XVI’s death, said that he cared a great deal for Lamballe and would have done anything in his power to save her. The truth is so muddied at this point and the Legende Noir around Philippe is so thick that I can’t be sold one way or another. I really, really don’t think that he was a sadist, though, regardless. That goes against everything that I’ve read about the man, every fact that we do HAVE about him. And, at the risk of being an apologist...IF the story is true, and that’s a BIG if that I’m not willing to concede, people can react very differently to shocking events. Sometimes, you see something horrific, go about your business, and then freak out three hours later. 

And, IF he had any ambitions to the throne, which...again...we can’t KNOW for certain, I don’t know if the stray thought entered his mind at 2 AM one day, but IF he did, he went about it in a very, very stupid way. And that’s possible! But what I firmly believe, given the evidence and his own personal statements, is that he genuinely did NOT want the throne and would have been perfectly happy as an English squire with a passion for horse racing. Every single time allegations about him wanting power came up, rather than openly working to unseat Louis, he tried to go off somewhere else. At one point, he allegedly wanted to go to America, but his longstanding favorite, Madame de Buffon, said that she wouldn’t go with him because, essentially, she could never take the blame for when he came to regret it. After Lafayette pinned him over the March to Versailles, rather than take the accusations head on, which MIGHT have salvaged his reputation, he went into voluntary exile in England much, much longer than he needed to. 

And, of course, there’s the various and other rumors spread about him via the various pamphlets that were written about him. One of the longstanding favorites, dating back to his own lifetime, is of course that he sexed the Prince de Lamballe to death. (The claim is that he wanted the Prince’s fortune and, since he was married to the Prince’s sister, he hoped to get the inheritance via her, so he had the Prince sleep around in hopes of getting the venereal disease that would eventually end the Prince’s life. Though there is also a distinct feeling of Dorian Gray and Lord Henry in the descriptions of the Prince’s “seduction,” he was not by HIMSELF accused of personally sexing him to death. It was a sexing him to death by proxy, really. Even Talleyrand thought it was ridiculous, with the real explanation simply being that the two of them were thots.) 

Orléans’ sex life in general tends to be amped up to 11, even past the thottiness that can be confirmed via actual sources. Like, it tends to become one more aspect of his “villainy,” with the “wholesome” world of the Royal Family and the more conservative, domestic family values that they exemplify  being contrasted with the Depraved Duc D’Orléans and his various and assorted fuck-a-thons (”Yeah, it’s fine to support an oppressive class system that heavily punishes any transgression from the social norm, whether in terms of sexuality, gender, religion, or just. Saying something like “I think people should have human rights.” But I for one draw a line at fucking between multiple consenting parties.”). Pamphlet writers really stumbled over one another trying to outdo themselves with describing the scenes in lurid detail, like they’re fascinated by it but they’re also repulsed at the same time. 

Really...there are just. Too many ridiculous takes, too little time. 

[bountyofbeads]

Trump’s Paradigm of the Personal https://nyti.ms/2NwK2xW

Excellent piece by @CharlesMBlow of the Times. Highly recommend, also the comments are interesting as well.

Trump’s Paradigm of the Personal

He confuses the way he thinks he is treated with the well-being of the country.

By Charles M. Blow, Opinion Columnist

Published Aug. 25, 2019 | New York Times | Posted August 26, 2019 |

For Donald Trump, all is personal.

And in his view, he is not the executive of the company. He is the embodiment of the country. He runs the country the way he ran his business, as the curating and promotion of his personal brand.

The people who support him are customers — people to be sold a vision and a dream. The people who criticize or oppose him threaten the brand and must be dealt with.

For Trump, everything is image-based and rooted in the appearance of personal relationships. When the Danish prime minister rebuffed his overture about buying Greenland, calling the idea “absurd,” Trump threw a tantrum and canceled his visit to Denmark.

Trump discussed the episode at one of his press gaggles, calling the prime minister’s response “nasty’ and saying, “We can’t treat the United States of America the way they treated us under President Obama.” He went on to say: “She’s not talking to me. She’s talking to the United States of America. You don’t talk to the United States that way, at least under me.”

No, actually, she was talking to him.

America was not being dismissed or disrespected. This proposal, which sounded like a joke, was being laughed at. And this president hates being laughed at.

Everything in Trump’s view is about whether someone is nice or nasty to him. It’s not about the country at all. It’s not about historical precedent or value of continuity.

