#the hidden lives of tudor women

[thisbibliophiile]

Books of 2024 #5

The Hidden Lives of Tudor Women by Elizabeth Norton

[rmelster]

The Tudors and their Catherine Howard: When Bluebeard became Lolita.

For @purplefictionlover

— INTRODUCTION: A TAKE WITH NO HONOUR.

Her name that cannot be pronounced without grief.

Katherine Howard, at such a tender age as to be considered by many as a child bride to this day, would go down in history as the unfortunate fifth bride of the most infamous sovereign the English of the 16th century could have dreaded of having. By the moment Henry VIII took possession of his penultimate queen, he had already divorced his first and his fourth wives, dragged his second to her unjust execution, and see the third die following the blood-curling birth of Henry’s only surviving son. The terrible bridegroom was on the brink of fifty tears of age, and any remaining of his former beauty had long fled his body; the fair bride would seventeen years of age, if not younger. Not much longer than a year later, the unhappy queen Catherine was accused of being unfaithful to the king with a man named Culpepper and promptly sentenced to death. She was nineteen, if not younger. The classic tale of Bluebeard and one of the six wives who were given no name in their story and, furthermore, no justice; a tale that cannot be read without a shiver and an unshed tear for those anonymous women that live and die by the hand of their husbands and are buried and forgotten. A tale, as old as time, that makes us remember the dangers hidden behind gallant men with too many secrets.

But instead of potentiating the hidden horrors of an unequal marriage, The Tudors (2007 - 2010) reject turning the woeful marriage of Henry Tudor and Catherine Howard into a cautionary tale with a grim ending, just to write an traditionally misinterpreted Lolita, with a seemingly sexually aware teenage girl entering into a torrid relationship with a man much older than her, and doomed by the narrative to follow her predecessor’s darksome fate.

[professionalowl]

Actually, while we're shaming people for their 452 unread books, here's a list of unread books of mine of which I own physical copies, attached to the year I obtained them, so that you can all shame me into reading more:

2024: Ways of Being: Animals, Plants, Machines: The Search for a Planetary Intelligence (James Bridle; just started)

2021: Islands of Abandonment: Life in the Post-Human Landscape (Cal Flyn)

2024: Extreme Fabulations: Science Fictions of Life (Steven Shaviro)

2021: The Unreal & The Real Vol. 1: Where on Earth (Ursula K. Le Guin)

2023: A Study in Scarlet (Arthur Conan Doyle)

2023: Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts Make Life Worth Living (Dmitri Xygalatas)

2023: Vibrant Matter: A political ecology of things (Jane Bennett)

2023: The History of Magic: From Alchemy to Witchcraft, from the Ice Age to the Present (Chris Gosden)

2018: Ways of Seeing (John Berger)

2022: An Immense World: How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us (Ed Yong)

2020: Owls of the Eastern Ice: The Quest to Find and Save the World's Largest Owl (Jonathan C. Slaught)

2023: My Life in Sea Creatures (Sabrina Imbler)

2020: The Bird Way: A New Look at How Birds Talk, Work, Play, Parent, and Think (Jennifer Ackerman)

2023: Birds and Us: A 12,000-Year History, from Cave Art to Conservation (Tim Birkhead)

2020: Rebirding: Restoring Britain's Wildlife (Benedict Macdonald)

2022: The Song of the Cell: An Exploration of Medicine and the New Human (Siddhartha Mukherjee)

2022: An Anthropologist on Mars (Oliver Sacks)

2021: Sex, Botany & Empire: The Story of Carl Linnaeus and Joseph Banks (Patricia Fara)

2023: At The Mountains of Madness (H.P. Lovecraft)

2019: Invisible Cities (Italo Calvino; I have been trying to finish this forever and am so, so close)

2023: Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf (Sean Duffy)

2021: What is History, Now? How the past and present speak to each other (Helen Carr and Suzannah Lipscomb; essay collection, half-read)

2020: Winter King: The Dawn of Tudor England (Thomas Penn)

2022: Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation (Silvia Federici)

2020: Black Spartacus: The Epic Life of Touissant Louverture (Sudhir Hazareesingh; half-read)

2019: The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper (Hallie Rubenhold; 3/4 read)

2022: Lenin on the Train (Catherine Merridale)

2020: October: The Story of the Russian Revolution (China Miéville)

2019: The Villa, the Lake, the Meeting: Wannsee and the Final Solution (Mark Roseman)

2019: Heimat: A German Family Album (Nora Krug)

2018: Maus I: My Father Bleeds History (Art Spiegelman)

2020: Running in the Family (Michael Ondaatje)

2022: Wide Sargasso Sea (Jean Rhys; also never technically "finished" Jane Eyre, but I did my time, damn you)

2023: Time Shelter (Georgi Gospodinov)

2019: Our Man in Havana (Graham Greene; started, left unfinished)

2019: The Spy Who Came In From The Cold (John le Carré)

2021: Why I'm No Longer Talking to White People About Race (Reni Eddo-Lodge; half-read)

2017: Rebel Without Applause (Lemn Sissay)

2022: The Metamorphosis, and Other Stories (Franz Kafka)

2011?: The Complete Cosmicomics (Italo Calvino; vaguely remember reading these when I was maybe 7 and liking them, but I have forgotten their content)

2022: Free: Coming of Age at the End of History (Lea Ypi)

2021: Fairy and Folk Tales of Ireland (W.B. Yates)

Some of these are degree-related, some not; some harken back to bygone areas of interest and some persist yet; some were obtained willingly and some thrust upon me without fanfare. I think there are also some I've left at college, but I'm not sure I was actually intending to read any of them - I know one is an old copy of Structural Anthropology by Claude Levi-Strauss that Dad picked up for me secondhand, which I...don't intend to torment myself with. Reading about Tom Huffman's cognitive-structural theory of Great Zimbabwe almost finished me off and remains to date the only overdue essay I intend to never finish, mostly because the professor let me get away with abandoning it.

