#anne d'autriche

[cy-lindric]

Louis, Anne, Philippe, Mazarin, Beaufort, and most importantly, Pistache

[princessyuz-hang]

LES TROIS MOUSQUETAIRES: D’Artagnan (2023), directed by Martin Bourboulon 𝒑𝒔𝒅 𝒃𝒚 © issaspace && whogis

[quietparanoiac]

Кардинал так защищал вас, а вы так люто его... ненавидите!

Д'Артаньян и три мушкетёра | D'Artagnan and Three Musketeers (1979), e01

[roehenstart]

Anne d'Autriche, infante d'Espagne, reine de France. Artiste inconnu.

[gecemi09]

Leonhart really went 'I'm gonna betray my country and brother for this woman who's alrrady married, become a soldier in her(& her husband's) army and kill countless ppl, stay friends with that husband, be respectful of the woman's wishes and adopt their son when they both die, still have a crush on said woman after her death that i wont realize one of my closest coworkers has feelings for me'

What a chad,

What a simp.

[anamariamauricia]

read this book (in a fruitless attempt) to better understand the details of the thirty years’ war and the author gets her digs at these people at every chance she gets:

“In the Louvre the King [Louis XIII] lay on his huge bed day after day, but his unhealthy body, which had for the last years never seemed truly alive, was unable to die. The pulse beat obstinately on in the wasted skeleton. Day after day he lay almost motionless, sometimes sinking into troubled sleep, sometimes half-conscious, sometimes speaking, while his wife cried noisily at his bedside.”

“Richelieu, though never popular, had evoked a certain apprehensive admiration. The people did not feel the same about Cardinal Mazarin. The dapper little Sicilian with his petty personal vanities, his childlike ostentation, his delight in craft and cunning, had few impressive qualities. Equally he had not the comprehensive genius of Richelieu; he never understood or managed to control the internal politics of France.”

“Philip IV, having lost both his wife and only son within a few weeks of each other, began, with indecent haste, to seek out a young bride; he was not a very prepossessing husband, old and glum for his forty-odd years, dumbly stupid; as a ruler, a useless idol. He was devoted only to his one remaining child, the scatter-brained little Infanta who was despite the formalities of Madrid and the splendours of Versailles remained through life a foolish, impulsive, perpetually sweet-tempered schoolgirl.”

[otherhistoricalthings]

Représentation théâtrale au Palais Royal avec Louis XIII, Anne d'Autriche et Richelieu. par Jean de Saint-Igny. Musée des arts décoratifs, ca. 1641.

wikimedia commons

[harpermiller]

Characters from different shows that I 100% believe would be best friends

Evan Buckley (911 on fox)

Thor Odinson (Marvel)

Bess Marvin (Nancy Drew)

Harper McIntyre (The 100)

Anne d’Autriche (The Musketeers)

Amy March (Little Women)

Gareth “Grizz” Visser (The Society)

Robin Buckley (Stranger Things)

Marshall Erikson (How I Met Your Mother)

[histoireettralala]

The real Mazarin ?

It was Mazarin’s misfortune, and the single factor most shaping the events and outcome of 1652, that he confronted the figure of Condé as his opponent, who embodied simultaneously the unchallenged right of a prince of the blood to participate in government, and the military genius responsible for the great successes of France after 1643. Had the young Condé been a mediocre military commander like his father, the political dynamic would have looked very different. The military paladins of the regency would have been Turenne and Henri, comte d’Harcourt, from a cadet line of the House of Guise. Both were capable military commanders, but political minnows in comparison with Condé. Mazarin could have bought the adherence of both with territories and titles, and in all probability neither would have made a serious attempt to assert themselves against the queen mother and her minister. Instead Mazarin faced someone for whom no political or territorial bribe would be sufficient, except the concession of powers that would effectively deny overall political control to Mazarin.

