#compear

[anubisthe1]

Of course, I believe that there are Israeli supporters, I mean, just look at our fandom. We have itachi fans and people that are pro konoha.

[tsunflowers]

Gento might be a bad dad/husband, but how would he compeare to other ultra captains?

well he's not a bad dad on purpose he just has a hard job. so I forgive him. as for others...

great: captain murahoshi, kana-chan, captain kamiki fine: commander ishimuro, captain wakura, captain tatsumi shithead: chairman shizuma, dan, director matsunaga

I feel like I've definitely forgotten some people and put some people in who aren't actually team captains but are other officials. bc I was going off the "leaders" category on the ultraman wiki

[scotianostra]

On March 26th 1402, heir to the Scottish throne, David Stewart, 1st Duke of Rothesay, died in mysterious circumstances at Falkland Palace.

This event in Scottish history ties in with James I being sent to France and falling into English hands, I covered that part in a post a few days ago.

David Stewart was the oldest son of Robert III of Scotland and Anabella Drummond and was born on 24 October 1378. At the time of his birth, his grandfather, Robert II still occupied the Scottish throne. His father became King of Scotland in November 1384, when his earldom of Carrick passed to David.

In 1398, David was created Duke of Rothesay by his father. In the following year, at the age of 21, due to the infirmity of his father the king, he was appointed “Lieutenant” of Scotland by Parliament, to rule in his father’s place. The arrangement had been urged by his mother, Queen Annabella, to ensure her son succeeded his ailing father. His uncle, Robert Stewart, a ruthless politician with designs on the throne himself, had previously been protector of the kingdom.

In 1395, David married Elizabeth Dunbar, the daughter of George Dunbar, Earl of March, but the Papal dispensation required because they were close relatives was never obtained, and in 1397 the couple separated.

David later married Mary Douglas, daughter of Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas, to form an alliance with the Douglases, which gravely offended George Dunbar. Dunbar accordingly switched his allegiance to Henry IV of England, who then invaded Scotland, briefly capturing Edinburgh before returning to England.

Following the death of his mother in 1401, David failed to consult his council, as he was required to do, before making a series of decisions that were seen to threaten the positions of his nobles, especially his uncle, Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany.

In February 1402, while travelling to St Andrews, David was arrested just outside the city by Sir John Ramornie and Sir William Lindsay of Rossie, agents of his uncle Albany, who at that time was in alliance with Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas. David’s father-in-law, the third Earl, had died two years previously, in 1400.

He was initially held prisoner in St Andrews Castle, but soon afterwards was taken to Falkland Palace, Albany’s residence in Fife. David spent the journey hooded and mounted backwards on a mule.

David remained a prisoner and shortly after died in the dungeons of Falkland Palace, reputedly of starvation.

A few weeks later, in May 1402, a public enquiry into the circumstances of David’s death, largely controlled by Albany, exonerated him of all blame concluding that David had died “by divine providence and not otherwise” and commanded that no one should ‘murmur against’ Albany and Douglas.

The following is taken from the records of the Scottish Parliament 16 May 1402

Letters: narrating the inquest into the death of David Stewart, duke of Rothesay and the role of Robert Stewart, duke of Albany, and Archibald Douglas, earl of Douglas.

Robert, by the grace of God king of Scots, to all to whose notice the present letters shall come, greeting. Whereas recently, our most beloved Robert [Stewart, 1st] duke of Albany, earl of Fife and Menteith, our brother german, and Archibald [Douglas, 4th] earl of Douglas and lord of Galloway, our son according to law by reason of our daughter who he took as wife, caused our very beloved firstborn son the late David [Stewart, 1st] duke of Rothesay and earl of Fife and Atholl, to be captured and personally arrested, and first to be guarded in St Andrews castle and then to be detained in keeping at Falkland, where, by divine providence and not otherwise, it is discerned that he departed from this life; they, compearing in our presence in our general council begun at Edinburgh on 16 May 1402 and continued for several days, and interrogated or accused upon this by our royal office of the capture, arrest, death as is expressed above etc., in this manner, confessing everything that followed thereafter, they set out in our presence the very causes that moved them to this action, which, as they asserted, constrained them [to act] for the public good, which we considered should not be imputed as a crime to the present persons and [are] outside the case; [then] when diligent enquiry had been made into this, when all and singular matters which should be considered in a case of this kind and which touch on this case had been considered and discussed by prior and mature consideration of our council, we consider as excused the aforementioned Robert, our brother german, and Archibald, our son according to the laws, and anyone who took part in this affair with them, that is any who arrested, detained, guarded, gave them advice, and all others who gave them counsel, help or support, or executed their order or command in any way whatsoever, and in our said council we openly and publicly declared, pronounced and determined definitively and by the tenor of this our present document declare, pronounce, and by this definitive sentence judge them and each of them to be innocent, harmless, blameless, quit, free and immune completely in all respects from the charge of lese majesty against us, or any other crime, misdemeanour, wrongdoing, rancour and offence which could be charged against them on the occasion of the aforesaid. And if we have conceived any indignation, anger, rancour or offence against them or any of then, or any person or people participating with or adhering to them in any way, we now annul, remove and wish those things to be considered as nothing in perpetuity, by our own volition, from a certain knowledge, and from the deliberation of our said council. Wherefore we strictly order and command all and singular our subjects, of whatever standing or condition they be, that they do not slander the said Robert and Archibald and their participants, accomplices or adherents in this deed, as aforesaid, by word or action, nor murmur against them in any way whereby their good reputation is hurt or any prejudice is generated, under all penalty which may be applicable hereafter in any way by law. Given under testimony of our great seal in our monastery of Holyrood at Edinburgh on 20 May 1402 in the thirteenth year of our reign.