There are also library books, mostly dissertation-oriented, from which you can tell that the cognitive archaeologists who live in my walls finally fucking Got me:

The Rise of Homo sapiens: The Evolution of Modern Thinking (Thomas Wynn & Fred Coolidge)

The Material Origin of Numbers: Insights from the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Karenleigh A. Overmann)

Archaeological Situations: Archaeological Theory from the Inside-Out (Gavin Lucas)

And, finally, some I've actually finished recently ("recently" being "within the past year"):

The Body Fantastic (Frank Gonzalo-Crussi, solid 6/10 essay collection about a selection of body parts, just finished earlier)

An Entertainment for Angels: Electricity in the Enlightenment (Patricia Fara, also a solid 6/10, fun read but nothing special)

Babel: An Arcane History (R.F. Kuang, 8/10, didactic (sometimes necessary) but effective; magic system was cool and a clever metaphor)

The Sign of Four (A.C. Doyle, 2/10 really racist and for what)

Dr. Space Junk vs. the Universe: Archaeology and the Future (Alice Gorman, 8/10, I love you Dr. Space Junk)

In Search of Us: Adventures in Anthropology (Lucy Moore, 8/10, I respect some of these people slightly more now)

The Dispossessed (Ursula K. Le Guin, 9/10 got my ass)

The Hound of the Baskervilles (A.C. Doyle, 7/10 themez 👍)

[fideidefenswhore]

Anne relied upon her mother in these years, once writing candidly to a friend that Elizabeth was the woman that she loved best in the world. Although often at court, Elizabeth and Anne would sometimes take a step back from the politicking and hostility and return home to Hever. They were in Kent during the first week of October 1528.

The Hidden Lives of Tudor Women (Norton, Elizabeth)

[greatbritishsimchallenge]

cassian is such a snake to margery that i'm actually feeling bad for her

Agreed. She has done nothing to deserve this.

Under the cut I have explained why Cassian is such a snake, but I've hidden it as it also gives a bit of spoiler - up to you if you read on!

In the challenge for the Tudor Era, one sim has to live the romantic life of Henry VIII (for those unfamiliar with British history, he had six wives: he divorced two, he beheaded two, one died in childbirth and one outlived him).

Henry VIII's behaviour is, for a modern audience, damn near indefensible. His treatment of women as son-makers, his adultery, his predatory habit of marrying super young, beautiful women when he was much, much older.... Cassian has to emulate all of that.

My challenge is going to be to try and not turn Cassian into some kind of stock villain while he does all of this shit. I don't want people to like him per se, but I also need to somehow make it convincing that someone could be so continuously awful to women he supposedly loved. This is going to be tough!

[horizon-verizon]

Rhaenyra's children have never been legitimised. Even though the king has claimed them as his grandchildren, even though corlys claimed them as velaryons. And even though laenor claimed them as his children. Even though they were claimed in front of multiple witnesses including the entire court, they’re still not legitimised. because they were never acknowledged as bastards in the first place. They have always been claimed as 'true born' children, not as bastards, and of course you can’t legitimise a true born child.

This better be about Fire and Blood, anon. I’m working from the assumption that it is.

I get your point, anon. I’ve both heard it and debated about it myself many times.

You're saying that even though Viserys and Corlys accepted them, by the rules of legitimization and acknowledgment they are and always will be bastards and illegitimate. People would have to have the official revelation for Viserys to publicly legitimize them.

My thing is that:

in real life, what determined a child’s legitimacy in Europe was nebulous right from the start and had to do with property and changed according to the needs of the people involved. In Wales–before the Norman conquest of it and its incorporation into “England” around 1093–had “bastard” meaning a child whose father doesn’t acknowledge them. All children acknowledged had equal legal rights. That included the right to share in the father’s inheritance. The real-life House of Tudor, Elizabeth I’s house, was a house that ruled England after Henry VII took the throne through conquest and after presenting himself as a candidate to those opposed to the Plantagenet York House. The Tudors weren’t a “big” house compared to these houses. And yet it produced notable people…. including Elizabeth I. William the Conqueror was not mocked for having unmarried parents, but specifically for his mother not having a good or illustrious lineage.

In Westeros, riverman Benedict Rivers/Justman/”the Bold” and Orys Baratheon (last one rumored bastard) loyally or dedicatedly lead armies for other lords or lead loyal soldiers themselves, completely negating the idea that bastards are inherently “monstrous” or “treacherous”, which is the bulk of disdain and trepidation for illegitimate people. Benedict Rivers, a bastard born from a Blackwood and a Bracken, became a King over all the riverlords and lead the riverlords into years of prosperity and peace. Orys founded the very house that currently rules Westeros (the irony is not lost on me, but that’s because Robert himself is a fucker and patriarchy).

illegitimacy doesn’t exist as a reality and an independent fact without political context; it must be actively enforced by the active decision of the people around to have any actual true effect

Rhaenyra, as a woman giving birth to children not her husbands’, would be getting a stronger even maybe deadly punishment for something that a man would get off scot free for, and her kids -- through no fault of their own -- would also have their lives taken or ruined. And for what? Something that has no real substance in of itself and is more conviently hidden for power if done right? [go to point #4] -- the further political and personal ramifications are is why the V boys’ parentage will never be admitted....just as her adultery would never be admitted (we don’t know if Book!Rhaneyra did the arrangement with Laenor of HotD)

both women and men have had affairs and lovers for millenia in ancient and medieval cultures....why? Because marriage is about resources and joining families together for power/security, not love or intimacy. And both men and women want love and/or real intimacy, or just horny. This means that there is a higher possibility for there to be "unexposed" "illegitimate" children on either side than you might think or have clear archealogical or otherwise historical evidence for. 

Sometimes affairs and illegitimate kids were tacitly and publicly known already ( @the-king-andthe-lionheart), but if a person were to want to gain something from a princess', noble lady's, queen’s reputation falling or outright removal...then whether or not she actually cheated on her husband or slept with others, they could engineer claims of her “ruination” and “treason” 

Jon Snow. Enough said.