Yet it was also Condé’s misfortune —and that of France— that he encountered the real Mazarin, rather than the self-sacrificing servant of monarchy and state celebrated in hagiographic accounts of his ministry from the nineteenth century onwards. The Mazarin who had discreetly demonstrated his diplomatic and administrative abilities to Richelieu in the 1630s, and insinuated himself into the team of Richelieu’s ministerial fidèles, did not intend to spend his career as a lowkey political figure operating behind the scenes. His accumulation of rich benefices before 1640, and his ability to persuade Richelieu —who was normally intensely hierarchical in such matters— to nominate him for a cardinalship, might indicate a different agenda. Another hint may have been his cultivation of Anne of Austria at a time when most of Richelieu’s ministers regarded the queen as politically toxic. Whatever Mazarin’s real ambitions before 1643, he had prudently confined his role to that of faithful subordinate of Richelieu and then part of Louis XIII’s ministerial team during the king’s last months. But with the death of Louis XIII, the assumption of control by the queen regent, and Mazarin’s achievement of the status of unchallenged minister-favourite, the restraint which had previously characterized his personality and actions was thrown off.

To understand Mazarin and his motivation, it is necessary to abandon a superficially plausible notion that he saw himself as an outsider, a foreigner relying on cleverness and charm to climb the ladder of power and status in France. On this reading he was inhibited by his second-rank Italian background, in awe of, and not properly understanding, French grandees such as Condé, Longueville, or Vendôme. And indeed to Condé, Mazarin always remained the upstart ‘gredin de Sicile’, or the ‘illustrissimo signor facchino’, constantly seeking a political role far above his social status. Mazarin seemed in some respects to confirm this view of himself as upstart and outsider: he combined the ingratiating qualities of a favourite —using his foreignness to cement the complicit relationship with that other ‘foreigner’ at court, Anne of Austria— with an understanding of diplomacy and Realpolitik honed from his early career in Rome. Moreover, apart from the queen mother’s favour, Mazarin’s primary qualification for the role of first minister was his distinctly un-aristocratic administrative energy and capacity. The recognition customarily given to Jean-Baptiste Colbert as Louis XIV’s omniscient administrator, with his extraordinarily detailed grasp of every aspect of his government portfolio and a capacity to maintain a mountainous correspondence, may be seen as a tribute to the even more impressive working habits of his previous employer. To find someone who could equal Mazarin’s mastery of detail, his ability to range over domestic and foreign policy —whether supply of the galleys at Toulon or factional politics in Brittany— all with the same detailed knowledge and the ability to resume a subject months or years after he last discussed it, we would need to turn to Napoléon Bonaparte. Certainly Mazarin’s grasp of affairs and work-rate surpassed cardinal Richelieu, no laggard in his capacity for administrative graft. But Richelieu acknowledged his lack of knowledge in key areas, and delegated with far greater willingness than his successor. Indeed, a besetting weakness of Mazarin’s entire ministry, and a cause of much tension with his subordinate ministers, was his obsessive reluctance to delegate even practical executive authority to others.

Yet while this prodigious ability, which is certainly greater than that of any of his likely rivals in the years after 1643, is clearly relevant in explaining Mazarin’s success as a minister, it nonetheless misses the key point. Mazarin did not see himself as a backroom facilitator of effective government, aware that his foreign background and modest social status required discretion and reticence. On the contrary, he regarded himself as the primary architect of the greatness of the French monarchy. In passage after self-promotional passage in his correspondence, Mazarin celebrated the first six years of the Regency as the most glorious years in the history of the monarchy—a succession of military victories and diplomatic triumphs that had realized the great project to ensure France’s prestige and hegemony in Europe. It might come as a surprise to those who envisage

Mazarin as a créature and disciple of cardinal Richelieu that in Mazarin’s opinion the six years from 1643 far surpassed any comparable period in Richelieu’s ministry. And it was on what he regarded as his incomparable personal achievement that Mazarin’s deep sense of public and private entitlement rested: the monarchy and the kingdom owed him much, in terms of both gratitude and recognition, and a continued monopoly of power and influence.

If the great French families initially looked down on Mazarin, he certainly did not regard himself as their inferior; his apparently ingratiating and obliging language masked a ruthless sense of self-importance and his primacy within the state. He believed himself to be indispensable, and his language to the queen mother, to his supporters, and even to his enemies reflects that conviction. Both past achievements and promises of benefits and advantages to come created obligations, especially on the part of the crown, and from those ministers and other appointees who owed their positions and prestige to Mazarin’s success. Perhaps this conviction that his deeds could speak louder than words partly explains Mazarin’s reluctance to enter the ideological battle after 1648. It certainly underpins the poorly improvised attempts to justify the arrest of the princes in January 1650: in Mazarin’s eyes such high-handed actions were an element of his understanding of ragione di stato, necessary to preserve a superior direction of the affairs of state. This of course played to a massive literature of criticism in the mazarinades, for whom Mazarin’s policies were inspired by the tyrannical maxims of his fellow Italian, Machiavelli.

