wtfhistory reblogged
IMPORTANT FIGURES IN THE WARS OF THE ROSES
(figures suggested/requested by the amazing marthajefferson)
Source: tanaquil
wtfhistory reblogged
wsswatson
Anonymous asked:
OH MY GOD DO YOU NOT REALIZE THAT JOHN IS FUCKING MARRIED TO A WOMAN IN THE BOOK?!?!? IF THEY DON'T MAKE JOHN STRAIGHT, IT WILL BE A GREAT INJUSTICE DONE TO BOTH THE AUTHOR AND THE BOOKS.
Ah, hello, Person Of Immense Politeness. I suspect you’re here to talk about my OTP. Luckily for you, I’m in a good mood, so I’m going to go through this nice and rationally.
- Yes, as a matter of fact, I am aware of that. As it happens, I’m an English literature student, and have not only read all 4 novels and 56 short stories, but studied them in depth. I’m writing a series of essays on them at present, actually.
- Perhaps you’re unaware of other adaptations, so let me inform you that in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Holmes may be interpreted as gay, in Elementary, Watson is a woman, Moriarty is also Irene Adler and the series is set in New York, and in Basil the Great Mouse Detective, the characters are mice. Also, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle cared very little for Sherlock Holmes, and, despite claiming that ‘Holmes is as inhuman as a Babbage’s Calculating Machine, and just about as likely to fall in love’ in 1892, he later wrote a play, and when appealed to by William Gillette, who was to portray Holmes, for permission to alter his character, Doyle replied ‘You may marry him, murder him, or do anything you like to him.' HE DIDN’T CARE ABOUT HIS CHARACTERS BEING ALTERED.
- You are completely avoiding historical social context. In the Victorian era, MEN COULD NOT MARRY MEN AND WOMEN COULD NOT MARRY WOMEN. In fact, the Marriage Equality Bill was only passed in England THIS YEAR. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s close friend, Oscar Wilde, was sentenced to two years of hard labour which so severely damaged his health that he died 3 years later, because of UNPROVEN CLAIMS that he was a sodomite, i.e. homosexual. Do you know what was used against him in court? The Picture of Dorian Gray. HIS NOVEL. Because it contained homoerotic subtext. Doyle wanted to portray Watson as a heart in contrast to Holmes’ head, and as such, he had to be romantic. HETEROROMANCE WAS THE ONLY OPTION IN THE ERA IN WHICH HE WAS WRITING.
- MEN DON’T HAVE TO BE STRAIGHT TO MARRY WOMEN. Wilde himself was gay, and he was married to a woman called Constance Lloyd. In the Victorian era, marriage was nowhere near so much based on love as it is today - it was about money, power, status, convenience, all kinds of things. Now, I do believe that Watson loved Mary Morstan, but this context is important to recognise. Now, onto BBC Sherlock: in the 21st century, far more sexual and romantic orientations are recognised. Bisexual and pansexual men marry women. That doesn’t make them unable to also feel love or attraction for men. In fact, even straight people are capable of finding themselves sexually and/or romantically attracted to a member of the same sex. In any case, to quote Performance in a Leading Role:'I find the concept of binary sexual identity limiting and improbable. As with all else about human beings, sexual responsiveness exists on a continually changing scale that is affected by a dizzying array of variables, so there’s no point in attempting to predetermine a pointless and ultimately confining label.'
- The writers were influenced by The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes and deliberately establish homoerotic and homoromantic subtext.
- It is possible to ship something in fanon without wanting it to become canon. There is also nothing wrong with wanting something that you enjoy to happen on screen and hence be more accessible to you, particularly if that thing would also be socially beneficial by providing positive representation to marginalised groups.
- Shipping makes me happy. Fandom makes me happy. Sherlock makes me happy. I think it extremely rude of you to come into my ask box under the cowardly guise of anonymity to try to take that happiness away from me (you failed completely, I might add), when it literally affects you in exactly 0 ways.
So, in conclusion:
I know I’ve re-blogged this before but anons like this one are so damn funny.
lordrennac
My only response to this is you guys are butt hurt, clearly. I’m all for gay love anywhere and everywhere, however I draw a line at altering anything written, painted, etc. If he wanted Watson to be gay, he would have made him as gay as the rainbow. Sides, who the fuck uses Elementary as a point in an argument? That show was the worst of all Sherlock reincarnations. I’m gonna ignore the rest of your argument though, it would take too much time to pick apart.
wsswatson
'If he wanted Watson to be gay, he would have made him as gay as the rainbow' - yeah, maybe if he wanted his books to be banned, his career put to an end, his name ruined and to be put on trial on suspicion of sodomy. Pick up a book on the politics of sexuality at the end of the 19th century and then get back to me.
