I think the reason Charles never refers to Hawkeye by his name is because it’s a nickname, because he’ll call BJ, Margaret, and Klinger by their names without issue, and I could write up an entire post about Charles’ approach to names and nicknames and I might come back and do that tomorrow when it’s not so late
For now I just want to make the point that there’s a scenario in my head where Charles tried one (1) time to call Hawkeye Benjamin in casual conversation and the entire conversation ground to a halt because they both got incredibly uncomfortable about it because it sounded so WRONG and they agreed to never talk about it again
163 notes
·
View notes
I'm continuing my DAO replay and like....... are we just not going to talk about the fact that Anora's handmaiden is Orlesian?
I'm sorry, how did the Queen of Fereldan end up with an Orlesian handmaid? Did Loghain approve of that? Because I bet he sure didn't! Given everything about him, I bet he threw a real stink about that! And yet, Erlina is close enough to Anora to beg the wardens to save her after she's locked up by Howe, appearing entirely loyal to her.
So I broke out the World of Thedas vol2 to see if it said something in there about her and I couldn't find anything. All the wiki has to say is, "Erlina is the handmaiden of Queen Anora. Not much is known about her background but she apparently escaped from Orlais. Arl Eamon suspects that she is more than a simple servant."
Gee, ya think, Eamon?
I just find that to be a very interesting detail, one that has my theorist gears cranking and spinning.
41 notes
·
View notes
Sometimes you´re out grocery shopping and idly browsing the frozen veg section when you suddenly remember that the queen threw up after Erik´s death when Wille said he´s always been compared to his brother and Wille threw up when he realized he´s going to have to keep being crown prince.
And you think about similar reactions to stress of parent and child and you remember the queen told Wille to take three deep breaths when he freaked out over Simon´s date and how she sends him to therapy to control his outbursts (ugh).
And you think where did it all go wrong that she can´t ever connect with her son when she´s obviously got some experience in that department. I think we meet her so far into her own history of controlling her emotions that she´s unable and mostly unwilling to connect even when Wille is outright asking her to be his mom (gah!), because oh hey, those would be more emotions she would need to allow to break through, and those walls are staying. Maybe in her mind even for Wille´s own good, to teach him how it´s done.
And there´s certainly reasons for those walls and it´s probably part self-protection and probably people telling her from a young age she needs to have them, and probably also because she´s a woman on the throne, so people would probably insist a little extra on them.
The most honest and raw I´ve seen her in the show is the moment she throws up.
(I usually question what she´s saying to Wille or August, no matter what warm or soft tone she´s using about what the court allegedly wants her to do, how it´s not really her, and how she actually supports Wille etc, as she´s been proven to manipulate Wille (and August in S2) into doing what she thinks is best for the institution she´s the head of. The one whose survival is always the priority, as per her own words.)
She´s shown to do royal business in what looks like pyjamas after all, the most casual and private of clothes, telling us there´s no separation, ever, that she´s always the queen. She rolls her eyes at her son after ending a phone call in which a rattled Wille sits among shards of glass negotiating with her (!), after she wanted to forcibly remove him from school. She doesn´t ever truly seem torn or conflicted, except that one time she throws up.
When her emotional core literally breaks its way out of her against her will.
No wonder she completely underestimates Wille and the depth and power for change his emotions hold after he´s finally allowed some therapy (that he could have used long ago just for growing up in that institution) and experienced actual emotional growth and healing instead of using it for control like she probably has. No wonder she and the court collectively underestimate Simon and what his love, what their love and connection mean to Wille. (Looking at you, Jan-Olof, allowing Wille a moment with Simon, you fool!) It´s simply been too long behind those impenetrable walls that she can´t even see it anymore. Until her son shows her. And you wonder if he´s even breaking through to her, or if she´s just been confirmed in her fears about his emotional unruliness and will dig in deeper inside her fortress. (Another time if feels like we see some honest emotion from her is of course in S1 when she´s visibly angry as she says that nobody ever chooses the royal life, so maybe Wille can relay Boris´ message about choosing how to live your life to her? Maybe she´s not beyond Boris´ wisdom. Anyway.)
The show shines such an unforgiving light on that institution that chokes all feelings and individual freedom out of you, especially over such a long time as with the queen, but I love love love how hopeful and defiant Wille´s journey of deliberate progress is in the face of it.
And I do hope he´ll continue therapy and never allows his own walls back up once they´re down.
145 notes
·
View notes
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"
10 notes
·
View notes