There is little doubt that well before 1650 the figures of Condé and Mazarin were set on a political collision course which would have required exceptional restraint on one or both sides to avoid. The fundamental difference, however, was that Condé could probably live with the political survival of Mazarin, whose role had been cut back to that of essentially executive first minister, accountable to a royal family dominated by Condé. In contrast, by late 1649 Mazarin’s assumptions about his own position were wholly incompatible with the political power and influence of Condé. Mazarin might be forced into political cohabitation with the prince, but it would delegitimize and disempower his ministerial position and all those associated with him.

David Parrott- 1652- The Cardinal, the Prince, and the Crisis of the Fronde.

[sagadhistoire]

Anne d’Autriche de Jean-François SOLNON

Résumé : Le premier portrait intime de celle qui « méritait d’être mise au rang des plus grands rois » (Louis XIV).

Lorsqu’elle est nommée régente du royaume de France à la mort de son époux, Louis XIII, en 1643, Anne d’Autriche se retrouve confrontée à des crises majeures sur le plan international (la France et l’Espagne, son pays d’origine, sont en guerre depuis 1635, ainsi qu’à des conflits internes : la Fronde voit les nobles et les parlementaires remettre en cause l’autorité royale dès 1648. Avec le concours de Jules Mazarin, son principal ministre, elle parvient à surmonter ces obstacles. Mais qui est vraiment Anne d’Autriche ? Un second rôle confiné derrière le tout-puissant cardinal, comme on l’a trop souvent prétendu ? Ou au contraire la reine maîtresse d’un pouvoir pourtant ébranlé ? Et surtout, quelle femme se cache derrière la reine ? Faut-il donner du crédit à ceux qui l’ont décrite comme une personne frivole et légère ?

Plutôt qu’une énième biographie, le talentueux Jean-François Solnon propose ici une approche inédite centrée sur 20 dates-clés de la vie d’Anne d’Autriche. Telles des faisceaux, elles font revivre la veuve de Louis XIII en éclairant son intimité, son caractère et sa psychologie. Car que sait-on de la jeune espagnole arrachée à son pays natal et sa famille aimante dès ses 14 ans ? Comment a-t-elle vécu son union avec un époux qui l’a délaissée pendant près de trente ans ? Quelle mère a-t-elle été pour le jeune Louis XIV, dont on n’attendait plus la naissance après vingt-trois années d’infertilité ? D’une plume vivante et enlevée, l'historien nous offre ici le premier portrait de l’enfant, l’épouse, la reine, la mère, en un mot, la femme d'Etat que fut Anne d’Autriche.

 Sortie le 6 janvier 2022 aux éditions Perrin. Vous trouverez ici le lien de la fiche du livre sur le site de l’éditeur et mon avis sur le livre est juste en-dessous. :)

Mon avis : Ayant eu l’occasion de travailler sur la première moitié du XVIIe siècle en France, à l’annonce de la sortie du livre par l’éditeur, j’étais assez enthousiasmée. En effet, les éditeurs ont tendance à mon sens de mettre en avant les publications liées au règne de Louis XIV plutôt que ceux de son père. Alors, une annonce d’une biographie sur Anne d’Autriche, mon porte-monnaie savait déjà qu’il allait souffrir.

Cependant, je reconnais que la lecture de cette biographie m’a laissé avec un gros mouais. Il y a certes une part d’enthousiasme déçue mais il y a surtout plusieurs points à la lecture qui m’ont interpelé.

Tout d’abord, la lecture en elle-même de l’ouvrage. Le livre est divisé en chapitres se voulant de raconter un évènement de la vie d’Anne d’Autriche avec un peu de contextualisation. En soit, c’est une composition plus ou moins classique d’une biographie ce découpage. Par contre, je ne trouve pas que le format ait été géré. En effet, pour la Fronde, on a quasiment une narration des évènements mois par mois tandis que pour l’époque où elle est reine de France, on a des fois des ellipses de plusieurs années. Ca donne une sensation de manque d’informations ou d’envie d’en savoir plus sur l’éducation ou encore de comment elle vit à la cour de France (son entourage, son réseau…). En soit, le fait qu’on n’ait pas tout dans un ouvrage est normal. C’est sûr que si on mettait tout, on se retrouverait avec des livres d’une taille décourageante pour lire. Par contre, là où cela peut devenir gênant, c’est que, pour éviter des répétitions, on alterne entre des titres de noblesse sans préciser que tel titre et tel titre = tel personnage. Je m’y suis retrouvée car j’ai étudié ces personnes il y a quelques années. Je pense que des personnes ne connaissant pas spécialement la période risquent d’être littéralement perdu à la lecture.

