#Though most of them are one-sided...

[flickering-nightfall]

[sevenines]

i saw this tweet and found it interesting for two reasons. one is that some people base how good cartoon network would be to toh by how it treated su, and despite the fact that su’s treatment by the network was considered poor at the time, now its thought to be exceptionally good in comparison to modern shows.

two is how exactly su got impacted by a limited budget. a common criticism is how characters like connie, peridot, and lapis are left out of missions. but balancing a lot of characters is not only hard but also costly (extra animation, extra voices—it’s been revealed that the show is limited to a set number of characters per episode otherwise they’re over budget). animation mistakes are not uncommon since retakes cost extra. the entire reason the original show got cut short was due to loss of funding!

[lucalicatteart]

A few silly little small sculptures that I made with some of the leftover clay from the main one I did recently

[edwinisms]

i like to think, as a hc or a theory (because it’s definitely possible), that charles has had a few kisses throughout his high school years, sure, but past that he’s undeniably a virgin– well, kind of undeniably, because I think he’d deny it if found out by trying to use technicalities (“I mean that one time there was friction involved–“), but to any reasonable person, and by occult standards (see: edwin being a virgin sacrifice), he’s a virgin.

and i think this because it seems like him to fib about his level of experience (like he did when agreeing he’d sleep with crystal, matching her level of casualness about it) when in the presence of people who do, actually, have experience, in the hopes he doesn’t come off as lame or childish. given what we know about his “friends” when he was alive, they seem like the type to have teased or bullied boys– especially in their own circle– who haven’t gotten laid, or at the very least would’ve thought less of someone for it. and given what we know about charles, i don’t think he’d be nearly as sleazy and inconsiderate as his group when it comes to landing girls with the primary intention of adding to his body count. and considering he’s only supposed to be 16? and has never mentioned any significant relationships pre-death? it just seems unlikely.

all that to say– I can see him maintaining that facade of experience and confidence literally right up until the moment it matters, and in the heat of the moment getting nervous and embarrassed because “uhhh. so I may have been exaggerating some things.” though he’s not totally clueless either, I think it’d take a bit of a soft heart to heart moment for him to be reassured enough that he won’t fuck up and hurt his partner to go any further.

anyway not sure what the relevance of this is, but it’s something.

[bigskydreaming]

The thing that kills me about the Star Wars prequel trilogy and why I will die on my hill that my problem is not that Star Wars is a tragedy, its that its a badly written tragedy, is that Anakin Skywalker was at his closest to being a good Jedi when he was ten years old.

[jessicas-pi]

hear me out on this ok. ROTS AU where Anakin still turns to the dark side but that's Palpatine's problem.

So, Palpatine decides last minute that ehhhh maybe dooku could come in handy later and he doesn't encourage Anakin to kill him, and Dooku gets arrested and imprisoned in the Jedi Temple awaiting trial. (Also he didn't get his hands cut off because of uhh plot reasons?)

Fast forward.

Palpatine is encouraging Anakin towards the Dark side, tells him about Plagueis the Wise, etc. etc. But see, the thing is, Anakin is at the end of his tether, probably hasn't slept more than three hours over the past week, and has no remaining impulse control or inhibitions, and upon hearing that the Dark Side can save people from death, his first thought is, "wait a sec, we've got a Sith Lord in-house at the moment!" and he sprints out of the space opera and books it back to the temple.

Now, Dooku has been calmly waiting in Temple custody, confident that Darth Sidious will arrange his escape. But THEN Anakin barges into the cell like OMG THE CHANCELLOR TOLD ME THE SITH KNOW HOW TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM DYING AND I'M HAVING DREAMS ABOUT SOMEONE DYING AND I NEED YOUR HELP TO SAVE THEM

At which point, Dooku realizes Palpatine's plan. He's going to tempt Skywalker to the Dark side and REPLACE DOOKU. this is totally uncool.

So he's like "...who are you dreaming about, exactly?"

Anakin freezes. He can't admit it's Padme because their relationship is top-secret and he can't admit how important she is to him so he tries to think of a good fib and goes "uhhhh OBI-WAN! Obi-Wan, it's Obi-Wan, I'm dreaming about Obi-Wan dying-" and he just throws himself into the drama because now he IS imagining obi-wan dying because Obi-Wan is fighting grievous at the moment and he MIGHT ACTUALLY DIE and that's in addition to Padme dying and he's totally spiraling at this point- "pleasepleaseplease you gotta help me he's like the only father i've ever known I don't know what i'll do without obi-wan I have to save him YOU GOTTA TELL ME WHAT TO DO I'LL DO ANYTHING--"

Dooku begins to smile.