Power is the thing that is really sought for, not moral righteousness. Alicent & Criston both are so out of the loop for this. Bastardy is a societal excuse and invention. It is a tool to be used, to flaunt, to slice others, to hide, etc. How you use it and for what purpose determines your ethical status. Add in circumstance and that will determine whether you will “win” or not.

EDIT: As what la-pheacienne says HERE, Viserys I, Corlys, and Laenor all tacitly/silently accepting Rhaenyra's sons is legally valid, as it is in all legal contexts, so yes they are all legitimate.

Aside from how Viserys and Corlys both voluntarily decide so, never revealing anything.

[haveyoureadthistoo]

November to remember, a booklist

The month is November. Too late for ghost stories, too early for Christmas tales. It’s sweater weather, but it rains unexpectedly. You grab your umbrella for a quick stroll and walk past that weird mix of rotting pumpkins on the streets and the first signs of fairy lights on the façades. What should you read in such liminal times?

Here’s a small list of recommendations, ranging from cute and cosy to the right amount of obnoxious. Think Franklin the turtle playing with his friends in the countryside, but also Emma Thompson in “Love Actually” listening to Joni Mitchell after finding out she’s been cheated on - because November can be messy and all over the place like that.

1. ANNE OF AVONLEA, by Lucy Maud Montgomery

I know, I know. Anne’s most notable quote is in praise of October, not its cousin November. But this is actually the sequel to “Anne of Green Gables”. Anne is now a proper teenager, full of manners and anxious about the future, but still very much a storyteller at heart, ready to fall head over heels over the first sign of a beautiful blooming garden or an enchanting starry sky. It’s heartwarming, funny and a bit sad, just like the month in question.

2. COLD COMFORT FARM, by Stella Gibbons

For the Amy Sherman-Palladino fans out there, think Mrs Maisel living in 1930’s Stars Hollow. The setting is funnily suffocating, the characters are whimsical and the dialogue is clever. It feels like eating apple pie on a big wooden kitchen table and washing it down with proper ale.

3. THE FORGOTTEN GARDEN, by Kate Morton

I would argue that all Kate Morton’s novels I’ve read so far have a November mood. Beautiful, abandoned landscapes, filled with melancholy and the promise of a fresh start. In this book, we follow three different timelines, representing three different generations of women. There’s a family secret to unfold and we can only put it together by accessing the memories and feelings of all three characters. It’s like a grown-up fairy tale, with old letters, antiques, a vast garden and a hidden maze. Victorian England, ladies and gentlemen.

4. ROOFTOPPERS, by Katherine Rundell

If Neil Gaiman and Philip Pullman wrote a novel together, this would probably be it. It has Gaiman’s magical writing style, but none of its innocence, borrowing instead from Pullman’s more cynical plot constructions - reckless guardians, children getting hurt and mysterious artifacts. Cold and transient like the season.

5. THE QUEEN'S FOOL, by Philippa Gregory

Are you a Tudor aficionado like myself? Then you will enjoy this book. Especially with a cup of tea and a plate of biscuits, sitting by the window and watching it get dark at 5pm. There’s not enough historical fiction written about the Tudor queens. Unlike other Gregory novels, though, Mary and Elizabeth are not the narrators here. Our conductor is Hannah, a young woman under their employment, first Mary, then Elizabeth, and who’s a little bit of a psychic with a complicated history herself. Pick this up and you're in for dangerous politics, some mysticism and lots of love.

6. THE DIARY OF A NOBODY, by George and Weedon Grossmith

Reading somebody’s diary has its share of pleasure, but it can feel very overwhelming if it gets too deep and personal, like you were invading their privacy. That is not the case here. Charles Pooter is an absurdly sensible man, boring in every sense of the word to all who know him, but that’s what makes his diary so amusing. His self-awareness is hilarious. Lots of middle child energy, just like November.

7. PIRANESI, by Susanna Clarke

Weird and wonderful. A well-executed attempt at discussing second life and simulation without the embarrassing tech, replacing that with art instead. Taking a synesthetic licence here, in my head this book is the same as the National Monument of Scotland, in Edinburgh. A Parthenon-like construction on top of a hill, dating from the early 19th century, which was left unfinished due to lack of funds and became its own thing - on one side, an urban view of the city; on the other side, the lushy greens of Holyrood Park and Arthur’s Seat. Beautiful and liminal.

8. THE READERS OF BROKEN WHEEL RECOMMEND, by Katarina Bivald

You know how every bookworm dreams of setting up their own bookshop in a cosy small town filled with quirky people? This is it. Nothing happens, but people happen. And books, lots of them. If spoilers make you upset, know that there are many conversations about well-known novels, but it adds to the charm. Maybe I’m cheating and this is an October book. Then again, it could be a Christmas book just as well, so there you go.

9. CONVERSATIONS WITH FRIENDS, by Sally Rooney

Frances is going through this very November-ish phase that comes to all university students, particularly those from the arts & humanities. The excitement of those first years is over, but the presumptuousness lingers. You think you’re very mature and at the same time cling to out-of-the-ordinary opinions and experiences so you don’t turn up boring and sad like the older people you know. The perfect prey for somebody going through another November-ish stage of life - the early 30s. Trust me, I know. I’ve been through both. Before you ask, I think the pretentious writing goes hand in hand with the rawness of the character’s first person narration, very obnoxious and sentimental. Like youth.

10. THE RAINY MOON AND OTHER STORIES, by Colette

Now, if you’re looking for a collection of short stories instead, look no further. Reading Colette is like listening to an observant, artistic friend telling you stories about interesting people she crossed paths with. Refreshing, progressive and good-hearted. Perfect to add a little bit of personality to the month.

Enjoy!