Néanmoins, c’est plus sur le plan scientifique qui m’a laissé le plus gros mouais. J’ai été interpellé de voir uniquement des sources imprimées et aucune source manuscrite. Pour les personnes non habituées au monde universitaire, petit topo. Quand on fait quelque chose un tant soit peu sérieux, on utilise des sources. Ces sources peuvent être de différentes natures. Et afin de hiérarchiser un minimum toutes les sources qu’on utilise, on fait des catégories pour les regrouper. A l’époque moderne, bien souvent, quand on fait des catégories, on en fait généralement deux. La première c’est les sources manuscrites : bien souvent, ce sont celles-là qu’on consulte en archives. La deuxième catégorie c’est les sources imprimées : dans ce cas-là, c’est une personne qui a eu un jour l’idée de « et si on les publiait dans un ouvrage parce que c’est trop cool et que c’est dommage que cela reste aux archives ! ».* Or, quand on se limite à un seul type de sources quand on fait une étude telle qu’une biographie, c’est qu’on risque de passer à côté d’un certain nombre d’éléments qui pourraient faire changer la perception donnée par les sources imprimées. De plus, les sources imprimées mentionnées sont, en grande majorité, des Mémoires. Or, les Mémoires sont connus pour être des sources souvent objectives.** Ces différents constats sur les sources n’ont pas arrangé la sensation d’avoir un point de vue biaisé à la lecture.*** Après, on pourrait dire que vu la date de sortie du livre, la rédaction a dû se produire pendant l’un des confinements en raison de la pandémie de COVID. Or, comme vous le savez et vous vous en doutez, les archives publiques ont aussi fait l’objet de la fermeture pendant cette période. C’est compliqué de consulter dans ces conditions, je vous l’accorde. Seulement, quand on sait le nombre de sources qui ont été numérisés par différentes centres d’archives et qui sont gratuites à la consultation en ligne (au hasard Gallica), c’est compliqué d’expliquer pourquoi on ne les mentionne pas voire de les utiliser. On peut espérer aussi que cette absence de mentions de sources manuscrites puisse provenir de l’édition numérique que j’ai utilisée. Je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de vérifier mais j’ai des doutes qu’il y ait eu un bug à ce point dans la numérisation.

Un autre point qui m’a fait prononcer un mouais est par rapport à la contextualisation (à prendre au sens large) apportée par Jean-François SOLNON à certains évènements ou à certains personnages. En effet, j’ai repéré plusieurs passages où Jean-François SOLNON utilise des sources telles quelles sans donner des infos dessus. Et, forcément, quand on a les infos manquantes, ce n’est pas du tout la même lecture. De même, tout un pan de l’historiographie récente ne semble pas pris en compte. J’ai vu ces éléments pour Gaston d’Orléans (en même temps, je l’ai étudié donc normal que je le vois). Le concernant, pendant la Fronde, il utilise à plusieurs reprises des passages du cardinal de Retz pour décrire son action. Or, il est reconnu que le cardinal de Retz, s’il est effectivement proche de Gaston d’Orléans pendant la Fronde, il finit par se brouiller avec lui. Or, le cardinal de Retz écrit ses Mémoires après les évènements et cette brouille. Forcément, il a un avis quelque peu biaisé dessus. Concernant l’historiographie autour de Gaston d’Orléans, les dernières études ont clairement tendance à revoir la perception du personnage. Grosso modo, la vision traditionnelle de Gaston d’Orléans est qu’il est un éternel comploteur, brouillon, sans projet politique en contradiction avec la raison d’état de Richelieu. Ces dernières années, grâce aux travaux de personnes comme Jean-Marie CONSTANT ou Pierre GATULLE, on revient sur cette vision. Or, même si la biographie de Jean-Marie CONSTANT figure dans la bibliographie, j’ai pas eu l’impression que c’était pris en compte. Enfin, il y a eu des éléments non sourcés dans les notes et que je n’avais croisé jusque-là. Je n’ai pas la prétention de tout connaître (LOIN de là !) mais j’aurais clairement pouvoir aimer retrouver ces éléments pour creuser. (Car clairement, j’ai des gros doutes si c’est quelque chose de vraiment mentionnées pour les sources de l’époque au vu des différents mouais détaillés plus haut).