Pics are Falkland Palace and Lindores Abbey

I’ve only skimmed the surface of this story, if you want to read more about it, there is an excellent piece by Dr Callum Watson on his excellent blog here

[roseslaces]

19. Of Lucretia, who put an end to her life because of the outrage done her.

This, then, is our position, and it seems sufficiently lucid. We maintain that when a woman is violated while her soul admits no consent to the iniquity, but remains inviolably chaste, the sin is not hers, but his who violates her. But do they against whom we have to defend not only the souls, but the sacred bodies too of these outraged Christian captives,—do they, perhaps, dare to dispute our position? But all know how loudly they extol the purity of Lucretia, that noble matron of ancient Rome. When King Tarquin's son had violated her body, she made known the wickedness of this young profligate to her husband Collatinus, and to Brutus her kinsman, men of high rank and full of courage, and bound them by an oath to avenge it. Then, heart-sick, and unable to bear the shame, she put an end to her life. What shall we call her? An adulteress, or chaste? There is no question which she was. Not more happily than truly did a declaimer say of this sad occurrence: "Here was a marvel: there were two, and only one committed adultery." Most forcibly and truly spoken. For this declaimer, seeing in the union of the two bodies the foul lust of the one, and the chaste will of the other, and giving heed not to the contact of the bodily members, but to the wide diversity of their souls, says: "There were two, but the adultery was committed only by one."

But how is it, that she who was no partner to the crime bears the heavier punishment of the two? For the adulterer was only banished along with his father; she suffered the extreme penalty. If that was not impurity by which she was unwillingly ravished, then this is not justice by which she, being chaste, is punished. To you I appeal, ye laws and judges of Rome. Even after the perpetration of great enormities, you do not suffer the criminal to be slain untried. If, then, one were to bring to your bar this case, and were to prove to you that a woman not only untried, but chaste and innocent, had been killed, would you not visit the murderer with punishment proportionably severe? This crime was committed by Lucretia; that Lucretia so celebrated and lauded slew the innocent, chaste, outraged Lucretia. Pronounce sentence. But if you cannot, because there does not compear any one whom you can punish, why do you extol with such unmeasured laudation her who slew an innocent and chaste woman? Assuredly you will find it impossible to defend her before the judges of the realms below, if they be such as your poets are fond of representing them; for she is among those

"Who guiltless sent themselves to doom,And all for loathing of the day,In madness threw their lives away."

And if she with the others wishes to return,

"Fate bars the way: around their keepThe slow unlovely waters creep,And bind with ninefold chain."

Or perhaps she is not there, because she slew herself conscious of guilt, not of innocence? She herself alone knows her reason; but what if she was betrayed by the pleasure of the act, and gave some consent to Sextus, though so violently abusing her, and then was so affected with remorse, that she thought death alone could expiate her sin? Even though this were the case, she ought still to have held her hand from suicide, if she could with her false gods have accomplished a fruitful repentance. However, if such were the state of the case, and if it were false that there were two, but one only committed adultery; if the truth were that both were involved in it, one by open assault, the other by secret consent, then she did not kill an innocent woman; and therefore her erudite defenders may maintain that she is not among that class of the dwellers below "who guiltless sent themselves to doom." But this case of Lucretia is in such a dilemma, that if you extenuate the homicide, you confirm the adultery: if you acquit her of adultery, you make the charge of homicide heavier; and there is no way out of the dilemma, when one asks, If she was adulterous, why praise her? if chaste, why slay her?

Nevertheless, for our purpose of refuting those who are unable to comprehend what true sanctity is, and who therefore insult over our outraged Christian women, it is enough that in the instance of this noble Roman matron it was said in her praise, "There were two, but the adultery was the crime of only one." For Lucretia was confidently believed to be superior to the contamination of any consenting thought to the adultery. And accordingly, since she killed herself for being subjected to an outrage in which she had no guilty part, it is obvious that this act of hers was prompted not by the love of purity, but by the overwhelming burden of her shame. She was ashamed that so foul a crime had been perpetrated upon her, though without her abetting; and this matron, with the Roman love of glory in her veins, was seized with a proud dread that, if she continued to live, it would be supposed she willingly did not resent the wrong that had been done her. She could not exhibit to men her conscience, but she judged that her self-inflicted punishment would testify her state of mind; and she burned with shame at the thought that her patient endurance of the foul affront that another had done her, should be construed into complicity with him. Not such was the decision of the Christian women who suffered as she did, and yet survive. They declined to avenge upon themselves the guilt of others, and so add crimes of their own to those crimes in which they had no share. For this they would have done had their shame driven them to homicide, as the lust of their enemies had driven them to adultery. Within their own souls, in the witness of their own conscience, they enjoy the glory of chastity. In the sight of God, too, they are esteemed pure, and this contents them; they ask no more: it suffices them to have opportunity of doing good, and they decline to evade the distress of human suspicion, lest they thereby deviate from the divine law.