[theaudiblebookclub]

Listen to The Hidden Lives of Tudor Women by Elizabeth Norton on Audible. https://www.audible.com/pd/B0735ZX1GJ?source_code=ASSORAP0511160007

[philologistandbibliophile]

The first gentle movements, when they came, were testament to the fact that a new life had begun. For as far as Tudors were concerned, life did not begin at conception…Life itself was deemed to begin when the soul entered the fully formed foetus, which occurred at 46 days for a boy and 90 days for a girl.

—Elizabeth Norton, The Hidden Lives of Tudor Women: A Social History, p. 1

[theparanormalperiodical]

Everything You Never Knew (And Probably Will Never Know) About The Freemasons

They’re the most not-so-secret secret society on the planet.

No one really knows what the Freemasons do, nor why do they do it. But we do know that they are very much a real thing. So real, in fact, there are an estimated six million of ‘em milling around the world.

With a history dating back to the medieval era and a gaggle of famous followers in-tow, Freemasonry supposedly lives up to everything conspiracy theorists think the Illuminati should be.

Only in recent years have we been given a peak behind the metaphorical curtain into the rites, rituals and reality of a group that’s pretty out there but still shrouded in mystery.

Today we’re going to be discussing who the Freemasons are, what they believe, where they come from and all the rumours that seem to follow them in their way.

Grab your robes, kids. Let’s convert.

Who Are The Freemasons?

Freemasonry (also known as masonry) is a group of fraternal organisations that can be traced back to the local guilds of stonemasons. These guilds would regulate the stonemasons qualifications and how they interacted with their clients.

Freemasons can be split into 2 groups:

Regular Freemasonry which claims scripture must be in every Lodge, requires every member to believe in a Supreme Being, forbids discussion of religion and politics, and forbids the admittance of women. Continental Freemasonry where none of these restrictions exist.

The Freemasons are most known for their rigid organisational structure.

First, there’s the Lodge - this is the local unit. They are often supervised by a regional or national Grand Lodge.  

Second, there are several degrees of Freemasonry. There’s apprentice, journeyman and master mason. Progressing through each stage requires one to know the symbols of Freemasonry and the rituals, signs and words required to confirm to other members that he has been initiated. The degrees match those of the medieval craft guilds and they teach morality play (Tudor plays about good and bad) and lectures.

The Freemasons are dedicated to fellowship, moral discipline and mutual assistance. Although they do not define themselves as a religious group, they do have specific religious beliefs:

First, they believe there is a supreme being (AKA God, most likely the Christian God), and second, the soul is immortal.

Most Freemasons, especially in the UK or western Europe are white protestants. This is actually where Freemasonry started - in the UK. Despite its British origins, Freemasonry has spread across the world due to the global domination of the British Empire. Most international variants have their own, separate take on their beliefs and rituals and different rules as to be who can be admitted.

At the heart of it all, Freemasons want to become better people, something they enable through the skills of self-teaching. They have a heavy focus on giving to charity, and they are the UK’s biggest non-state donator to charitable organisations. They do not condone criminality, and basically want to create a group of good, honest men who want to better themselves.

How Do They Practice Their Beliefs?

What makes a secret society, ‘secret’? It’s the hidden rituals and customs that are kept tucked away from the rest of the world. For that reason, it’s quite difficult for me to get my hands on what they really do.

But I do know that they love a good symbol.

They even define Freemasonry as a "beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols". They are obsessed with the tools of stonmasons and attribute moral lessons to them.

As they pass through degrees, they are given ‘grips’ (handshakes) and tokens to signify they’ve gone up in the rankings and have accumulated different degrees.

Each ritual explores different symbols. The ceremonies associated with these rituals centres on both the construction of the Temple of Solomon (the first temple according to the Bible) and its architect Hiram Abiff.

Keeping these rituals, symbols and legends under wraps is a part of their lore, too. The Masonic brotherhood is a concept that came from the legal definition of a ‘brother’ in the 16th century as someone who swore an oath of support to another. Freemasons swear to each degree to keep its contents secret and to protect their brothers unless they break the law.

A Hella Brief History Of Freemasonry

It’s not easy to track the moments of a secret society. But most historians start with the Old Charges, masonic manuscripts that documented what each new Mason would have to swear on admission. It also contains the most famous origins story of the Freemasons: that the group descended from Euclid, an Ancient Greek mathematician. But most people agree it probably started sometime in the middle ages. The Old Charges have been dated back to 1425, where there’s also the first evidence of Masonic ceremonial objects, so it’s likely Masonic ideas and groups existed prior to this.

The earliest rituals and passwords for Lodges confirm they probably were created in the 17th century. The oldest Masonic Lodge is the Lodge of Edinburgh, where minutes confirmed it existed in 1598.

In the early 18th century, Freemasonry found its footing in England and began to spread with the first Grand Lodge appearing in 1717. A new regular body then emerged, which helped expand to include new members and Lodges.

But at the same time, splits occurred. Around 1730, the Grand Lodge introduced changes some Lodges didn’t endorse. So, a rival Grand Lodge was set in 1751 to set itself apart from the modern Lodges. The split between ancient and modern battled on for a century until 1813 when they united.

Alongside the UK’s expansion, the US’ first Lodges came onto the scene in Pennsylvania. These Lodges were authorised by the Grand Lodges in the UK, but they often developed independently before they paid to become official Freemason lodges.

After the American Revolution, Lodges emerged in each state. George Washington even nearly became the first Grand Master of a Grand US Lodge, but the idea failed to materialise.

Unfortunately, Freemasonry at this time was only open to white men in the States. Prince Hall, along with 14 other African-american men was initiated into a British military Lodge with a warrant from Ireland’s grand lodge having failed to gain admission to Lodges in Boston. However, when the British military left the US, the men were unable to initiate new masons. Eventually, they obtained a warrant from the grand lodge of England to form the ‘African Lodge, Number 459’. Only when the new UK’s Grand Lodges united and the US Lodges were struck off their roll did it become a Grand Lodge. Known as Prince Hall Freemasonry, it soon became its own branch.

