Honestlyjustamillyfanpage - Madeleine/Clytemnestra's Wife

behold: the ultimate classic lit venn diagram

no one:

my mind during a test:

Every single odd number has an “e” in it.

Kya: Dad, I have to tell you something...I’m gay

Aang, thinking about Kyoshi:

My mum: I’m not being over dramatic!!!

How she’s acting:

Forgot I hadn't posted these yet

So I just want to address some comments made recently on a post of mine which said that to choose a favourite side in the Wars of the Roses is ‘amoral and ableist’. I just want to talk about that a bit.

Before I do, here’s a little bit of background information about myself. Hi, my name is Milly. I am an Early Modern History student, whose current research project is the causes of the Wars of the Roses. I am also someone who has a whole host of disabilities, both physical and mental. These include (off the top of my head because the list is extensive): autism, Asperger’s, potential ADHD (haven’t had time to get it diagnosed yet, I’m pretty busy), dyscalculia, hypermobility, EDS, arthritis and a childhood speech impediment which has been beginning to resurface. My immediate family also have a whole host of disabilities too and my uncle, who I can’t say too much about for legal reasons, had an unclarified mental disability which, in my opinion, was quite similar to that of Henry VI and the Valois line.

The first thing I want to say is this is in no way an argument, an attack or a ‘diss’ or anything like that. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss my thoughts on this subject.

I would then like to say that I do not see how taking a favourite side in the Wars of the Roses can be both ableist and amoral. Surely a moral standpoint would to be to choose the least-dysfunctional side, but one can argue that that is ableist as it discriminates against a disabled monarch?

Then onto the subject of being ableist. As mentioned above, I have a whole lot of disabilities. Because of these disabilities, I find it difficult to do some things. One thing which I struggle with is stress and organisation... things which are essential to life as a student! Thankfully, I live in a time in which these things are somewhat accounted for and I can just about scrape by. That does not, however, mean that I would be suited to every environment or every profession. For example, I would make a terrible surgeon, as I lack both the co-ordination and the ability to make such life or death decisions safely and rationally. This does not mean that hospitals are ableist work environments (though I am sure there are cases in which they are!), it just means that my disability DISABLES me from being able to do some things, and that I am ill-suited to that career.

However, if you think about traditional monarchy and the hereditary structure of monarchy reliant on primogeniture, poor Henry VI got the short end of the stick. His disability meant that he WAS ill suited to kingship - it is pointless to deny this - but he couldn’t just change career. He was stuck on the throne. And the consequences of this was that the country- for whatever reason- fell into a little bit of disorder and the monarchy was weakened, leading, as we all know, to the rise of the Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick and the eventual usurpation by Edward IV. And while these failings can indeed be traced back to Henry’s mental illness, it is not at all ableist to agree that the effects of this illness made him ill suited to kingship- any provisions made for him (councils and protectorships, etc) - did not mean that the government was able to live up to the traditional standards of kingship.

Following on from that, I would like to question how choosing a favourite side even can be ableist? Though it is true that I generally prefer York, I did not initially specify this and therefore this is based on assumption. Other than the Shakespearean image of the hunchbacked Richard III (which has no historical foundations), there were no disabled Yorkist kings. You can, of course, argue that the minority of Edward V made him inherently weak and powerless against attack from Richard, but this is hardly a disability rather than another example of an inherently weak kingship which naturally opposes strong medieval government. Had my favourite side had been Lancaster (though my favourite king is actually Henry V!), would this argument even have a leg to stand on?

Next, I will briefly discuss the ‘amorality’ issue.

I would firstly like to just make one thing clear... this is Tumblr. I was making a joke on a blog quite literally called ‘memes-history’. More than anything, I was actually talking more about the ‘vibes’ each house gives off. My page is meant to be the fun side of history, and I generally prefer to focus on that.

Then I want to discuss this. What would the moral approach to the Wars of the Roses be, remembering that this was a near-enough absolute (*obviously, as any historian will tell you, it’s not absolute, but you get what I’m saying) monarchy? Would it be to support the annointed king? Is it truly morality or is it religious obedience? Or would it be - what in retrospect seems like the chosen path - to usurp an unfit monarch (regardless of what reason there is for their unfit state) and place a more capable monarch on the throne? This then gives a whole set of questions: was Richard right in disposing the unfit minor king Edward V even though he was an innocent child? It can easily go past history and become purely philosophical.

