#this isn't about shipping either its just who has the most realistic view of her rn

[vampirehizzies]

hayley and elijah have great chemistry going for them at least and their interactions are pretty romantic but elijah saying that he admires hayley's goodness and her telling him he's good at heart... i do think they both have good in them but this is the Morally Depraved Show About Murderers stop trying to act like you're saints and try to hype each other up that way. it's so unrealistic the image they have of each other. hayley is a ruthless bitch with fierce loyalty to people she loves and i like her for it. stop downplaying it for elijah's guilt complex. I'm so fucking annoyed right now

[wonder-worker]

Margaret of Anjou’s visit to Coventry [in 1456], which was part of her dower and that of her son, Edward of Lancaster, was much more elaborate. It essentially reasserted Lancastrian power. The presence of Henry and the infant Edward was recognised in the pageantry. The ceremonial route between the Bablake gate and the commercial centre was short, skirting the area controlled by the cathedral priory, but it made up for its brevity with no fewer than fourteen pageants. Since Coventry had an established cycle of mystery plays, there were presumably enough local resources and experience to mount an impressive display; but one John Wetherby was summoned from Leicester to compose verses and stage the scenes. As at Margaret’s coronation the iconography was elaborate, though it built upon earlier developments.

Starting at Bablake gate, next to the Trinity Guild church of St. Michael, Bablake, the party was welcomed with a Tree of Jesse, set up on the gate itself, with the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah explaining the symbolism. Outside St. Michael’s church the party was greeted by Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist; and proceeding to Smithford Street, they found on the conduit the four Cardinal Virtues—Righteousness (Justice?), Prudence, Temperance, and Fortitude. In Cross Cheaping wine flowed freely, as in London, and angels stood on the cross, censing Margaret as she passed. Beyond the cross was pitched a series of pageants, each displaying one of the Nine Worthies, who offered to serve Margaret. Finally, the queen was shown a pageant of her patron saint, Margaret, slaying the dragon [which 'turned out to be strictly an intercessor on the queen's behalf', as Helen Maurer points out].

The meanings here are complex and have been variously interpreted. An initial reading of the programme found a message of messianic kingship: the Jesse tree equating royal genealogy with that of Christ had been used at the welcome for Henry VI on his return from Paris in 1432. A more recent, feminist view is that the symbolism is essentially Marian, and to be associated with Margaret both as queen and mother of the heir rather than Henry himself. The theme is shared sovereignty, with Margaret equal to her husband and son. Ideal kingship was symbolised by the presence of Edward the Confessor, but Margaret was the person to whom the speeches were specifically addressed and she, not Henry, was seen as the saviour of the house of Lancaster. This reading tips the balance too far the other way: the tableau of Edward the Confessor and St. John was a direct reference to the legend of the Ring and the Pilgrim, one of Henry III’s favourite stories, which was illustrated in Westminster Abbey, several of his houses, and in manuscript. It symbolised royal largesse, and its message at Coventry would certainly have encompassed the reigning king. Again, the presence of allegorical figures, first used for Henry, seems to acknowledge his presence. Yet, while the message of the Coventry pageants was directed at contemporary events it emphasised Margaret’s motherhood and duties as queen; and it was expressed as a traditional spiritual journey from the Old Testament, via the incarnation represented by the cross, to the final triumph over evil, with the help of the Virgin, allegory, and the Worthies. The only true thematic innovation was the commentary by the prophets.

[...] The messages of the pageants firmly reminded the royal women of their place as mothers and mediators, honoured but subordinate. Yet, if passive, these young women were not without significance. It is clear from the pageantry of 1392 and 1426 in London and 1456 in Coventry that when a crisis needed to be resolved, the queen (or regent’s wife) was accorded extra recognition. Her duty as mediator—or the good aspect of a misdirected man—suddenly became more than a pious wish. At Coventry, Margaret of Anjou was even presented as the rock upon which the monarchy rested. [However,] a crisis had to be sensed in order to provoke such emphasis [...]."

-Nicola Coldstream, "Roles of Women in Late Medieval Civic Pageantry", Reassessing the Roles of Women as 'Makers' of Medieval Art and Culture

[shonaegi]

I'm so curious what mental gymnastics you have to go through to decide ""pr//sh//pping"" is a good thing to align yourself with.

I think the only think they'd ever have going for them is the idea of "don't shit on people for liking something you don't". But also?? You don't have to be a pr//sh//pper to believe that?? And honestly the reason it doesn't work coming from them is because it's usually in conjunction with "fiction doesn't affect reality" which. Girlies I'm sorry but it can. Desensitizing people to fucked up topics can in turn make them more compliant with it or even make them view it as ok. This is coming from someone who was unfortunately dragged into something for a portion of time and honest to god I am so glad I got out of it without becoming a victim. /srs

And now to the thought that made me type this up impulsively. You can be critical of ships and the implications on the person shipping them. To go to the drastic examples there's no fucking way you can tell me to not be critical of someone shipping in//st or the like. But even without being as drastic, I think its really good to be critical of ships between characters who in canon would have a toxic/ abusive relationship and how it may reflect on someone who is romanticizing it. I am going to talk about T//gaf//ka now.

I find utility in using unromanticized T//gaf//ka to cope. Realistic portrayals of their relationship is so fascinating I think you can get so much out of it. I think coping through shit is awesome. That being said I think people making romanticized shit out of it is one of the most triggering things on Earth and I'm sorry if you look at canon/ in-game characterizations and go "Yeah you can have something healthy sprout from that"... What The Fuck???

Byakuya is very much uncomfortable with the attention he gets from Toko in canon. He lashes out at her because of it. Toko has an unhealthy obsession with him, undoubtedly due to trauma and an unhealthy perception of romantic relationships. Aand something something that part in THH where he told her not to speak and she fucking didn't until he told her to again. I am not going to talk about Syo because that's where it's personal heart emoji. <3 I don't wanna delve too much into them; my thoughts could be another whole post on their own.

Anyways, all of what I just said is why I find them to have coping utility. It may not be 1:1, but I have been there. And being there is why I think it can be insanely problematic to ignore all of their canon characteristics/ relationship and go "teehee wlm/mlw ship <3". I don't want people to think blind obsession is romantic (also the issue with shit like the yandere trope but that's out of my area). I don't want people to think persistence towards someone who does not want you will get you them in the end. I can't cover shit that completely rewrites canon but I think if you rewrite an unhealthy relationship to be healthy. Just find new characters to ship. OR LET THEM BE PLATONIC FRIENDS DEAR CHRIST I think Toko and Byakuya growing past what all happened and having a positive relationship is really awesome. It's not something you ever owe to someone you had an unhealthy relationship with and in real life may not be ideal but fiction is still a playground for stuff that may not always be feasible in life. But I think I've made it clear why it's an issue to give them a romantic relationship.

This is so insanely long I'm so sorry I didn't think I had this much in me either. To wrap it up I kinda just can't take pr//sh//pers seriously anymore like ok be in denial abt it I don't have the time to waste on you. But I think it's still important to dish criticism against it that isn't "p//do shit bad" because while that's 100% correct, these fuckers won't acknowledge they're romanticizing abusive relationships, and will just dodge it. Oh the beloathed "I'm not defending that, I just think you shouldn't yell at people for a ship."

Defending any kind of abuse bad you may now like the post.