The cubs shall awake and shall roar loud.

Cruel, anti-English, and almost certainly gay.

[baublecoded]

where to begin...?

[speakingtrms]

foaling season - ada limón

[enki2]

[badnightbrian]

[baublecoded]

john matusiak really was unfailingly hateful and stupid, wasn't he?

[swordmaid]

when the root of the tragedy was love.

[sari-papatya-deactivated2018050]

[thempyrealexicon]

#senatorblogging #this is a roman senator blog #this is what makes us roman senators #the big caesar #hell is a balding senator #senator interrupted #im just a bald senator

[my-secret-shame]

[i-said-im-a-fucking-star-deacti]

puts my uncomfortably wet hand on your shoulder. see here, gay boy- can i call you gay boy?

[wonder-worker]

"Henry II had at least eight legitimate children by Eleanor born between 1152 and 1167, but also seven by as many concubines (5 sons and 2 daughters), of whom several were born before Eleanor appeared on the scene and several during the king’s marriage."

— Elisabeth van Houts, "Queens in the Anglo-Norman/Angevin realm 1066–1216"

I always thought Henry II had two or three illegitimate children (at least, that's what most biographies and other academic papers said...), but he apparently had seven?

The source Elisabeth van Houts cited was the chapter "Archbishop Geoffrey of York. A problem in Anglo-French Maternity" by Marie Lovatt in Records, Administration and Aristocratic Society in the Anglo-Norman Realm. I don't have the book and can't find the chapter anywhere online, so if anyone can access it or knows anything more about this, please let me know!

[baublecoded]

#@ angevin experts please chime in ; hope it's okay to reblog and add to this! i hardly count as an angevin expert and certainly not one for henry ii but i do have access to this chapter and the list of illegitimate children seems to be:

geoffrey

hawise (possible)

matilda

morgan

peter

richard (possible)

william longespee

[wonder-worker]

"In light of the charters, Eleanor's role and power in Aquitaine differ from historians' traditional descriptions. During her first marriage, her carefully affirmed and maintained legitimacy served as a basic tool for Louis VII's power and authority, but her official activity was limited. During the early years of her second marriage and especially in 1168-73, she enjoyed a recognized authority over her inheritance and exercised a more substantial if still partial power. Thanks to the patrimonial concept restored to deal with the challenges of the Plantagenet domains, she drew closer to, but never reached, the center of the decision-making process. This led her into the revolt of 1173-74 and forced her retreat into silence and the long years of political inactivity. Even if her status as a married woman did not restrict her official role in her inherited duchy, it imposed upon her certain constraints that varied according to the political atmosphere: Louis VII and Henry II associated her with power in different ways and assigned her different functions. Only in widowhood could she express herself fully through a greatly intensified charter production and attain at last the heart of power."

Marie Hivergneaux, "Queen Eleanor and Aquitaine, 1137-1189", Eleanor of Aquitaine: Lord and Lady

[oldbutchdanielmolloy]

getting obsessed with a real life guy who sucks is the ultimate cure for all ails

[trigona-necrophaga]

I think this counts as a murder

[mengyaosevilpussy]

tragedy enjoyers when a character upholds the system that they themselves were a victim of

[baublecoded]

just had a white american man hop into my dms to lecture me about king john oh how i have missed being a cunt thank you for this opportunity

[isabelofwraithmarsh]

Help me, I was just reminded of the existence of the "some fairy tales are over 6000 years old" post.....

[isabelofwraithmarsh]

Alright, let me give a sample example -- I'm not using an authentic folktale for this, but I'm going to try to use a hopefully plausible series of events. You, as a folklorist, see that the same story exists in France, Ireland, Scotland, Norway, and is also referenced by a 5th century author writing in Latin. Some of the details have changed, but the structure of the story remains the same. How do you think it spread, and how old do you think the story is?

If you use a simple version of the Historic-Geographic Method (not what's usually done these days), you could say that it's very obviously an Indo-European story, at least 5000 years old.

Alternatively, it could be that the story disseminated into Ireland and France via the extensive intellectual links both had to the classical world and made it into Scotland and Norway via Ireland, with the story evolving in all countries to suit changing tastes and audiences.

Alternatively, the story could contain certain motifs that are popular, and we're looking at an example of polygenesis.

You can't *know* -- you have to be INCREDIBLY careful when making any claims about how certain folk tales originated. It only takes ONE PERSON spreading the story in a new location for it to become established there, and most of our folklore records don't go back prior to the 19th century.