14 hours ago ( 1858 notes ) + via /source

positivelypinkie:

The only male attention I want is from rich dudes who have too much money on their hands and pizza delivery boys who have prepaid pizzas and the wrong address.

17 hours ago ( 45 notes ) + via /source

pennypyro:

I like these, but how do you know which house a baby would be in? hmm

17 hours ago ( 160 notes ) + via /source

bethwoodvilles:

Queens of England + Emma of Normandy (985 - 1052)

Emma was born in Normandy to Richard the Fearless Duke of Normandy and his second wife, Gunnora.

In an attempt to pacify Normandy, King Æthelred of England married Emma. Viking raids on England were often based in Normandy in the late 10th century, and this marriage was intended to unite against the Viking threat. During their marriage, Æthelred and Emma had two sons, Edward the Confessor and Alfred, and a daughter, Goda of England.

Emma and Æthelred’s marriage ended with Æthelred’s death in London 1016. Emma’s sons had been ranked after all of the sons from his first wife, the oldest of whom was Edmund Ironside. Emma made an attempt to get her oldest son, Edward, recognized as heir. Although this movement was supported by Æthelred’s chief advisor, Eadric Streona, it was opposed by Edmund Ironside, Æthelred’s second oldest son, and his allies, who eventually revolted against his father.

In 1015, Cnut, the son of Sweyn Forkbeard of Denmark, invaded England. He was held out of London until the deaths of Æthelred and Edmund in April and November 1016, respectively. Queen Emma attempted to maintain Anglo-Saxon control of London until her marriage to Cnut was arranged. Some scholars believe that the marriage saved her sons lives, as Cnut tried to rid himself of rival claimants, but spared their lives.

At this time Emma became the Queen Consort of England, and later of Denmark, and Norway. Emma was not particularly active in the first years of Cnut’s reign. However, she became more active in 1020, when she began to befriend clergy on the European continent, as well as taking the role of patroness to the church.

Her close relationship with clergy and the church strengthened her husband’s claim to the throne as a Christian King. The Encomium Emmae Reginae suggests in its second book that Emma and Cnut’s marriage, though intended as a political strategy, became an affectionate marriage. During their marriage, Emma and Cnut had a son, Harthacnut, and a daughter, Gunhilda. (x)

17 hours ago ( 31 notes ) + via /source

sketchyjade:

Happy 450th birthday to William Shakespeare! This is a tribute to his work featuring my favourite Shakespearean actor, Tom Hiddleston. (Grungy paper texture by bashcorpo)

22 hours ago ( 89 notes ) + via /source

amarguerite:

megaparsecs:

A reminder for today that supporting the idea that Oxford or Sir Francis Bacon or whoever wrote Shakespeare’s works is inherently classist and undermines the very essence of what makes Shakespeare great: the universality of his writing.

Shakespeare didn’t write to impress academics or to become reknown in literary circles, he wrote because he loved it and he loved acting and the theater, because he liked showing people up and he liked getting paid.

Shakespeare wrote a lot of plays where the main characters are noble, yes, but he wrote actors too — and teenage kids and poor grad students and nurses. His nobles aren’t memorable because they are grand but because anyone can relate to them, Hamlet’s not special to us because he’s a prince but because many of us can see our struggles in his thoughts and actions.

Do not let Oxfordians or Baconians take away what is special about Shakespeare: that he was an ordinary man writing plays not just for nobles or kings, for landowners or the highly educated elite but for ordinary people — for apprentices and butchers and merchant’s wives and maids. His company performed at court, but they also performed at the Globe, where you could get in for a penny if you didn’t mind standing in a crowd.

The Authorship Question isn’t really about discovering “who really wrote Shakespeare,” it’s about elitists being upset and confused and angry because the greatest works in the English language were written by the son of a well-off tradesman who never went to college. 

THANK YOU!

I would also like to add that a lot of the Authorship Question also arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of early modern English culture. A lot of the records that we have for Shakespeare are business-oriented because those were the sorts of documents that were considered important. It’s not a fundamental disconnect from the solitary genius baring his soul though poetry (an idea that emerged via 19th century Romantics— before Wordsworth, sonnets were not considered to be confessional in nature). It’s just a matter of what archives were important to early modern people.

