Currently Obsessed With The Idea Of A Jaskier’s-immortal, It’s-modern-times-now AU Where Some Of

Goodboy takes the train

As a history buff who's been most interested in Henry 8th and his quest for a male heir and all the inheritance messes after his death, I was real fucking excited for HOTD.

The Iron throne should go to Aegon II. By all logic it really should.

Viserys got the throne by being Jaehaerys' second son's oldest son because the man didn't want his eldest son's daughter on the throne basically. That sets a president for shit:

Throne should go to the eldest son available, not to a daughter or through a daughter

Aemma dies in childbirth because Viserys wants a male heir. He wanted that boy so much that he fucking had c-section done on Aemma with no regard for her, he just wanted the son. That son would have been his heir.

Then he names Rhaenyra heir because he doesn't want to give the throne to Daemon (me neither). Viserys names Rhaenyra heir but he doesn't make a decree or law that the oldest child should inherit the throne regardless of sex. This is an exception for Rhaenyra and Rhaenyra alone.

Back to Henry 8th whose basically only known for wanting a son. Both his daughters Mary and Elizabeth went down in the line of succession when Edward was born. Even though Edward was born from a third marriage and had older sisters, he was the heir.

It's not complitely the same situation and Westerosi politics are a little different than in our medieval/early modern period but the princible is the same.

Also in a famously and unrelentingly misogynist world like Westeros a lot of people will favous Aegon on the sole point of him being a man. No matter which one is on the throne both are in danger.

Rhaenyra on the throne:

If she herself doesn't give a shit and doesn't wish Alicent's kids any harm, someone does

Aegon and his siblings are in danger by just being Viserys' children and having a very strong claim to the throne

Someone in Rhaenyra's camp will get the idea of offing Alicent's kids in the name of Rhaenyra's claim

Also Daemon is on Rhaenyra's team and I would not trust my kids' safety in his hands, he killed his wife. I would not trust him not to kill his nephews

Aegon on the throne:

Rhaenyra will be in danger by just being alive and Viserys' child

Someone in Aegon's camp gets the same idea to kill her in order to protect Aegon's claim even though he nor Alicent would want no such thing

All about the coming war could have been prevented by A) changing the inheritance law, B) not making Rhaenyra an exception and getting a male heir by second marriage, or C) making Aegon heir when he was born. Or Aegon and Rhaenyra could have married (horrible age difference but a solution) and ruled as an equal pair.

Translating Period Dramas for Today

I finally got around to watching Little Women (2019) directed by Greta Gerwig and there was a scene that felt very familiar.

When Amy March is giving her speech to Laurie, talking about how marrying just for love isn't a practical option for her, it reminded me a lot of Charlotte Luca's words to Elizabeth in Pride and Prejudice (2005).

"So don't sit there and tell me that marriage isn't an economic proposition, because it is. It may not be for you but it most certainly is for me." - Amy March

"I'm twenty-seven years old, I've no money and no prospects. I'm already a burden to my parents and I'm frightened. So don't you judge me, Lizzy. Don't you dare judge me!" - Charlotte Lucas

Both are from more modernized versions of period dramas where the book is written by an author that was actually from the time period.

Both feel like the characters are anachronistically defending themselves against modern day feminists, saying "Don't judge me! I'm making the smartest decision I can given my opportunities in society in this time period!"

Which is fair I guess, but it feels out of place. Maybe a woman from that time would say that, but they wouldn't have been defending themselves as much against our modern-day sensibilities of "Marry whoever you want! It's completely your choice! Or don't marry at all! You can do whatever you want with your life!"

It feels like an attempt by modern producers and writers to translate the period drama character's circumstances to a modern audience.

But it still feels weird.

Book!Charlotte never seemed like she was defensive. She was just like, "Hey this is who I am, Lizzy. I got a sweet deal and it works for me."

It's like modern period dramas are afraid to be period dramas. Granted, I do appreciate the little bits of expositional dialogue that helps explain historical things to the audience that they might not know, like how Longbourne can only be inherited by the next male heir, but I wonder if there's a better way to translate stories to audiences today without characters having to give speeches about how you shouldn't judge a woman for lack of agency when the patriarchal society of that time period has left her little to none of it. (Still a fair point though.)

What do y'all think?

Billy did get suspended for a week, but it was so worth it.

what's the opposite of feeling sand slip through your fingers because I feel this poem more and more as time passes

foreman. babe. we’re at the bottom end of season 8. you have worked here for almost a decade. why are you still surprised there's medical malpractice going on at the medical malpractice department that you, personally, used to do medical malpractice at

I recently encountered our elderly neighbour's granddaughter(?) in the elevator, and learned that she's one of those people who refer to a dog as "hän". I started thinking about pronouns. While a lot of western european languages have gendered pronouns, finnish just doesn't do that. Written finnish has two separate pronouns, "hän" - he/she/they for humans and any being that can be considered a person, and "se" - "it" for objects and animals. Many finns who are awkward with the english rules startle people by referring to a beloved pet as "it", because they don't quite notice the difference in tone that it has in english - that's what they've learned in school is the pronoun for animals in written finnish, so they apply the same principle.

So while this is how it works in written finnish, very few dialects of spoken finnish actually regularly use "hän", as it comes off as far too formal, and refer to people regardless of who they are as "it". The pronoun "hän" is too formal, to the point that people don't even use it to refer to anyone as a sign of respect unless they're being sarcastically over-polite - much like one would sarcastically curtsy or bow at a person of authority they have absolutely zero respect for. As a matter of fact I've only ever seen the two gestures done in the same context. Finns can be slavishly obedient but they don't bow for anyone.

The only other context I've heard "hän" being used in a normal conversation are religious people referring to god, as a sign of reverence. God is never "it", even in the same sentence where your own mother is. And the other one is for beloved pets. Cats, however, do sometimes get the double-context, being sarcastically referred with the honorary pronoun while also being a pet. Everyone knows you're talking about a cat if you're saying something like "Hänelle ei nyt uusi hiekka kelvannut niin Hän päätti paskantaa lattialle" - "She was displeased with the new kitty litter so She decided to shit on the floor."

self proclaimed schizoposter nervously typing '911' into their phone and hovering their thumb above the 'call' key as they hawkishly watch a disheveled guy at a bus stop make repetitive movements and ramble to himself