History - it comes up in everything.
#not even my otp#wellll#not in BBC's sherlock anyhow#that show is all kinds of problematic#anyway#wtfhistory#history#shipping#sherlock holmes#john watson#fandom#sherlock#literature#english history#literary history#art history#media history#oscar wilde#sir arthur conan doyle#gay#queer history#gay history
wtfhistory reblogged
French princess Isabella was only 12 years old in 1308 when she sailed into the court of English king Edward II as his wife. And he, the 24-year-old freshly crowned monarch, was very much in love … just not with her. The person Edward was in love with was a young knight named Piers Gaveston. That Edward had a lover wasn’t shocking, nor was it a big problem that his lover was a man. The problem, as the English court saw it, was how “immoderately” Edward loved the glamorous, arrogant Gaveston— enough to risk his entire kingdom and the lives of thousands of soldiers. When Gaveston was around, Edward was worse than useless, barely able to hold a conversation, much less govern. When Gaveston wasn’t around, Edward was a wreck.
While Edward and Isabella were married in France, Gaveston stayed in England with his own child bride, Edward’s 15-year-old niece. Less than a month later, Isabella witnessed firsthand just how deep the man’s hooks went into her husband’s heart. During the ceremony at Westminster Abbey investing Isabella with the title of queen, it was Gaveston who held the crown. At the coronation feast afterward, he sat next to the king under tapestries that depicted not the emblems of Edward and Isabella but the arms of Edward and Gaveston. And just to turn the dagger a bit more, Edward handed over the wedding gifts from Isabella’s father— jewels, warhorses, the whole lot— to his one true love. Isabella’s uncles, who had attended the coronation, returned to France in a frothy rage. Which was bad news, given that France and England were perpetually squabbling and barely maintaining an uneasy truce. England was already embroiled in a conflict with Scotland and didn’t need another front to open up. England’s powerful magnates— the lords and earls who really ruled the land— decided that Gaveston was too great a distraction for the king and needed to be removed. But attempts to exile the king’s favorite proved futile. Edward would send Gaveston away and then, a few months later, call him back.
Their frustration with Edward reached a boiling point in 1312; civil war was in the making. Edward and Gaveston traveled the countryside, trying to keep ahead of the lords baying for the latter’s blood, but they couldn’t run for long— England is only so big. On May 19, Gaveston surrendered to the king’s enemies at Scarborough Castle, where Edward had left him ensconced with a battalion. Just over a month later, Gaveston was executed, brutally and without a trial. The king swore he’d have his revenge.
Isabella, meanwhile, was biding her time. She’d become an adult while following Edward and Gaveston around the country; at the time of Gaveston’s execution, she was pregnant with her husband’s son and heir. On November 12, 1312, the 17-year-old queen gave birth to a healthy baby boy. She’d done her duty to crown and husband, and her position was secure. She had also accumulated enough political acumen to manage her useless husband and try to keep the nation from civil war. Edward and his warring lords patched things up long enough to sign a peace treaty, which got them through the first few months of 1313 without killing one another. With Isabella’s mediation, the lords swore fealty to Edward once again, but it was a tenuous peace. The Scots were hammering England’s defenses to the north, and Edward’s most powerful earl (and the man responsible in part for Gaveston’s murder), a man named Lancaster, refused to aid him. Worse, Lancaster was actively plotting against Edward while England was left rudderless, without a real leader.
Isabella remained at Edward’s side, his confidante and advisor. That is, until about 1318, when Edward again became infatuated with a young man in his company. Unlike the foppish Gaveston, Hugh Despenser was shrewd, cruel, and paranoid. He used the royal relationship to seize his rivals’ lands and treasuries. As Despenser hoarded more gold and more land, more and more lords began defecting to Lancaster’s side. Isabella worked to maintain peace between her husband, his magnates, and an irate France, but they all demanded that Despenser be exiled. In July 1321, Edward gave the order; ever the sly one, Despenser went only as far as the English Channel, where he and his father turned to pirating merchant ships while awaiting word from Edward. Meanwhile, the king’s struggles with Lancaster came to a head. Lancaster found himself on the losing side of the battle; he was arrested and executed as a traitor. Edward had his revenge.