The spread of the British Empire also played a part in helping Freemasonry take over the world. Jamaica was one of the most well-known colonies with Freemasonry present. And by 1908, it had 3 grand lodges. After slavery was abolished, the Lodges were no longer restricted to freeborn men and opened up to men of all races.

The presence of women in Freemasonry is a tense topic. Whether they existed in medieval Masons is still unknown, but during the 18th century’s expansion of Freemasonry women were excluded. As it spread, however, there were Lodges of Adoption - basically, the wives of Masons could do abridged versions of the three degrees. In the late 19th century in France, Maria Deraismes failed to achieve acceptance from Masonic governing bodies, so she set up a mixed Masonic lodge. Annie Besant then brought the new tradition over to the English-speaking world. Typically, however, female Freemasonry Lodges stand separate to the male ‘regular’ lodges.

Despite the mixed messaging regarding female and regular Freemasonry, only as recently as 2018 did Freemasonry adopt a new stance on transwomen: "A Freemason who after initiation ceases to be a man does not cease to be a Freemason".

A Round-Up Of The Rumours About Freemasons

Obviously, what we know about the past and the present of Freemasonry is a little, hmm, dry. That’s because we know so little about it, apart from the fact that they like symbols and want to become better people. This has created a vacuum. And vacuums suck things in - like myths and rumours and conspiracy theories.

That’s probably what’s kept Freemasonry so relevant this long.

It’s only right we talked about some of the most infamous theories.

These theories have been discussed since the 18th century and are involved with religious an, political and cultural events. They’ve been associated with the Knights Templar and the Devil, and more recently have been labelled the brains behind the “New World Order”.

The theories often circulate around Masonic belief in a supreme being and the suspicion of the Grand Lodges being under the jurisdiction of a centralised worldwide body.

From claims that they get given the ‘benefit of the doubt’ if they commit crimes in the UK, to their alleged role in anti-semitic conspiracy theories and their supposed association with communism, people have claimed they’re behind everything.

There’s also substantial suspicion from religious groups, especially conservative protestants. They think the Masons are actually occultists and are propagating their evil ideas through symbology in the media.

They’ve even been blamed for the murder of JFK, associated with 9/11 (some believe there was a hidden war between the Masons and Islam and the attack was astrological in nature), and that they faked the Apollo moon landings.

Are you a Freemason?

Let me know if I forgot to mention anything - or got anything wrong - in a comment below! While you’re there, like, reblog and follow!

[spooner7308]

Introducing the Terrible Trio

Not quite Sixtended but in the same territory

Here's Olga of Kiev, Boudica and Ching Shih

Women of history who are famous for going on the warpath after being widowed

While the Six Queens have had their controversies and are flawed people, these three are all admitted murderers, warlords and criminals.

Proof that women can be as bloodthirsty as men

1. Olga of Kiev (The Saint)

Historically, Olga of Kiev was a princess who ruled over the Kievan Rus as regent in the 10th century in what is now Ukraine.

She is most famous for her very violent revenge against the Drevlians, a tribe who killed her husband Igor. After they killed him, they sent some men to request that she marry their Prince because they were either very stupid or very confident. She responded by having them buried alive. She then had more Drevlian ambassadors burned alive by locking them in a bathhouse and setting it on fire. But her most famous exploit was when she held a siege on the last surviving Drevlians in one of their cities. But she said she’d spare them if they gave her three sparrows and three pigeons from each household. When they were delivered, she had her soldiers tie a bit of sulphur wrapped in cotton around the birds’ feet and released them. When the birds went back to roost in the houses, they set every house in the city simultaneously.

Olga later converted to Christianity and became canonized as a saint (despite all the murdering) but that most likely to get out of a marriage to Emperor Constantine VII.

In the modern era, Olga still wants fire and bloodshed as it’s one of the few things from her past life that brings her excitement and joy. But without a kingdom or army, she has to do it herself, and damn does she have fun doing it.

Mary Tudor has NOTHING on the mad Slavic arsonist known as Olga of Kiev.

2. Boudica (The Warrior )

We all know who Boudica is right!

The Celtic Queen who after the death of her husband started a rebellion against the invading Romans and formed a great army. Until her defeat in 60 AD.

In the modern age, she is still a cold stone warrior, but she doesn’t have an army so the arson saint and the pirate lady will have to do.

She never got the hand of firearms so she still prefers melee weapons, a good axe, machete or in this case baseball bat will do for her.

She’s the most ‘reasonable’ of the tree, having something resembling moral principles and keeping the other two out of trouble except when trouble finds her.

3. Ching Shih (The Pirate)

Ching Shih the Pirate Queen, she’s the most modern of the trio having lived in the 18th century and died in the early 19th century.

Historically, she was the most successful pirate of all time, commanding a fleet of 1,800 ships and causing devastation to the Chinses Navy and raiding port towns. Not even the combined efforts of the Chinese and Portuguese navy and the East India trading company could stop her. So, they instead offered amnesty just to get her to stop. So, she retired from piracy and died of old age.

In the modern-day, she is still a ruthless and cunning criminal, but instead of the other two whose plans are limited to ‘hit something with a weapon’ or ‘set something on fire,’ she is a winning strategist and strict disciplinarian, much like in her pirating days.

While she hasn’t killed the other two for stepping out of line (yet) she will always remind them that unlike them she never lost a battle. It’s a pretty good way of keeping them in line.

She likes guns but prefers the silence and simplicity of knives, she is the embodiment of the trope of disarming that goes on for an hour as she has knives hidden everywhere.

[malkaleh]

Some Things About The Restorationist King AKA Mr Pretentious Arse Canoe. 

I will say this for him, he loved his wife very much. They have two children who he also loved very much and spoiled greatly. 

A son John and a daughter named Diana. (John was named for his paternal grandfather (I think) and Diana because Hugh is An Ancient Roman Fan in the way that people are when they think of Ancient Rome as Pure White Christian Empire Builders Ideal Civilisation). 