(Would stealing Skywalker out from under his Master's nose be petty? Oh, yeah.)

(But it would also be very, very satisfying.)

---

Obi-Wan calls in to a council meeting to report his defeat of Grievous, but before he can say so, Mace announces that Dooku has escaped and the Sith Master has been killed.

Silence falls between the eleven councilmembers (eleven, not twelve, because their newest one is conspicuously absent. Obi-Wan wonders just what Anakin's up to now. Honestly, that boy will be the death of him.)

Obi-Wan clears his throat.

"...indeed," he says, trying to handle the shocking news with composure. "Well... at least we're down to one Sith, now."

Another awkward pause.

"Yeah, about that--" Mace begins.

[bloomshroomz]

Aromantic*

(Alternate Title: Shrödinger’s Romantic)

I keep wondering if “aromantic” is really a good word to describe my romantic orientation. I have plenty of reasons for why it is, but also plenty of reasons for why it might not be. Shrödinger’s romantic.

In order to know whether you experience romantic attraction or not, you first have to have a solid definition of what romantic attraction is. A definition which is clear, and also distinct from other forms of emotional attraction. I don’t think such a definition exists, or at least, it’s not commonplace.

“Romantic attraction: attraction that makes people desire romantic contact or interaction with another person or persons.” - UNC Chapel Hill LGBT Center

But what is romantic contact or interaction? Is it contact which is culturally considered romantic? In that case, the ways in which romantic attraction is defined would vary by culture, and even by gender. Or is it contact which one intends to be romantic? That would make sense, but is incredibly subjective. How do you know where to draw the line? What if you haven’t drawn one?

“[Romantic attraction] involves a combination of physical, sexual, and emotional feelings toward someone.” - WebMD

This definition is ridiculously vague, especially for a page which defines multiple other types of attraction in relation to romance. What physical feelings? What sexual feelings? What emotional feelings? What about alloromantic asexual people, or other varioriented people, who don’t necessarily experience sexual feelings as part of their romantic feelings?

But the article also defines aromanticism as “when you don’t have any desire for a romantic relationship,” so I can’t count on it for accuracy regardless.

“Romantic attraction is the internal pull that you experience when you are with someone with whom you internally feel connected, comfortable and interested in spending more of your life with.” - Choosing Therapy

Do people not feel connected to their friends? Do people not feel comfortable with their friends? Are people not interested in spending more of their life with their friends? Why else would people find time to connect with their friends, to confide in them, to engage with them? What about these feelings is distinctly romantic?

The article goes on to say this:

“Romantic relationships are relationships intentionally initiated and maintained for experiencing sexual and romantic feelings together, whereas platonic relationships are usually centered on another purpose like hobbies, friendship, support, work, etc. Romantic relationships can also include these purposes as well, but the platonic relationship excludes the romance and sexual feelings.” - Choosing Therapy

I ask again, what about alloaces and other varioriented people? What about people who have sex with their friends? Even when it’s taboo, it’s not unheard of. The distinction can’t be sex, so it has to be romance. So, what is romance?

Later in the article, it defines romance once again:

“Romantic attraction: The internal pull that draws your attention to the other person’s positive qualities, and your internal reaction to connect, love, share and spend time with them to have more romance.” - Choosing Therapy

I feel like I’m running in circles here. People draw their attention to the positive qualities of not just romantic interests, but to friends, family, and other people with whom they’d have no romantic interest. Connection, love, and spent time are not exclusive to romance either. If the goal is to have more romance… What is that?

Every answer I find fails to say what romance is on its own. The definitions always rely on presence or absence of sex, or other things which can just as easily be present in platonic or otherwise non-romantic contexts. Romantic attraction is consistently defined by things which are not distinctly romantic.

Is it even a real thing? I mean, I feel like it’s clearly not, but it’s also clearly very real to most people. Most people don’t think about it this hard. It’s like they were given a manual that I can never possess. It comes naturally to them. They feel romantic attraction, and they know, intuitively, that that’s what it is.