If we take a modern, democratic view of the situation, surely it is right to remove an unfit ruler? Did the US not just vote out Trump for that reason, replacing him with Biden. Theoretically, he could have had four more years, but the people decided that he was unsuitable. Is this not what Edward of York did? Was his reign not overall successful, and far more so than Henry VI’s, no matter what his disability? I think it is very difficult to argue about morality in history because these things are never black and white.

As I mentioned earlier, my favourite house is the Yorks as I generally prefer and am more interested in studying their personalities. I particularly love Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York, who, of course, married Henry VII, a Tudor with a Lancastrian claim. At the Battle of Bosworth Field, I like to think that I would have supported the Tudor claim, as I believe that he was MORALLY a better fit for kingship than Richard, but at the same time, I also admire Richard more for his bravery in battle, while condemning his otherwise ‘evil’ actions. Then I also like Henry V for his tactical mind and military excellence, as demonstrated during his French campaigns. I think he is an interesting king to study. Yet, overall, I decided that I preferred the general vibe of the House of York, and though Edward may not be my favourite king overall, the period which saw Henry VI’s second reign and the betrayal of Clarence is wonderfully interesting.

As you can tell, my choice to claim York as my favourite is neither ableist nor amoral. It simply is. There have been countless other disabled leaders - such as Roosevelt - who were able to do their job despite their disability. Unfortunately, it just so happens to be that Henry VI’s disability did have a negative impact on his ability to lead. ItMs important to remember: Henry VI was Lancastrian, but Lancaster was not Henry VI. There’s good and bad in all and you therefore cannot lump them all together. And as for amorality, claiming a general favourite does not mean you support everything they did - just look at Biden. Like Edward IV, he is better than his predecessor, but that does not mean he is perfect! And just like the people who study Hitler; it doesn’t mean they are Nazis, it just means they are interested in the period.

Though I said you can tell a lot about a person by their choices, your choices in no way define you and you should not be restricted by them.

Also, if you made it this far, I’m so sorry but Jesus Christ well done for doing it!

Theatre Playground vs Straight Acting

@maryxschuyler the Stella to my Blanche 💞

Martin said we couldn't post videos on socials but he said nothing about pictures also I think Tumblr doesn't count as it is simply a deep dark void so it should be fine

Also peep the violin wrist I don't think I'll ever do anything better than that in my life icl.

The concept of Agatha and Rio as a couple is very deep for many reasons but also funny to think about in Agatha's case. Imagine being so much to handle that the only existing being who can match your freak is, quite literally, the personification of Death herself.

2nd reblog because it's still funny as fuck

So I just want to address some comments made recently on a post of mine which said that to choose a favourite side in the Wars of the Roses is ‘amoral and ableist’. I just want to talk about that a bit.

Before I do, here’s a little bit of background information about myself. Hi, my name is Milly. I am an Early Modern History student, whose current research project is the causes of the Wars of the Roses. I am also someone who has a whole host of disabilities, both physical and mental. These include (off the top of my head because the list is extensive): autism, Asperger’s, potential ADHD (haven’t had time to get it diagnosed yet, I’m pretty busy), dyscalculia, hypermobility, EDS, arthritis and a childhood speech impediment which has been beginning to resurface. My immediate family also have a whole host of disabilities too and my uncle, who I can’t say too much about for legal reasons, had an unclarified mental disability which, in my opinion, was quite similar to that of Henry VI and the Valois line.

The first thing I want to say is this is in no way an argument, an attack or a ‘diss’ or anything like that. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss my thoughts on this subject.

I would then like to say that I do not see how taking a favourite side in the Wars of the Roses can be both ableist and amoral. Surely a moral standpoint would to be to choose the least-dysfunctional side, but one can argue that that is ableist as it discriminates against a disabled monarch?

Then onto the subject of being ableist. As mentioned above, I have a whole lot of disabilities. Because of these disabilities, I find it difficult to do some things. One thing which I struggle with is stress and organisation... things which are essential to life as a student! Thankfully, I live in a time in which these things are somewhat accounted for and I can just about scrape by. That does not, however, mean that I would be suited to every environment or every profession. For example, I would make a terrible surgeon, as I lack both the co-ordination and the ability to make such life or death decisions safely and rationally. This does not mean that hospitals are ableist work environments (though I am sure there are cases in which they are!), it just means that my disability DISABLES me from being able to do some things, and that I am ill-suited to that career.