John did not have any children but he did die in luxurious exile in a tiny country wedged between Switzerland and France that I totally made up so honestly, not a net loss. Also it became a restorationist haven country and it now has status slap fights between various descendants of restorationist elites jockeying for status. 

Diana married and had three daughters - the oldest is Helen whose descendant many many many hundreds of years later did in fact marry the Prince of Albion. 

Unfortunately for them Diana, Lady Wake-Liddell wanted fuck all to do with her awful restorationist family (and neither did her siblings) and flipped them off on the way out. She probably also changed her name. 

Sadly she still became the poster girl for Restorationist Lady Virtues which is bullshit because well, see above. 

They latched onto her sons which is also Weird because like they are definitely not pure white but the restorationists have a weird conspiracy theory that Prince Taran, Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Albion is actually the child of the long hidden descendants of Edward V who was stolen away from his real parents by Those Evil Tudors. 

And then her sons both married non white women and they lost their collective shits. 

Hugh is the 14th Baron Wake of Liddell (this is a real baronage that went away)

The first baron had a daughter who married one of the sons of Edward I by his second wife - Hugh is descended from the brother of that daughter who in this world lived.

Basically a Kings sons brother in law is his ancestor.

Hugh’s wife is Eleanor, Lady Morris who is entirely fictional. She’s the daughter of Sir Morris and Lady Morris - wealthy country gentry since forever basically. They were childhood friends.

John did attempt to participate in a second restoration (possibly) but it was not a success because people were not interested.

Diana absolutely worked for it for him because she’d been taught that was her appropriate role and after his death she stopped. Possibly. I haven’t gotten that far yet.

[helenaofdevon]

HELENA GREY : COUNTESS OF DEVON

BULLETPOINTS:

NAME: Helena Courtenay nee Grey

AGE / D.O.B.: 25 || August 22nd, 1534

STATUS / RANK: Countess of Devon

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN: England

PLACE OF BIRTH: Bradgate House, Bradgate Park, Leicestershire - England

BIRTH ORDER: Second

MOTHER & FATHER: Frances Brandon & Henry Grey

SIBLINGS: Two, an elder and younger sister

SEXUALITY: bisexual biromantic

HOROSCOPE: Leo. ( leo virgo cusp )

VIRTUES:  dynamic, perspicacious, authentic

VICES:  strong-willed, opinionated calculative

MARITAL STATUS: married to nicholas courtenay, earl of devon

ISSUE: n/a

RELIGION: roman catholic / protestant. raised in a religiously divided house. is well versed in both

ALLIES: to be announced...

ADVERSARIES:  to be announced...

TIMELINE:

approx. 1492 – mary tudor, is born ten months after her brother, henry viii

early 1533 – wedding of frances brandon and henry grey, the marquess of dorset with permission from their parents as both are young and in love.

22 August 1534  – helena grey is born, she is the second child of couple

approx. 1540 – frances brandon with the approval of her husband begins to educate her daughters at Bradgate House. several clergy knowledgeable in all subjects and both protestant and catholic are commission in the private education of the girls. the youngest is still to small to start lessons.

approx 1551 / 52 – Helena's elder sister is likely married off. Helena is officially presented at court ( despite having grown up within it to an extent ) 

early 1554 – Helena Grey is precontracted to Nicholas Courtenay but Henry Grey dies of natural causes ( sickness ). Formal marriage arrangements thusly drag on for sometime for various reasons

late 1556  – Helena Grey formally marries Nicholas Courtenay

November 1558 – Helena's fahter in law and husband are arrested & tried ( the courtenay conspiracy ); cousin william pardons Col but exectued Hugh Courtenay thus making Col the new earl or devon; Helena is made countess of Devon

IN CHARACTER INFORMATION.

NAME & TITLE/ROLE: helena grey, countess of devon

MONIKER: the empyreal

AGE: 25

FACECLAIM: alicia vikander

THREE POSITIVE TRAITS: dynamic, perspicacious, authentic

THREE NEGATIVE TRAITS: strong-willed, opinionated calculative

BIOGRAPHY:

A single decision changes the world from what it might have been. With a twist of fate or a turn of time in a direction that alters its ineffable course and what we know is no longer the truth hidden within the pages of a new history. So a family line is both royal adjacent and equally as royal as the one that rules. The grandson of the stepson of Edward IV would marry the Wotton girl and Henry Grey, Marquess of Dorset would be brought forth into the world. Frances Brandon would also be born of Mary Tudor, the youngest surviving child of Henry VII and sister to Henry VIII. The two would marry and they would have three daughters and no sons and that would be an absolute facet of time - a fixed point that would remain unchanged in this or any other reality. Rather one should state that events before the birth of these two individuals had changed setting an entirely new course when ten months after the birth of a future king his sister Mary Tudor was then born. Altered forever was the flow of time and so became a possibility for a different set of Grey sisters to be born. It would not change though the fact their blood would mark them as dangerous and would call into question those would they attach themselves to as royal lines no matter how distant were quite troublesome.

Helena Grey would be born the second daughter and middle child of her parents and born perhaps as one of the most miraculous women. Each Grey sister was something to behold and wonder just the same but a girl would stand out. Helena had many passions and a zest for life and yet was capable of being a rather rooted person who was loyal, kind, and quite perspicacious. She was not her elder sister who was by default their example nor the younger sister who was beloved as the youngest and final child. A girl however in any situation even from the smallest age took charge and was the leader of the small band of girls. In the days of early youth, there were a gaggle of giggles and many games to be played in the various halls causing little ones to be a source of mild trouble and much entertainment which she was generally at the heart of. She would have an interesting youth and her mother would see that each of her girls was incredibly well educated in a religiously divided household. Helena excelled in her studies as tutors ( many of them various clergy from both the catholic and protestant faith ) taught her various languages and to read and write many of them and more. She danced and swirled through everyone’s lives and one could rightfully argue even as a young girl you were forever changed by her presence and the life and light she brought to any situation.