Is my lack of intuition evidence that I don’t experience romantic attraction, or am I just autistic? Maybe it’s both. When I described to my aunts my emotional attraction, they described my way of experiencing and perceiving attraction as very “intellectual,” which I initially rejected. But I think they were right. I lack the intuition to understand my feelings in any way that doesn’t involve a literal or metaphorical chart. It’s something I can’t just feel and then know like other people do.

Is romantic attraction always a “you’ll know it when you feel it” sort of thing? It seems like it. Even when I search “romantic attraction” on Google, many results either come from queer Fandom Wiki pages, discussions amongst a-spec people, Reddit, or Quora. Some results aren’t even relevant to the question, including multiple results which just describe what “aromantic” means. The opposite of what I intended to search for.

The thing is, I do have feelings which would likely be perceived as romantic to most people. I have a deep desire for commitment and companionship. To touch and be touched. To love and be loved. To be emotionally and physically intimate with other people. To feel the warmth of other people as we lay in bed together. To live out our mundane lives together. Things that most people would find incredibly romantic.

But are these things romantic if I don’t explicitly intend for them to be? Is it romantic for me to be open to it being romantic, without actively wanting that?

When I’ve described my feelings online, I’ve gotten mixed responses from other people, but I’ve generally been given similar advice from different strangers, and similar labels thrown at me, even when I hadn’t asked for advice or labels.

“I think you’d enjoy a queerplatonic relationship.”

“You might be cupioromantic.”

“You might be bellusromantic.”

And I can understand where they’re coming from. I don’t think they’re entirely wrong, either. I would enjoy a queerplatonic relationship… But not for any reason that wouldn’t apply to other committed relationship types. Queerplatonic relationships, platonic relationships, romantic relationships, and whatever else there is are the same to me in all but label.

Cupioromanticism is something I have considered. I made the flag for it when I was 15 years old as well (yes, the peach one with five stripes; I always asked to be credited anonymously), so I’m biased towards liking the flag. But the definition is “being aromantic, and also wanting a romantic relationship.”

I don’t specifically want a romantic relationship, but I do want committed relationships in general, and romantic relationships are included in that. So, maybe?

Bellusromantic is something I have also considered, and it also has a pretty flag. But I think it’s less accurate than cupioromantic. The definition is “being aromantic, and enjoying traditionally romantic things, but not wanting a romantic relationship (or not wanting a committed relationship, depending on the definition used).”

I do enjoy traditionally romantic things in a way which is not explicitly romantic, and I don’t explicitly want a romantic relationship. But I’m not opposed to romantic relationships, and I do explicitly want committed relationships.

I took some aro-spec tests, and my results had a tendency to skew towards cupioromantic, bellusromantic, and quoiromantic. Quoiromantic is another orientation which I have considered, and it might be the most accurate.

Quoiromantic is also aptly known as “whatromantic” or “WTFromantic” because the defining trait is that romantic attraction as a concept doesn’t make sense to you.

“[Quoiromantic], also known as [whatromantic] or [WTFromantic], is a [romantic] orientation defined by confusion, vagueness, and/or obscurity. A [quoiromantic] person may not understand or relate to the concepts of [romantic] attraction and/or [romantic] orientation. [Quoiromanticism] may involve confusion related to what [romance] is, whether or not one experiences [romantic attraction], and how to differentiate it from other forms of attraction. [Quoiromanticism] can also feel blurry and unclear, and may center around general confusion around one's identity and attraction. It can also refer to a lack of identification with [romantic] orientation as a concept, and can additionally serve as a label for people who cannot fit into more specific identities. [Quoiromanticism] can also refer to when one does not experience [romantic] attraction in a "traditional" manner. It is sometimes used as a catch-all term for people who know they're somewhere on the [aromantic] spectrum, but aren't sure where.” - An LGBTQIA+ Wiki (originally about quoisexuality; I changed some words.)

In a similar vein, pomoromantic (“pomo” being literally taken from “postmodern”) would also fit. My romantic orientation exists from a post-romantic perspective, where romance is understood to be made up bogus which isn’t actually fundamentally different from any other form of emotional connection.