However, if you think about traditional monarchy and the hereditary structure of monarchy reliant on primogeniture, poor Henry VI got the short end of the stick. His disability meant that he WAS ill suited to kingship - it is pointless to deny this - but he couldn’t just change career. He was stuck on the throne. And the consequences of this was that the country- for whatever reason- fell into a little bit of disorder and the monarchy was weakened, leading, as we all know, to the rise of the Duke of York, the Earl of Warwick and the eventual usurpation by Edward IV. And while these failings can indeed be traced back to Henry’s mental illness, it is not at all ableist to agree that the effects of this illness made him ill suited to kingship- any provisions made for him (councils and protectorships, etc) - did not mean that the government was able to live up to the traditional standards of kingship.

Following on from that, I would like to question how choosing a favourite side even can be ableist? Though it is true that I generally prefer York, I did not initially specify this and therefore this is based on assumption. Other than the Shakespearean image of the hunchbacked Richard III (which has no historical foundations), there were no disabled Yorkist kings. You can, of course, argue that the minority of Edward V made him inherently weak and powerless against attack from Richard, but this is hardly a disability rather than another example of an inherently weak kingship which naturally opposes strong medieval government. Had my favourite side had been Lancaster (though my favourite king is actually Henry V!), would this argument even have a leg to stand on?

Next, I will briefly discuss the ‘amorality’ issue.

I would firstly like to just make one thing clear... this is Tumblr. I was making a joke on a blog quite literally called ‘memes-history’. More than anything, I was actually talking more about the ‘vibes’ each house gives off. My page is meant to be the fun side of history, and I generally prefer to focus on that.

Then I want to discuss this. What would the moral approach to the Wars of the Roses be, remembering that this was a near-enough absolute (*obviously, as any historian will tell you, it’s not absolute, but you get what I’m saying) monarchy? Would it be to support the annointed king? Is it truly morality or is it religious obedience? Or would it be - what in retrospect seems like the chosen path - to usurp an unfit monarch (regardless of what reason there is for their unfit state) and place a more capable monarch on the throne? This then gives a whole set of questions: was Richard right in disposing the unfit minor king Edward V even though he was an innocent child? It can easily go past history and become purely philosophical.

If we take a modern, democratic view of the situation, surely it is right to remove an unfit ruler? Did the US not just vote out Trump for that reason, replacing him with Biden. Theoretically, he could have had four more years, but the people decided that he was unsuitable. Is this not what Edward of York did? Was his reign not overall successful, and far more so than Henry VI’s, no matter what his disability? I think it is very difficult to argue about morality in history because these things are never black and white.

As I mentioned earlier, my favourite house is the Yorks as I generally prefer and am more interested in studying their personalities. I particularly love Elizabeth Woodville and Elizabeth of York, who, of course, married Henry VII, a Tudor with a Lancastrian claim. At the Battle of Bosworth Field, I like to think that I would have supported the Tudor claim, as I believe that he was MORALLY a better fit for kingship than Richard, but at the same time, I also admire Richard more for his bravery in battle, while condemning his otherwise ‘evil’ actions. Then I also like Henry V for his tactical mind and military excellence, as demonstrated during his French campaigns. I think he is an interesting king to study. Yet, overall, I decided that I preferred the general vibe of the House of York, and though Edward may not be my favourite king overall, the period which saw Henry VI’s second reign and the betrayal of Clarence is wonderfully interesting.

As you can tell, my choice to claim York as my favourite is neither ableist nor amoral. It simply is. There have been countless other disabled leaders - such as Roosevelt - who were able to do their job despite their disability. Unfortunately, it just so happens to be that Henry VI’s disability did have a negative impact on his ability to lead. ItMs important to remember: Henry VI was Lancastrian, but Lancaster was not Henry VI. There’s good and bad in all and you therefore cannot lump them all together. And as for amorality, claiming a general favourite does not mean you support everything they did - just look at Biden. Like Edward IV, he is better than his predecessor, but that does not mean he is perfect! And just like the people who study Hitler; it doesn’t mean they are Nazis, it just means they are interested in the period.

Though I said you can tell a lot about a person by their choices, your choices in no way define you and you should not be restricted by them.

Also, if you made it this far, I’m so sorry but Jesus Christ well done for doing it!