There’s not an absence of evidence, there’s an absence of archive, based on what Shakespeare’s contemporaries thought was important to preserve. We know about as much about Shakespeare’s life as we know about other Elizabethan playwrights. (This podcast offers more poof of this. The lecturer wrote for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and mentions that only seven lost years for an early modern subject was considered remarkably good going.) It’s only because Shakespeare was glommed onto as a secular Jesus in the 18th and 19th century (and the rise of biography as a genre starting with I think Boswell’s The Life of Samuel Johnson) that knowing more about his life became an obsession, to the point where there were famous forgers and people began to think that an absence of evidence that they and their 18th/19th century contemporaries would have preserved was proof of a conspiracy. 

As to the education argument— that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what English grammar schools were like during the Elizabethan era. The references and allusions in Shakespeare’s plays are perfectly consistent with the curriculum of a typical grammar school graduate. And speaking of the plays, they are fundamentally of the theater and for the theater. They flatter patrons (o hai there Banquo’s successively handsomer and kinglier descendants *cough*James I*cough), they play with what could and could not be done on a stage. They retell stories popular at the time (The Merchant of Venice is often considered to be a reaction to Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta). 

Shakespeare wrote for people like him— for people like us. Not people who preserved the same things we do, or who learned the same things we do, but people who felt the same as we do. 

22 hours ago ( 976 notes ) + via /source

asgardfeels:

#that awkward moment when you’re watching the movies with someone who doesn’t get why you’re cackling like a madman at these lines.

1 day ago ( 55983 notes ) + via /source

i-am-mishafuckingcollins:

cordelias-coriander-condiment:

Who else misses Tumblr before it was this?

i have seen death

1 day ago ( 65428 notes ) + via /source

rocksfalleveryonedies:

2 days ago ( 287246 notes ) + via /source
Shakespeare Question

sweetspeas:

nyxira:

Someone just asked me what is a nonny and how does one hey it. 

"It’s like the ‘Yeah, son!’ of Early Modern English music?"

2 days ago ( 132 notes ) + via /source

halorvic:

image

2 days ago ( 2709 notes ) + via /source

Endless list of favourite movies: Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)

 ”The Egyptians believed that one can only create a truly original perfume by adding an extra note, one final essence that will ring out and dominate the others. Legend had it that an amphora was once found in a pharaoh’s tomb, and when it was opened, a perfume was released, after all those thousands of years, a perfume of such subtle beauty, and yet such power, that for one single moment every person on earth believed they were in paradise. 12 essences could be identified, but the 13th, the vital one, could never be determined”

2 days ago ( 557 notes ) + via /source

triple-torch:

adriofthedead:

buzzfeed:

50 ducks invaded a CVS in New York, but they were extremely well behaved.

and they all want sun chips

The Mitch heidburg reference was the icing to this

2 days ago ( 58996 notes ) + via /source
2 days ago ( 26372 notes ) + via /source
Anonymous wondered: "so what youre saying is that you support cis people? after all theyve done to oppress you as a "queer" individual?"

amazingatheist:

stoppity:

Yes. I do support cis people. Just in the same way that I would support anyone else. If you are born cis, you cannot help that fact. You aren’t born into hatred. Being cis isn’t wrong. At all.

Have I been oppressed by cishet individuals? Absolutely. I’ve had the shit beat out of me all through high school because of my sexuality. I’ve been beaten, abused, held down, denied employment, and raped for who I am. By cisgendered, heterosexual people. But that doesn’t change the fact that my father is cis. My mother is, too. My friends are. My classmates. My roommate. My girlfriend, for fuck’s sake, is cis.

Just because I have been wronged by some, does not give me the right to hate all. I hate some. Not, by any means, all.

I hate those that have wronged me as individuals. As specific people, who have done specific wrong to me. My rapist was cisgendered. But, so is my eight-year-old niece. 

In short, Anon, yes. I absolutely support cis persons. Why? Because being born with uncontrollable traits is not grounds for hatred, under any circumstances. 

Two of the three boys that beat the shit out of me in high school, consistently, were black. Does that give me the right to hate all black men? Absolutely not. Do you see where I’m going with this, Anon?

No matter the circumstances, hating an entire group of people based on immutable traits is wrong. When you do harbor these prejudices, you are no better than those you claim to be fighting.

Did i just read something rational on Tumblr. Doesn’t this violate some law of nature? 

2 days ago ( 13678 notes ) + via /source
© theme