“[Pomoromanticism] is defined as refusing, avoiding, or not fitting any [romantic] orientation label in terms of conventional labels or classifications, such as gay, lesbian, [biromantic], or [aromantic]. It challenges categorizations in favor of largely unmapped possibility and the intense charge that comes with transgression. Some [pomoromantic] people may be queer or questioning, and others may not be.” - Another LGBTQIA+ Wiki (originally about pomosexuality; I changed some words.)

But at that point, is it even worth labeling my romantic orientation? Should I just be bisexual/omnisexual? Maybe with a little asterisk at the end? Does any of this matter? Am I thinking too much? (I am.)

I think that continuing to identify as aromantic will probably close me off to potential relationships. I feel like the word gives people the wrong idea. At the same time, the way that I think about romance is fundamentally different than the way other people tend to, and I do consider my aromanticism to be a notable part of who I am and how I experience the world. Maybe I should just send this to whoever ends up being a potential partner. Probably more useful than any label.

[good-beansdraws]

In echoes, witches are made by sacrificing someone to the Mad God, and one of the final bosses involves a character we've seen turned into a unique fire-elemental witch. Her fight is more sad than scary, since she's just a silent, soulless echo of the kind woman we saw before.

I really liked combining this idea with the witch-hunt vibes in Bring it On. In my fantasy au, Fuuta wrongfully leads his band of knights against a village girl, resulting in the townspeople burning her before all the facts were laid out. She was using magic, which is what Fuuta called her out for, but she wasn't using it for any malicious or witchy purposes. When she dies, the bit of magic in her flares up with her emotion and she returns as this type of fire spirit. As well as Fuuta's abstract haunting guilt, he now has a silent, destruction-bringing ghost haunting him each time he tries to run away from what he did.

[blueskittlesart]

do u have any navi thoughts from your oot replay

i've been waiting to answer this until I actually beat the game in my current playthrough because navi is another one of those characters that i think of in like a "set" with several other characters who serve relatively the same thematic purpose; in this case that purpose being the "mother" character, and i wanted to have all the characters in that set fresh in my mind. it's notable that while oot shows us very clear and consistent instances of the ways in which the adults of hyrule fail to protect their children, there ARE several adults who DO go out of their way to both oppose ganondorf and protect and nurture the children under their care. All of these characters are adult women, and all of them explicitly help the children out of some sort of parental responsibility or sense of duty towards them. in this group I include link's late mother, impa, nabooru, and navi.

all 4 mother characters, despite being adults or adult-coded, reject the inaction mentality which characterizes other adults in the game. they become either direct supports or shields to their children from the conflict the world has to offer them, and they are always explicitly punished for their interference--link's mother is killed trying to protect her son, impa's village is burned, nabooru is brainwashed. The mother's fatal flaw is that she will protect her child above all else, even in a world in which children cannot truly be protected. however, with the exception of link's mother, these characters manage to persist even in the face of her punishment, and this is where I think navi becomes the exemplary character.

Navi, after a lifetime of being link's only support system, the only adult in his life he could truly, consistently count on, receives her punishment at the hands of ganondorf--in the final battle, she is pushed out. she is unable to reach her child. she cannot protect him. However, BECAUSE link has grown up with her at his side, he is strong enough to take ganondorf down. and when ganon rises again, navi is there to support link, promising not to leave his side, and the intuitive targeting of that battle (a mechanic which navi is inherently tied to!!) makes it a cinch to win. Navi, and the other mothers we meet, are a reminder to the player that the world doesn't HAVE to be the way it is. Their persistence when punished, their insistence that their children ought to be protected, is a reminder that good adults do exist, and that good adults raise good children. link and zelda are able to win in spite of the adults who refused to help them, but also BECAUSE of the adults who DID. It's a reinforcement of the core theme of oot--that childlike idea that the world SHOULD be good and fair and if it isn't, it should be changed until it is. The mothers of oot are examples of what the world COULD be, reminders that it is possible to grow up without losing hope or growing bitter, and they are examples of the next step for the children they've raised to change the word--to continue fighting even in the face of punishment, to refuse inaction, and to foster that same hope and persistence in the generations to come.