Edward may have won a battle, but he was about to lose the war. Triumphant after Lancaster’s death, he hastily called the Despensers back to England and made Hugh his chief advisor. Ever the opportunist, Hugh then started to make moves on Isabella’s property and that of her children. Bad decision.
Hell hath no fury like a woman whose children’s birthright is in danger. Now a seasoned political manipulator, Isabella waited for just the right moment to act, and in 1325 opportunity finally landed in her lap. By then, England’s relationship with France had frayed over land that both claimed to rule. It was decided that Isabella was ideally suited to work out a solution with her relatives back home. So the queen (who had likely planted the idea with Edward and Despenser) made her way back to France, where she spent several restorative months in the bosom of her family. Six months after landing in Calais, she was followed by her son, 12-year-old Prince Edward, on the pretext that relations between France and England would be softened if he were made duke of Aquitaine. And just like that, 27-year-old Isabella held the trump card: the heir to the English throne.
Within weeks, Isabella showed her hand. “I feel that marriage is a joining together of man and woman … and someone has come between my husband and myself trying to break this bond,” she said in a statement. “I protest that I will not return until this intruder is removed.” Edward was gobsmacked. “On her departure, she did not seem to anyone to be offended,” he supposedly remarked. Isabella’s plan was ingenious and subtle. Her husband was a useless king, but she couldn’t say so without looking like a traitor. So she cleverly shifted the blame to Despenser and cast herself as the dutiful wronged wife. Isabella also knew that Edward was unlikely to be a worthy leader even if Despenser were removed. Lucky, then, that she happened to have an alternative ready to roll and under her control: her son, the prince.
Isabella had spent the last six months getting all her ducks in a row. Not only did she have France on her side, she had also won the loyalty of a faction of disaffected Englishmen to legitimize her rebellion. They were led by Roger Mortimer, one of the nobles who had led the revolt against Edward. Two years earlier, Mortimer had made a daring escape from the Tower of London and turned up in the French court. He and Isabella met up in Paris; he became not only her captain, but her lover as well.
To get her son on the throne, Isabella needed military might, so she and Mortimer engineered a marriage between young Edward and the daughter of a French count. In late September 1326, Isabella and Mortimer set sail for England with her daughter-in-law’s dowry— 700 soldiers— along with a pack of mercenaries paid for by Isabella’s brother, the king of France. Isabella was, without a doubt, at the head of this operation; one fourteenth-century image shows her leading the troops while clad in shiny armor. Popular support for her as a romantic, righteous figurehead had been growing since word of her rebellion spread; that support, and her ranks, continued to swell after she returned to English soil. Edward had fallen out of favor not only with his lords and magnates but also among his people, who had suffered famine and war while he was occupied with avenging his lover’s death.
The end came swiftly. On November 16, the king and his companion were caught trying to make it across open country in Wales. Hugh Despenser was brought before the queen and her lords and sentenced to death. He was dragged through the streets, stripped naked, and hauled 50 feet in the air by his neck. He was then disemboweled while alive and castrated— punishment, it was rumored, for his intimate relationship with the king. As if all that wasn’t enough, he was beheaded, too.
The king was confined to Monmouth Castle as a prisoner of Henry of Lancaster, brother of the rebellious earl whom Edward had executed four years before. But Isabella and Mortimer still had one problem: with Despenser gone, the dynamic duo no longer had reason to challenge Edward’s fitness to rule. So, clever Isabella argued that, by fleeing to Wales, Edward had abandoned England and his right to rule it. Prince Edward was, therefore, the rightful king. The relieved bishops and lords of England agreed. Now all that remained was to convince Edward to resign the throne in favor of his son. Faced with overwhelming opposition, he agreed, and Prince Edward, just 14 years old, became King Edward III on February 1, 1327. Isabella, as the mother of the underage ruler, and Mortimer, as leader of the deposing army, now held authority in England.
The situation was unprecedented— it was the first time the country had ever had a living ex-king. And there was also the issue of Isabella’s marriage: Edward may have been an ex-king, but he was not her ex-husband. With Despenser gone, she had no legitimate reason not to return to him. Moreover, Edward’s very existence posed a threat to the new regime, especially since it appeared he wasn’t completely without supporters. Indeed, by September 1327, three plots to free him had been foiled. So the queen and her captain hit upon a more traditional means of ridding themselves of this troublesome ex-king: murder.