En résumé, si le livre pouvait se montrer intéressant (ce n’est pas tous les jours qu’on a une biographie sur Anne d’Autriche après tout), je reconnais qu’il y a beaucoup trop de mouais pour que je puisse recommander cette biographie à une personne totalement néophyte à l’époque XVIIe siècle. Malheureusement, quand j’écris cette critique, pour une biographie spécifique à Anne d’Autriche, je n’ai rien qui me vient à l’esprit pour proposer en substitution. Mais n’hésitez pas à me solliciter dans les ask. Si ça se trouve, je pourrais vous répondre plus facilement à l’avenir ! :)

* C’est ultra simplifié et ne prend absolument pas en compte d’autres types de sources comme des sources artistiques (tableaux, gravures…), numismatiques (monnaies) etc. Il y a aussi l’époque étudiée dans les sources. Je me prendrais peut-être le temps un jour de faire un post mais voilà. Gardez à l’esprit que c’est ultra simplifié et que j’ai peut-être dû faire saigner du nez un ou deux archivistes avec la description. (Désolée. ->)

** Les Mémoires sont un genre (souvent) autobiographique visant à raconter le point de vue de l’auteur‧rice sur un évènement. Je pense que vous pouvez vous en douter mais, il y a bizarrement plus tendance à se mettre en avant et à passer les moments gênants sous silence.

***En plus de la part prépondérante des Mémoires que j’ai pu remarquer dans la liste des sources que, dans la classique mention des éditions des lettres de Richelieu, il y avait des manques (Marie-Catherine VIGNAL SOULEYREAU a fait publier plusieurs tomes de lettres inédites du cardinal et de ses collaborateurs ces dernières années par exemple). Je ne le mentionne pas dans le propos principal pour plusieurs raisons. D’une part, cela peut être une méconnaissance de ces travaux ou alors il y a eu une étude de ces lettres et qu’il n’y avait rien dedans « d’utile » pour la biographie d’Anne d’Autriche. D’autre part, cela fait un petit moment que j’ai dépouillé ces ouvrages pour le second mariage de Gaston d’Orléans et je reconnais que je ne me souviens pas spécialement dans quelle proportion Anne d’Autriche est mentionnée dedans. En tout cas, par acquis de conscience, je le mentionne même s’il y a des si.

[evillious-renders]

(Edited) 3/4 and full-body renders of the sinners and their loved ones from Ichika's twitter / Pixiv!

[drowndazaijustice4chuuya]

As someone who decided to jump into Evillious Chronicles as a sort of distraction during 2020, I have emerged two years later to jump in again and to find that this fandom actually exists.

So, this is for the people who were sifting through Vocalist on YouTube and encountered the Story of Evil series: Daughter of Evil, Servant of Evil, Regret Message.

And let me clarify some shit. Important information will be typed in cursive.

Firstly, Rin, the yellow princess, is PLAYED by the Vocalist Rin Kagamine, the princess's name is Rilliane Lucifen D'Autriche.

The same applies for the rest of the cast, so basically:

Rilliane - Rin

Allen(Alexiel) - Len

Michaela - Miku

Germaine - Meiko

Kyle - Kaito

Secondly, allow me to tell you the ACTUAL story.

It starts with Rilliane and Allen's parents, Anne and Arth. The two of them were childhood friends with a woman named Prim Marlon.

Prim Marlon is a bitch.

Prim was bffs with Anne, but always had internalised arrogance in her as she saw herself above Anne due to being of higher status. So, she was absolutely pissed when Arth, the remaining Crown Prince, proposed to Anne instead of her.

Extra history, Lucifenia (the yellow kingdom) was once part of Beezlenia(I may have spelled this wrong, my apologies) the red kingdom. Arth and his royal family were actually killed during a carriage accident in the green forest, but some mischievous magical being saw and placed his soul in a golem.