[oceanwithouthermoon]

i think its weird that i have to make this disclaimer but the internet is crazy so wtvr,, anyway,,

if i say i dont like something, that doesnt mean "that thing is bad and nobody should post it.."

i swear literally every time i even mention that i dislike something, people will go "wow does that mean u fucking hate me cuz i post that thing? ur a fucking stupid bitch and all ur opinions r wrong" LIKE ?? er.. no. just because i say i dont like certain characterizations of certain characters (the saiki k fandom is CRAZY about this cuz i can state an opinion on literally any character and a group of people will still go 'well only we're allowed to post our opinions about them because we're always right!1!1!'), or certain ship tropes (mentioned my hatred of toxic yaoi maybe once or twice on here months ago and people STILL get mad at me as if i said toxic yaoi lovers r evil or something), or certain ships, or WHATEVER, does not mean that i HATE the people who are posting them or that i think they shouldnt post them at all, NO, im just posting about my personal tastes on my personal blog and it would be extremely weird and hypocritical if i decided that i was the ONLY person that was allowed to do that,,

i think the only reason people assume that is because there are a lot of other people on here who ARE like that, and a lot of people toe the line between posting that they dont like something and posting that they think everyone who likes that thing is stupid, annoying, and wrong,, so i guess all i can say is, sorry for whatever made you make these assumptions but they arent true about me so plz leave me alone ʘ‿ʘ ur doing the same thing to me that ur accusing me of but i didnt do it in the first place so ur just actively being a dick for no reason

[srasdoesthings]

My very silly Reichi poly situation

Multishipping is wild...

Note: does not include characters not directly shipped with Rei or Eichi. I also ship other charas with the people here (Shumika, NatMugi, KeiKuro, etc). Including them all might break me ajdbnand

[artsycooky13]

top 3 fave bbys in the burrito show (bonus SUPER LONG tags on how i feel bout the characters)

[lovelesslittleloser]

How To Be A Good Writer

Read a lot & have an idea of what is and is not good to you in a book/writing

Have an idea that you want to write

Allow the idea to simmer in your mind until you’re completely sure that this is what you want to write

Do so much research

Binge-write and use about 8% of said research

Write a little bit more as it comes to you

Stop writing for probably months/return to step 4

Be reminded of the thing you were writing & start thinking of it again

Mental & emotional agony

Go back to what you have written and fix it with the shame you previously lacked

Repeat until finished/stuck on step 7

This is intended to imply days, weeks, and/or months of time between each step, but please go at whatever pace suits you best! This is your writing, after all, so just use this as a guideline :)

[lupins-hehim-pussy]

I wanna know ur Fontaine msq criticisms 👁️👁️👂I’m all ears

I'm not sure if you wanted me to talk about this secretly or publicly but! Here I go!

The TLDR: Fontaine MSQ aestheticised prison, poverty, child abuse, the justice system/court and didn't properly address any of it.

More:

Focalors/Furina has way too much of a sympathetic angle for a dictator who's lets people drown with her inaction.

Neuvillette feels Bad for sentencing some people to death/prison, but that's it. He's one of the most powerful people in Fontaine. If he felt like there are systemic injustices, I.E sending an abused Child to prison, he should be the first person to DO something about it, not just cry and be sad so the audience can be like aw, that's complex character writing isn't it? No it's not! And guilt doesn't absolve you!!!!!!! (These are stuff we deal with in OTCOJ read my fic now /j)

Meropide has children in it, both Sentenced there (Wriothesley) and BORN THERE (Lanoire), and this is just a quirk of the place. Not only that, Meropide accepts prisoners of all genders and crimes. There are abusers and abuse victims in one place. Do you know how bad that is? How much potential for crimes to happen in a place like that— oh wait, Meropide isn't under Fontaine's jurisdiction. If you are assaulted as an inmate it literally means nothing to the court.

Wriothesley had no qualifications when he took over. Depending on how long he lived on the streets, how old he was when he killed his parents, how old he was when he was first taken in by the orphanage, etc, the man might never have more than 4–5 years of formal education. Sigewinne probably had to teach him how to write reports. And do Meropide's spreadsheets. Edit because I forgot to elaborate on this one: This isn't a point brought up anywhere, which is bad, because when poverty and incarceration robs you of a proper education (and the rights to vote in many places too, too, by the way), it reduces your prospects for jobs, reduces many people's ability to get a home etc etc. Wriothesley was just, narratively, Given his position.

Meropide is an industrialized prison, and they portray this as a good thing. Prisoners are paid in coupons for their labour, and this is also portrayed as a good thing.