All was not so wondrous but time and age cover massive events that would come into play years later. Helena was more than well aware of family history and the lines that twisted and crossed and broke out into branches that had started civil wars and uprisings. Lady Helena knew many people's real faces behind the masks they wore at court, having been a favorite as her mother once was of the king. After all one learns to play the game or to become the one being played. There were so many rules, so many unwritten codes and all the world swirled with intrigue and Helena navigated the water thusly earning to her name several handfuls of friends but suffered no fools as her companions - especially as many a person with loftier ambitions would seek out noble blood with royal ties with no sort of good intention.  Helena, not that she wasn't already strong-willed and having a smart tongue, learned she had a sharp one and an eye for false intention despite her Christian ways being told a woman was to be meek and forgiving of her fellow man.

There were suitors indeed interested in the girl even before she became available to marry, even before her elder sister was wed. Who could deny she had a draw and one enjoyed being around her never short on a conversation or any pleasantly stimulating amount of time spent but in truth, Helena would've rather not married at all. She was of an independent mind, not keen on being tied to a man whom she barely knew and her parents chose. Truly even court despite her deep love for people and being a point of focus would've rather spent her time in the country reading books. living fully and caring for horses and dogs and the idea of a small gaggle of children she could return to either sister not enjoying the idea of settling. Life was to be lived and well and perhaps Helena had ideas of what she wanted. It certainly wasn't the men that presented themselves especially after the elder sister wed with Helena being even more pushed to the forefront than she had naturally been with her personality. When Helena set eyes on Nicholas Courtenay a young woman knew what she wanted or rather who she would desire to marry if one must marry. She saw in him an equal partner, one who would respect and cherish her, one she would be willing to call husband and he did indeed make her laugh. It never fully occurred to her either that her interest and yes eventual marriage to the man would have quietly been considered a potentially problematic union. Two descendants of separate plantagenet lines could've been construed as a suspicious and powerful marriage politically. Was it what both of their parents had intended when a match was brokered? Could there have been a moment while walking past her father's study and the door was slightly ajar that two men may have quietly conspired something more in marrying the two? What could've been considered suspicious about two men with some ambition whispering amongst themselves? Helena would never know what was truly discussed in that room as her father died in 1554, narrowly avoiding the fate his friend would suffer later dying of a sickness that would take him off his head suffering the effects of fevers and other health issues. That was not the actual tragedy a young woman would suffer for it would come later once she was married to Col.

Helena, like all the world, mourned her great uncle's passing. The death of a king was nothing easy to stomach especially after the death of her father though years apart. She did not expect however when her father-in-law mourned the death of a friend and distant cousin that it would break open a well building up inside him for years. Hugh Courtenay had become a father to Helena since joining their house, he was indeed a dear companion of hers and she cared for her father and mother in law but saw nothing of what was to come. A series of letters poured out from her father in law's hands with many damning words and the attention it thus shined on Col and herself. Ugly words and pointed accusations were made during an investigation into the letters that her marriage in connection with the things Hugh Courtenay was writing was the beginning of some great conspiracy to seat someone else on the throne and other such aspirations tied with Catholic strings. Helena watched the trial drag on and saw a Queen push for the death of both the young lady's father in law and her husband as well. For a brief moment, Helena could nearly feel the axe on her own neck had both a husband and father-in-law been executed - she imagined and expected the worst. Thankfully, truly as Helena would see it, cousin William would intervene but only on behalf of Nicholas. Her husband's charges were dismissed but Helena watched like many others did the execution of her father-in-law to again serve as a warning not to attempt anything similar or remotely considered treasonous.

As war knocks at the doorsteps of England now and spreads across europe Helena finds herself in a precarious position. She is a well connected woman among the court and is popular among the people and abroad through her correspondence with many individuals who have strong opinions with the ears of leaders and influential beings. Helena is of royal blood as is her husband and both were well educated and dynamic.. One would be foolish not to be suspicious of the two especially after her husband's father, the late Earl of Devon's beheading. If so motivated and aligned they could pose a serious threat - a credible one. The woman is well within her rights to be angry, to seek revenge as her husband may desire but Helena is loyal and more concerned about the whole of England rather than vengeance. She worries over her husband though not fully knowing where his mind is at with the state of his depleted family and if she should be suspicious of his thoughts. If they were to err on the side of the whispers and suspicions of those who would see them as adversaries Helena would be divided between love and loyalty to country. It is a strange world, another time entirely in which to be alive but if anyone can play the game and come out on the other side it may be this woman..

WANTED CONNECTIONS: 

at the moment none that I can think of but I would adore any and all plotting to create something truly wonderful.

OUT OF CHARACTER INFORMATION.

NAME / ALIAS: eden

AGE: 26

TIMEZONE: est

DISCORD USERNAME: edenzini

[fideidefenswhore]

Apprenticeship was not a totally male domain, either in the learning or in the training, and while for girls it was often in contexts predominantly identified with women, such as dressmaking, it was not always exclusively so.

Hidden Lives of Tudor Women, Elizabeth Norton

[historybizarre]

What did everyday life look like for women throughout Tudor society? A new social history, "The Hidden Lives of Tudor Women by Elizabeth Norton," introduces us not only to the restrictions, but also to some of the surprising freedoms that touched these women’s lives. Hear the stories of remarkable women who owned businesses, stood up to kings, and lived independently. Elizabeth Norton is interviewed by Barbara Bogaev.

A surprising number of middle- to late 16th-century girls were educated. We know from—there was a survey made of the poorest people of Norwich, a city in the east of England, in the 1560s. And we know from that, that actually a surprising number of the girls attended school. They would usually be pulled out to help earn money in the household from around the age of nine or so, but before then they were attending school. Girls would be taught to read, sometimes to write, not necessarily, and a little arithmetic as well.

Full transcript available from the Folger.