So when he grew up, Arth became a total badass and freed Lucifenia from Beezlenia, he made this group of three which consisted of Mariam Phutaphie, Elluka and Leonheart(forgot this dude's name but he's kind of an asshole so whatev), with Arth's wife Anne co leading with him.

Eventually, Lucifenia succeeded and they managed to have kids, Rilliane and Allen.

Happy ending right?

WRONG

Prim used the Sword of Lust to seduce Arth so she had a child she named Ney. Ney became her spy in the Lucifenian Court.

After that, she used the Glass of Gluttony to give the king and incurable decease so he bit the dust. Soon after, Anne did too.

But before that, Rilliane and Allen were playing when they encountered the Mirrors of Pride, there are four mirrors, and at that time, Banica Conchita was occupying one of them.

(Banica's story is for another time, this whole universe is interconnected and you will.be confused before you understand, that's why I love it.)

Banica possessed Rilliane, so during an exorcism, Elluka accidentally wiped Rillaine's memories of Allen. Before she got yeeted from Rillaine though, Banica told Allen that he could write a message place it in a bottle and throw it in the sea to make a wish come through as thanks for him sharing his food.

After Arth's death, there was a lot of controversy about who would sit on the throne, Allen or Rilliane. After an assassination attempt, Anne decided to fake Allen's death and Allen agreed, he was adopted by Leonheart.

When Anne died, Ney gave Rillaine another two of the Mirrors, which made the Demon of Pride possess her, which caused her to be a tyrant.

TL;DR: Some bitch who didn't get her crush to like her decides to screw over her crush's kingdom and kids. Rillaine is a tyrant because she was possessed by a fucking demon.

And now is when we get back to the og story. Let me tell you this, the animations, unless released by the actual mothy, is very incorrect. Rillaine does not have short hair, she did not remember Allen, and Allen did not kill Michaela.

Kyle is Prim's son with the king, and he was promised to Rillaine. He then fell in love with Michaela, who was gay as fuck for Clarith, daughter of white, and decided to jilt his fiance known for being a tyrant.

Rillaine is pissed, and proceeds to absolutely wreck Elphegort(the green kingdom) and burn the forest that surrounds it. The forest is filled with magical shit, get into that later.

Michaela actually managed to escape, but Prim sent Ney to finish the job so it would look like Rillaine did it. Allen just saw her corpse and took credit for it.

Kyle is tricked and joins the unhappy Lucifenian army with their revolution.

Now is time for Germaine.

Long story short, her adopted dad was Leonheart and Rillaine had Leonheart killed, so she's pissed too and decides to start a revolution.

When the rebels storm the castle, the demon flees Rillaine and leaves a hopeless fifteen year old still grieving her mother's death, betrayed by her closest friends (Ney and Chartette), and very remorseful for what she had done.

Allen that appears and makes her switch places with him.

Allen gets executed. And yes, being adopted by Leonheart alongside Germaine, Germaine knows that he is Rilliane and lets it pass. Kyle accepts it because he thinks Allen killed Michaela.

Rillaine escapes and is taken in by a nunnery, makes a wish to the sea to see Allen again which gets fulfilled but not in Story of Evil. She dies a ripe old age of seventy six as a beloved nun surrounded by the mourning orphans she took in.

There's actually another song from an orphan's perspective who decide to send the letter Rilliane wrote. Obviously, the letter is addressed to Allen because she still misses him like fuck. They meet Kyle, who tells them that the person has been dead already. Overall, the song ends happy.

Also, Prim gets killed by Ney, so yay, the bitch is dead.

I'm sorry if this was confusing. But this is the real story, taken from the wiki itself.

[princessyuz-hang]

Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino + his cats

[wordsandgears]

Coloring of art from ichika’s twitter (tried to make them all look different )

[angelsartcorner]

ECtober 2022 day 21: Lucifenia

[gecemi09]

Mariam: You lying, cheating, piece of shit

Elluka: Oh yeah? You’re the idiot who thinks you can get away with everything you do. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD

Anne: *Rolling on the floor laughing and crying at the same time*

Mariam: I’m leaving you, and I’M TAKING LEONHART WITH ME

Arth, picking up the monopoly board: I think we’re going to stop playing now.

Meanwhile, a servant: What the fuck is going on in there?

Another Servant: Hell if I know...