His dislike of his predecessors — Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and even Jimmy Carter — is personal, not rooted in policy. He has a particular obsession with Obama, and has set about to undo everything Obama had done.

It’s petty and small and beneath the presidency, much like Trump himself.

I believe that Trump has had a longstanding belief about how China should be dealt with, but I believe that the current trade war is as much a personal beef with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping. Trump thought that he could play rough and that Xi would fold.

That was silly and shortsighted. The U.S. presidency is term-limited. China’s is not. The Chinese may experience pain from the trade war, but they can afford to wait Trump out.

The fact that Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, won’t attempt to manipulate the economy in ways Trump thinks would be favorable, but is instead operating as an independent thinker, Trump takes as a personal slight. Trump appointed him. Trump demands loyalty and blind obeisance.

When China announced another round of retaliatory tariffs this week, Trump had a Twitter meltdown, tweeting “... My only question is, who is our bigger enemy, Jay Powell or Chairman Xi?” and sending the markets into a tailspin.

Trump hated North Korea’s Kim Jong-un before he loved him. Kim has played Trump like a fiddle. Kim has baited Trump into two summits, where Trump got nothing and Kim got a priceless public relations moment. Kim can just send Trump love letters and do what he wants and surrender nothing. In Trump’s paradigm of the personal, Kim likes him and is his friend.

Vladimir Putin is also exploiting Trump’s personal need to be liked — his weak man’s desire to be admired by strong men. Trump has a deep and mysterious affection for Putin. Yes, Putin helped to get him elected, but I’m not sure even that explains the way Trump genuflects for him.

Everyone around Trump knows his weakness: He is a bottomless pit of emotional need, someone who desperately wants friends but doesn’t have the emotional quotient to know how to make and keep them. So, they flatter him and inflate him.

They have all become major-league yes men and women.

None of this is good for the country. The presidency is not owned; it is occupied. It is bigger than any man or woman. Men have grown into it, but they have never subsumed it.

The presidency must have one eye on the past and one on the future. It must place national interest over personal interest. It has absolutely nothing to do with any one person’s feelings.

In George Washington’s farewell address of 1796, he said:

“The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”

Trump is trying to embody the country and to lead it astray in the way that Washington warned against. Trump is a slave to his emotions, and this impulse is doing great harm to the nation, both internally and on the world stage.

I’m not sure that damage is irreparable. Our democracy, though fragile in many ways, has proved remarkably durable in others. But there is no doubt that the damage Trump is doing is deep and will take time and effort to undo.

Trump’s personal problems will leave a national scar.

COMMENTS FROM READERS, ADD YOUR THOUGHTS AS WELL:

""Trump’s personal problems will leave a national scar." More like an open wound that won't heal. 60 million citizens have succumbed to his bombast, and to date there seems to be no weakening of their support. That will take years if not decades to heal. It may never. Iraq and the Bush years were tragic, but with President Obama we started a recovery. Even with one of the deepest recession, we all pulled together, and we started the to build jobs again and pulled out of the recession quicker than the rest of the world. We lead the way. But literally within days of Trump taking office the country started it's tragic descent into the abyss. And there is no end in sight."

CHERRYLOG754, ATLANTA

"Because this president views himself a king, like Louis XIV, his actions and words smack of "l'etat c'est moi". Which is a fancy way of saying, what Charles just said, he thinks he embodies the nation, not leads it. Which is funny, because if you are the nation, wouldn't you have a better appreciation of its history, culture, mores, and values? One would think so. I watched the world leaders at G-7 and except for Trump, each shows a keen understanding of what their country represents and where it's headed. Even newbie Boris Johnson is well educated, even if his bombast often resembles that of Trump. More important, they know they are leading their entire countries, not just a small base of ardent supporters. Trump's problem is he can't grow his base, because he doesn't want to: the best part of his job is the one he shouldn't be doing on the taxpayers' dime: holding political rallies to boost his ego." CHRISTINE MCM, MASSACHUSETTS

" In other words Charles, Trump lacks the temperament to be President. Anyone who is honest with him/herself knows that. Even the Republicans in Congress know this. The problem is that neither they nor Trump's base care."