The One-Meal-A-Day reform was something Paimon gushed about being so great of a perk, that people might want to go to jail for food (could be interesting and reflective of systemic poverty if MHY had brains, but they don't, so I was just Pissed because essentially all Paimon wanted to say was "Prison isn't so bad, but still don't go to prison guys! Prison labour is really hard!"). By the way, in most real-world prisons they are obligated to feed you three meals a day. Because that's how much food a human needs. MHY went with one meal just so they can say "if you want to eat more, you have to work." And then the welfare meal is a goddamn gacha. So imagine you're a starving child who's too weak to work in the fucking robot assembly line, and you wander up for your first meal in 24 hours, only to luck in with a shit one. I'd kill myself.

They wrote Wriothesley, who's a victim of the system, into a guy who's say shit like "I'm the Duke I can do whatever I want" for a cool moment where he choke-slams an inmate (I know he was a bad guy. But also, in copaganda when cops are violent/disregarding protocols, they are always only portrayed to do that against bad guys, so what does our critical thinking tells us about this one?) They wrote Wriothesley, who was an inmate of a prison so bad, so notorious that it is the literal boogeyman of Fontaine, that has a legal (???) fighting pit, with an administrator who abuses his position to be unreasonable, to willingly stay in the place and become an Administrator who would choke-slam an inmate while saying a cool line about how he has the power to do whatever he wants. They wrote him, the guy who had to be fed on the streets by melusines, to think one-meal-a-day was a good enough reform (while he spends god-knows how much on his boat). This wasn't a victim-turns-into-abuser narrative either, they want all this to be seen as positive character growth.

And then, the final kicker is, they gloss over his entire abuse. You can only read about these shit in his profile, which most people don't because they don't Have Him or doesn't care to unlock it/read it online, and they jammed his entire backstory into a flaccid info-dump at the end of his character story quest. This man isn't Allowed to feel abused and neglected and show any reaction to it within the narrative of Fontaine itself, because if they actually Gave Weight to what happened to him, they'd have to confront THE FUCKING JUSTICE SYSTEM they had NO PLANS on criticising. I don't think they ever explicitly said the fucking Crime-Theatre nonsense was Bad either.

I could go on, but this is already so long. But yeah, I hope this gave you an idea.

[hollyhomburg]

Y E S i live for sad bily facts

Okay so! Hiding them in the tags cuz I’m on mobile enter at your own risk

[wonder-worker]

"Alice Perrers was perceived by her contemporaries to be an uncrowned queen and through an analysis of her activities it is clear she was able to utilise the practical benefits of queenship for her own ends. However, by taking on the mantle of queenship Alice fundamentally corrupted the sovereignty and kingship of Edward III. First, by her aggressively political behaviour she became the threat at the heart of the power structure that the gendered constructions of queenship were supposed to remove from a consort. Second, by taking on the practical aspects of queenship she inherently undermined the ideological role of queenship, both by the simple fact that she was a mistress and not a queen, and even more so because of her behaviour. The problems Alice caused and how she was perceived were amplified in contrast to the [...] demeanour of Philippa, who was widely respected and much loved by the people. Just as queens in their exalted position were ‘lightning rods’ for ideas about women and female power, so was Alice because of her proximity to the king."

-Laura Tompkins, The uncrowned queen: Alice Perrers, Edward III and political crisis in fourteenth-century England, 1360-1377 (Thesis, University of St Andrews, 2013)

"Alice's expansion of her power through the office of queenship was problematic for a number of reasons. First, while the queen’s power was legitimised by her marriage to the king and her coronation, Alice’s power was not formalised in this way and consequently would have been regarded as illegitimate. Second, she was not the right type of woman to share in the king’s dignity. She was not noble, she was not chaste and she was not virtuous. Instead, she was a low-born London widow and a businesswoman. Consequently, we find Alice being discussed in the language and stereotypes of queenship, but in a rather negative light. For example, while queens are routinely described as noble, beautiful and virtuous regardless of what they actually looked like, Walsingham is quick to emphasise that Alice was of low birth, and that, almost implied as a consequence, she ‘was not attractive or beautiful’. While we do not know what Alice looked like it seems unlikely that Edward III would have taken and kept her as a mistress for so long if she had been physically repellent. Third, and most significantly, not only was Alice an inappropriate mistress exercising illegitimate power, but she also broke all of the gendered rules that queenship was constructed around, inverting the ideal form of queenship to her advantage."