The story is probably apocryphal, but later chroniclers morbidly insist that Edward II was murdered by the violent application of a red-hot poker up his backside. However death occured, on the night of September 21, 1327, the 43-year-old relatively robust former king conveniently died. He was buried with all the ceremony accorded to a dead monarch, his wife and son weeping and kneeling before his gilded hearse.
But young King Edward III, it seems, had learned a trick or two at his mother’s knee. Though Isabella and Mortimer were content to run things in England indefinitely, Edward wasn’t about to sit idly by and watch them do it. In late 1330, just three years after Isabella and Mortimer seized power, the 18-year-old king outflanked them. Mortimer was arrested as a traitor by a group of nobles loyal to the crown; he was hung on November 29, 1330. Isabella had but one choice: accept the death of her lover and an enforced retirement, surrendering her vast estates to her son. Ever the realist, she did so within a week of Mortimer’s execution. Isabella lived the rest of her life in quiet obedience to her son, dying in 1358. The “She-Wolf of France,” as she came to be called, was buried as she requested: with a silver vase containing the heart of her husband, the man she’d kicked off the throne and probably murdered.
(via leslieknope)
I love it when royalty makes murder look like your average HBO shows.
(via hemlockian)
wtfhistory reblogged
creatingaquietmind-deactivated2
the speech impediment of the 21st century (by Marc Johns)
dannygayhealani
I’ll fuck you up buddy this is not a speech impediment it’s linguistic evolution!! the existence of the phrase “Aisha was like” allows the speaker to convey whatever Aisha said without making the listener assume they’re quoting Aisha directly while still maintaining the FEELING of what Aisha said.
ie, Aisha said she didn’t want to go out with me VERSUS Aisha was like, “I’d rather kiss a Wookie”.
the addition of “XYZ was like” lets the speaker be more expressive and efficient and it is a totally valid method of communicating information!!
yuletidekarkat
With the way language has evolved, this is one of the few ways I can even think of to express in casual conversation what someone said.
"So I said to Aisha," is certainly used, but if you remove the "so," which implies casual tone ("and" can be used in the same way), you get
"I said to Aisha," which is really formal in most English dialects/variations. I don’t know about all, but in New England dialects, you sound like you’re reading aloud from a novel.
"I told Aisha," is really only used when you continue to describe, not tell, what you told her. Ex: "I told Aisha that James was too punk for her" works while, "I told Aisha, ‘James is too punk for you’" crosses the line back into formalness of the "I said."
Things like “I asked” or “I answered [with]” are similar levels of casual and efficient to the “So, I said [or say, as many conversations about the past take place in present tense anyway, as if the speaker is giving a play-by-play in the moment]” but are specific to only certain situations.
"I was like, 'Marc Johns, what is your obsession with restoring archaic speech patterns and interfering with the natural progression of English from complex to efficient?'" envelopes all of these easily and is accessible and crisp, and allows for more variations on inflection than the others.
Of course, James is probably like, “I already fucking said that.” But eh, I tried adding on.
Source: Flickr / marcjohns
wtfhistory reblogged
Lady Florence Norman, a suffragette, on her motor-scooter in 1916, travelling to work at offices in London where she was a supervisor. The scooter was a birthday present from her husband, the journalist and Liberal politician Sir Henry Norman.
wtfhistory reblogged
What Is Up With "Thou," "Thee," "Thy," and "Thine"?
pisces-gurl
what have I just experienced? :o
henrycavillsstinkface
ENGLISH
wtfhistory reblogged
odditiesoflife
Victorian Headless Portraits
The Victorian era had many photographs, most of which showed the subject sitting or standing with a stern expression. Since photography was still in its infancy, photographers were experimenting with novel ways to create fun photos that differed from the norm. Animals acting human was one popular concept, and then came the headless portrait. Funny, strange and entertaining, a new genre of photography was born.
I had a Halloween costume like that once.
Source: retronaut.com
Put this together a while ago, thought you might enjoy!
Oh shit. COOL. Thank you, dear! This is utterly radtastic.
wtfhistory reblogged
collectivehistory-deactivated20
Tsar Nicholas II in Balmoral castle, 1896, with (from left to right) Tsarina Alexandra Fedorovna, Grand Duchess Olga, Queen Victoria, and Edward, Prince of Wales
wtfhistory reblogged
The heart of Richard the Lionheart was preserved with mercury, mint and frankincense, among other sweet-smelling plants, a new study finds.