JAY ORCHARD , MIAMI FL

"It makes a sort of sense that Trump expected his "tough guy" act with President Xi would result in Xi giving in. Just as he thought his thrown down the papers and stamp out of the room would make Speaker Pelosi grovel for whatever he wanted. Trump, in the private sector, could choose his victims, and he made sure they would at least perceive he was far richer and more powerful, (whether he was or not) so he could, bluster and rage, doing as he pleased and demanding whatever he wanted. That doesn't work when you become a public employee, which the President is, and Trump has no other rabbits to pull out of that same tired stage hat. And he clearly can't figure out why it's not working any more."

1DCAce, LOS ANGELES CA

"There's nothing mysterious about the President's admiration for Mr. Putin. Putin has made Russia into exactly what Mr. Trump would like to make the United States: an authoritarian plutocracy where the super-rich can do absolutely anything they want — except dispute the legitimacy of the government — while everyone else is kept in line by voter suppression, state-controlled media and churches, and an intimidating security apparatus."

JL WILLIAMS, WAHOO NE

"From my understanding of Trump, his greatest fear, going back to his early days in NYC, is that he is not taken seriously. It's an old vs new money sort of thing, as far as I can tell. He tried to buy his way into big money society by assuming a false name and giving the media false numbers about his personal wealth he was so desperate to prove his real worth. He put gold plate on everything he touched, hoping that would show how wealthy he was. Still, no one took him seriously. And now he's finding that world leaders fail to take him seriously as well. You can almost hearing him thinking -- I'm in the White House, surely they'll take me seriously now. But alas, he's the poor little sort-of-rich boy that no one wants to play with. He doesn't care about the country. He only cares about himself. And he still finds that no one takes him seriously. Sad, as he used to like to say."

AVRDS, MONTANA

"Excellent observations as usual from Charles Blow. I would only add that Trump's form of mental illness is dangerous. It is not innocuous, rather it is pervasive and boundless. That renders him an immediate dangerous to our nation. Immediate. That means he must be removed office immediately. Failure to do so opens the door to sheer disaster and that is exactly what we are looking at everyday he remains office. Disaster." INDEPENDANT, ALABAMA

"After World War 2, our allies respected the United States. Mr Trump has destroyed this respect. Now, our once-firm allies are looking to go around the United States and put their countries first. This will result in a race to the bottom. Trump has diminished the US - and succeeded in making China and Russia great. However, it’s important to remember the this isn’t just Mr. Trump. The vast majority of Republicans like what Mr Trump does, not seeing the damage and reveling in his tough-guy rhetoric. When the damage becomes too obvious to ignore, they’ll say that Trump was’t really a Republican (as they did with George W Bush) They will also, of course, blame Democrats for the consequences of Republican policies. Pity that Republicans, including Mr Trump, seem incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions."JOHN M, OAKLAND

"For Trump, the sun rises and sets in himself. He cannot conceive of anything without inserting himself somehow. He cannot make any move without calculating how it will benefit him personally. The farthest from what a leader should be."NM, NY

"In my more than 60 years I have never experienced a President who truly believed the nation, the American people, excluded all who did not support him. Nor millions of my neighbors who were fine with that idea if they considered themselves as part of that group of supporters. This, to me, is among the most dangerous things which this man has unleashed. My disappointment in my neighbors goes very deep. We will get past Trump, but not the millions of our fellows who like him."DAGWOOD, SAN DIEGO

"Countries can tragically and suddenly head in the wrong direction. In the 1930s, Germans were the most educated in Europe with Berlin the leading city in Europe. Ten years later, the country and most of Europe was destroyed. 75 million dead. It can happen here." SOMEWHERE, AZ

"I have a hard time seeing where it is all personal with Trump. He is faithfully carrying out two agendas, one of the white nationalists and one of the extreme libertarians. It is hard to tell how much of his rolling back of Obama's accomplishments are personal and how much is agenda driven. There seems little question that Trump will have done permanent damage. Western countries will no long be able to trust the US again as they did in the past as another Trump could be elected in any future election. It cannot be quantified how much he has set back efforts to fight climate change but it would seem to be considerable. Can white nationalism be put back in the bottle? That seems unlikely. Trump has uncorked some of the worst stuff in the US population. It is anybody's guess whether the country can return to its previous level of civility." BOB, HUDSON VALLEY

"In the same address Washington also spoke about the three big threats that could destroy America: too much debt, influence of foreign interests and political partisanship. hmmmm" AERYS