[booksandwords]

Bad Girls by Jane Yolen & Heidi E.Y. Stemple. Illustrated by Rebecca Guay

Rating: 5/5

Age Recommendation: Tween Art Style: Hand drawn almost art nouveau Topic/ Theme: Bad and Strong women Setting: Various Historical

This review ended up being a lot longer than my usual for this style, mostly because I list all the entries. TL:DR It's a good read, I think quite whitewashed, the art is quite nice and the women are a range of "bad".

Possibly the first thing one needs to remember reading books like this that cover different periods of history, especially when it is female-centric, is that time changes all things rights, perceptions. You cannot judge these women by modern standards. Even comparing them is a bit much. As an example, Anne Boylen is largely misunderstood she was a pawn in a game she had no control over. Her and Katherine Howard both paid the price for Thomas Boylen's social climbing. But that perhaps disconnect doesn't detract from the book it does a good job of laying out a story in a way that is understandable to the intended demographic. While this is written for younger audiences I can see people off all ages enjoying it, it's a fast read. Those of us that are older may learn about a new badass woman (as I did with Moll Cutpurse and Madame Alexe Popova) or be able to see where the simplification is. None of the stories goes into detail with how much some of these women did, with some Elisabeth Báthory that is a very good thing. I'm pretty sure everyone will appreciate Rebecca Guay's art to some degree.

Each profile has a portrait of the bad girl(s), birth and death dates, their story and a comic. The comic is Jane Yolen and Heidi E. Y. Stemple as they researched the book. They are cute. But hard to read on my un-zoomable digital edition. It is worth saying that each of the portraits has the bad girls' name hidden in it somewhere. For example, Delilah's is woven in her hair, Belle Starr's is in her lasoo and Bonnie Parker's is not hidden just boldy over her head.

This section is a list of the women in the book and some comments about their write-ups.

Delilah — Damn... okay look she wasn't bad she was badass. A woman needs to use her assets. Beauty and brains.

Jezebel — I don't know enough about Jezebel to judge this one. But it is kinda gruesome in a way. Her death was just ugly.

Cleopatra — This is entry is just cleverly written given that it is covering some content that certain readers may find shocking. Like Sibling marriages and sizable age gaps and polygamy.

Salome — Not bad, just manipulated. Sorry.

Anne Boleyn — Oh Anne. I'm not going to say she didn't do some questionable things in her time but Henry is Henry.

Bloody Mary — Mary Tudor should have been referred to by her name, not her moniker. It's an interesting read though for someone who knows Tudor well. Not wrong just weird.

Elisabeth Báthory — I actually question the choice to put The Blood Countess in here. I think her slot could have been better used by an Asian woman. Only because it is too hard to write this entry in a way that makes sense for the demographic. Yes, Báthory was awful and I won't argue that.

Moll Cutpurse — I'd never heard of Moll Cutpurse. But she reminds me of another woman from much later in history. Making her living as a fence and a gang leader.

Tituba — Tituba feels a bit more like tragic figure after reading this. I think there is a lot missing.

Anne Bonney and Mary Read — This is just plain wrong or at least terribly misleading. There is an indication as to Mary's end, heavy suspicions abut Anne's. That said Anne's last words to Jack will go down in infamy. “If you would have fought like a man you need not be hang'd like a dog."

Peggy Shippen Arnold — Yawn.... I'm Australian American War of Independence mean virtually nothing to me. That said this woman was scary manipulative.

Catherine the Great — "She may have been called Catherine the Great, but she could have been called Catherine the Ruthless, for she was bever afraid to fight dirty." I mean yeah. It's hard to do Catherine the Great but this is a pretty good simplification.

Rose O'Neal Greenhow — This entry is so short, it's a Civil War setting and I'm guessing that a lot of what is missing from the story is not child friendly. Tragic death though.

Belle Starr — Belle is amazing. I respect any woman from that timeframe who can run with the men and even outdo them at times. Her love life is one of my fave parts of this story oddly, it's kinda tragic and not in detail here.

Calamity Jane — Unlike Mary Tudor, I'm happy Calamity Jane wasn't referred to as Martha Jane, I never even knew her real name. I do like how she got the Calamity moniker though.

Lizzie Borden — Of course, this starts with the rhyme and explaining how it's wrong. Lizzie appears early on as an example of we make no judgement her too.

Madame Alexe Popova — I have total respect for Madame Alexe Popova. Seriously. Women then had no choice marriage was a lifetime commitment situation be damned. That this woman eas willing to help says a lot and makes me wonder why she started. Herself, mother, sister or daughter?

Pearl Hart — I did not know only one woman ever successfully robbed a stagecoach. But is that US or globally?

Typhoid Mary — Such a tragic figure. Calling her a bad girl is just wrong. Okay, sort of. This whole entry takes on a new light in the era of covid.

Mata Hari — I like referring to her as M'Greet and actually explaining why she did what she did. I had no idea how old she was when she died.

Ma Baker — This is one of my fave entries because it shows a whole other kind of love. While most of the others show a love of self or romantic love (or slight sociopathy) this show the love of a mother for a child. Yeah, she did some bad things but it was always for her sons.

Beulah Annan and Belva Gaertner — I didn't know that Roxie and Velma are (very loosely) based on real women. Because I didn't think to look. Coldblooded bitches. Belva whom Velma is based off lived until she was 80 died in 1965. Oh and one of the best lines in the whole book a quote from Belva Gaertner... "no woman can love a man enough to kill him. They aren't worth it, because there are always plenty more."

Bonnie Parker — Why is it so many of these women have a thing for truly bad men? I get the appeal of a bad boy but not for life.

Virginia Hill — I've heard of Virginia Hill in relation to Bugsy Siegel, mobsters are something I've looked at for fun over the years (by the way Siegel... attractive man, the lady liked pretty things). But I never knew much about her not likely to lookup more but this is interesting.

It's worth saying this is not a dry book. The writing is sassy and definitely feminine. I found myself laughing at times despite the undoubtedly dark history involved, which as an older reader I know. If you are interested in more on these women I know the youtube channel Biographics has done videos on quite a few of them, the authors also leave a bibliography for readers to follow.