The study is the first biochemical look at the heart of Richard I, who died in 1199. As was common practice at the time, the king’s heart was removed and…
wtfhistory reblogged
collectivehistory-deactivated20
London readers continue to browse at a bombed-out library, WWII.
Not sure if this will help anyone like it helped me, but I think this is a good image for today.
Life will go on.
Goodness will be found.
And the good guys will always, always outnumber the bad. Even if it doesn't always seem that way.
I promise.
Source: susaneliamacneal.blogspot.com
wtfhistory reblogged
Happy Birthday Johnston and the London Underground
This week London sees the 150th anniversary of the London Underground. To commemorate the occasion a stream locomotive used in the 19th century made a journey through the modern tunnels of the Metropolitan line. See more on the BBC
It is also 100 years since its iconic typeface Johnston Sans was released as the the ‘Underground’ typeface. Dan Rhatigan, type director at Monotype and forthcoming interviewee of 8 Faces talks about Edward Johnston and the typeface here.
The structured, based on a calligraphic nib held at a 45 degree angle, is emphasised by Johnston’s diamond tittles shapes (the dots over the i and j), one of it’s most recognisable characteristics.
Source: wired.co.uk
wtfhistory reblogged
"The Island Girl" - 535-552 CE
Let’s kick this show off with someone whose name wasn’t even recorded by history but whose badassery lives on even without a name. Known only as “the island girl”, this English princess was mentioned by Procopius after she was jilted by her betrothed, Radigis. They had set up an arranged political marriage when randy Radigis married another woman. “You can keep the dowry gold,” Radigis said, assuming women like sparkly things and this would be enough of a consolation prize for the publicly snubbed princess. In the absence of text messaging, “the island girl” demanded a written explanation. When Radigis did the male thing and ignored her, “the island girl” eschewed crying into her Ben & Jerry’s and invaded his ass. With the help of a younger brother, big sis demanded some answers. With a sword. Radigis, not realizing that “chicks be cray” when they get snubbed by douches, had to go on the run. Eventually little brother captured Radigis and dragged his sorry ass back to “the island girl”, who was calling the shots of this venture. Rather than make a eunuch out of him, “the island girl” calmly asked for some answers. Radigis sniveled around “baby I was wrong, I’ll marry you if you let me live” and surprisingly she did. “The island girl” sent Radigis’s romantic mistake back home and took her place as queen. While I assume this made for awkward dinner conversation for YEARS to come, the alliance between the two tribes lasted for an extremely long time, indicating that once Radigis figured out his wife had bigger stones than he did things were fairly peaceful.
...Ok, whoever wrote this is awesome and I want a high-five.
wtfhistory reblogged
Wounds from the battlefield: What Richard III’s remains revealed about war-scarred king For centuries, the location of King Richard III’s body has been unknown. Records say he was buried by the Franciscan monks of Grey Friars at their church in Leicester, 160 kilometres north of London. The church was closed and dismantled after King Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries in 1538, and its location eventually was forgotten. Then, last September, archaeologists searching for Richard dug up the skeleton of an adult male who appeared to have died in battle. Bone specialist Jo Appleby said the 10 injuries to the body were inflicted by weapons like swords, daggers and halberds and were consistent with accounts of Richard being struck down in battle — his helmet knocked from his head — before his body was stripped naked and flung over the back of a horse in disgrace. She said some scars, including a knife wound to the buttock, bore the hallmarks of “humiliation injuries” inflicted after death.
Source: news.nationalpost.com
wtfhistory reblogged
‘Beyond reasonable doubt’: King Richard III’s remains found buried beneath England parking lot He wore the English crown, but he ended up defeated, humiliated and reviled. Now things are looking up for King Richard III. Scientists announced Monday that they had found the monarch’s 500-year-old remains under a parking lot in the city of Leicester — a discovery Richard’s fans say will rewrite the history books. University of Leicester researchers say tests on a battle-scarred skeleton unearthed last year prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that it is the king, who died at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, and whose remains have been missing for centuries. “Richard III, the last Plantaganet King of England, has been found,” said the university’s deputy registrar, Richard Taylor. (AP Photo/ University of Leicester)
sophieandherkind
Sorry why are more people not screaming about this???
They found him in a damned car park. RICHARD THE THIRD!!!!
HOLY FUCKING SHIT
YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY GRASP HOW BAD I AM FREAKING OUT RIGHT NOW.
Source: news.nationalpost.com