"People keep trying to find rational explanations for Trump's behavior. I don't think he generally acts from anything more complicated than going with what makes him feel good. He, and those around him, often say that when he feels attacked, he punches back. That is consistent with a lot of the strange things he has done. Punching back makes him feel strong and he likes that feeling. The problem is that governing is complicated. If Trump's feelings are hurt, he seems to feel justified in throwing a temper tantrum. That tendency to bluster in an effort to intimidate may work for male gorillas, but leaders of governments ought to know better." BETTY S, UPSTATE NY

“The U.S. presidency is term-limited.” The US presidency was term-limited. Does anyone really think he’s joking when he talks about being in office another 10 or 14 years? He’s not going to leave willingly. The bottom line here might end up being whether the military will support his coup."

CLAIRE ELLIOTT, EUGENE OR

"Rather than making America great again, 45 has made America a second rate country. Our allies no longer trust us to keep our word. Our enemies see that our leadership is faltering. It will take years perhaps decades to regain the trust we once enjoyed throughout the world. People see that 45 has not thought out anything he says past the current news cycle. There is no vision for America, no grand plan, nothing."

PSCHWIMER

"Now that this "president" has decided that he has the authority to order America's private businesses to cease all operations in China (which would entail crippling a great many of them financially), it seems to me that the 25th Amendment truly needs to be invoked. Which is to say that the walking apparition named Mike Pence should visit the Oval Office along with the leaders of both houses of Congress and as many of Trump's cabinet members as can be rustled up and tell our delusional chief executive that he has no such authority over private industry and that he should immediately and publicly acknowledge this. He should also explain that the order he had delivered was intended only as a suggestion or a recommendation. Should he refuse to go along with this, it would be clear that he's fully entered the realm of madness (as his private obsession with China would already seem to indicate) and that his removal from office would thereby become necessary. If we weren't already at such a critical juncture we could spend a good deal of time discussing Trump's own business connections with Beijing and arguing that his preference for having his (and Ivanka's) branded merchandise produced there should dictate that he not impugn other American business executives for doing the same thing (let alone "order" them to cease doing so). It's too late for idle speculation, however. Mad King Donald really has to go." STU FREEMAN, BROOKLYN

"I have to think that Washington's words would be met by Trump with blank incomprehension, not merely because the language is hard (by comparison with Trump's own "cartoon-bubble" mode of communication) but because understanding it would require Trump to betray his own most firmly-held convictions." PORTLAND, OR

"Thank you, Mr. Blow, for another strong column. This president's bizarre behaviors have led to complete demoralization and discouragement for U.S. citizens. How can a powerful country be so feckless when it comes to getting him out? Someone commented that the 25th amendment wouldn't work because it's for cases of complete incapacity. I assume they mean physical incapacity. In the case of mental/emotional incapacity, does a President have to be drooling and catatonic, or fly into a rage on television? Is it not enough that he lies constantly, proposes buying another country, frequently insults allies, calls himself the chosen one, decrees that private businesses shall exit China, and flip-flops in divergent directions on important national policies during the same 24-hour period? If it were another president in another time, members of Congress would have taken Trump in hand and led him away to restore order and standing to our country. But no, Congress is on vacation and Trump golfs while the Amazon burns."GWOO, HONOLULU

"The Greenland episode is classic Trump: throw out a crazy initial offer and see what happens. But international politics is not pure business. Greenland was never up for sale by Denmark. Trump's behavior makes him look wholly irrational and by extension makes the American voting public look like a population of fools. Trump displays isolationism with "America First." Other countries should take this seriously. In fact, they should quarantine the United States. They should do so until America can figure out how to elect a sane president and a stable cast of supporting legislators in Congress. Indeed Trump has a penchant for calling those he dislikes "nasty," but that term is reserved for women in power, such as HRC and the prime minister of Denmark. Trump befriends ruthless dictators in countries like North Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia -- leaders who actively torture and kill their people -- without referring to them in this way. Trump is also already backtracking on China. He will not let the economy crumble before the election: after all, it's his only real "selling point." Trump maintains a particular disdain for Obama because he is black and Trump is an overt racist, as demonstrated by violations of the Fair Housing Act in the 1970s to the Central Park Five to birtherism to Charlottesville to the Squad. The election next year is bound to be a close one. Do what you can to see that Trump does not win a second term."

BLUE MOON, OLD PUEBLO