[giggles-the-clown0]

Giggles compeared to a 7 foot tall human

[thelonesomequeen]

Cap is an iconic role for Chris. Even though Mackie is now taking over the mantle, it’s a character that Chris will never be able to shed from his image. It’s no different than Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones or Hans Solo, Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Tobey McGuire and Spider-Man. Tobey shares that iconic character with Andrew Garfield and now Tom Holland. An iconic role is an iconic role. Chris will never really be detached from that and that doesn’t take away from Anthony Mackie at all. They will both just be referred to as the character going forward because they share it (similar to Spider-Man) 🦎///

Sorry but HARD no! Spider man is like 3 completely different universes. We don't have two different Harry Potters. This is same universe! God even a same fucking movie. It's a shity move to go to con and play Cap when he ain't one anymore. It's not like a con to reunites the old Marvel characters. He is doing this for himself. He have nothing to promote on con. They didn't even say Ghosted character or hell even skip the TGM and Lightyear. It's CA and KO! See the problem here? The fans that gonna be there for him gonna be there for Cap only. Let's be honest. Yes it is iconic character but he have no business being on this con. Like I don't see the reason rather then being somehow selfish and need some good press. Don't compear CA to Harry Potter or even Spiderman it's not the same at all. It's only gonna make the acceptance of Mackie as the black Cap harder for people if Chris is gonna play him for the weekend. I highly don't support this!

Do you understand what comic cons are? Like at all? He’s not “playing” Cap. He’s not pretending to be the character while he’s there. He goes as himself. Regardless of what anyone thinks, Cap is and will continue to be his most recognizable role. It takes NOTHING away from Mackie. I need you guys to be SO effing for real with this. 🧜🏻‍♀️

[ellovett]

ok me again sigh i will explain like the normal person i am so it was a cold and rainy night at my residents 2 days ago and i was on tumblr looking at rsa ocs than i saw him ............. than i liked it then yesterday (i think??) i sent my words of wisdom to your ask box then i giggle myself to sleep then today i had to preached my words again for my redemption then yeah ( OOPIES SORRY FOR SCARING YOU 😭😭😭) (SHAKE SPARE CHOULD NEVER COMPEAR TO MY ANGELIC WRITING🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥‼️‼️‼️💀💀💀🤓🤓🤓😈😈😈🔝🔝🔝💪💪💪💪)

... you are one strange creature anon... an enigma .. 😭 writing the wildest shit in my ask box..

[the-coldhandwitch]

I've been watching The Drangon Prince this evening since I have pretty high fever. And I cannot stop compearing this whole series to my old fanfictions. Anyways, I am so happy that someons fanfic actually got it made into a netflix series..

[anubisthe1]

Obito being taller than kakashi isn't canon, but when you consider the fact that obito has tree dna on half of his body, he really should be.

This isn't to say taller than kakashi, but just super tall in general.

[chilwcll]

Were you around here when he was dating with Chloe? Were they private, did he hide her like that. I'm just curious don't trying to make any compeare

i wasn’t around back then but from what i’ve seen they were keeping things way more private after a while yeah

[arcade-game-ark]

Cheetah Character Designs

the cheetah chreter is shown to bee funky and cool to attract "cool kids" to by the produt and over all well desgned and if you look at the logo closy it has a similar shape as a cheeto

looking at other cheeth charecters i have came across cheeth men wich i honesly regrts seeying it seemes like a rip off of teenage mutant ninja turtles and done really terribly

compearing my 2D charecters to allot of other charecteres my one is on all fours is it is faster but theat charecters are standing on two legs showing as more of a frendly approch in trying to humanizethe charecters and take out its more animalistic features

[f0xd13-blog]

Of course you can show your fragilities... to your therapist or to your friends!!! Thats what I would do before I've decided to make this page because it is virtually impossible to be able to show you how lucky you are even tho it might not seem like it compared to some people, compeared to me for exmple.

[scotianostra]

March 25th 1437 saw the Coronation of King James II.

James II was just 6 years old when he succeeded to the throne following the murder of his father who popped up in a couple of last week’s posts. . He was nicknamed ‘Fiery Face’ after a large birthmark on his face. James had a slightly older brother, his twin, Alexander Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, who lived long enough to receive a knighthood, but died in infancy.

  He was crowned at Holyrood Abbey ending the tradition since Kenneth MacAlpin of crowning at Scone, I tried to find out why the break in tradition was but found nothing, I can only assume that given his young age the Abbey was deemed a much more suitable location. I found very little about the ceremony as well, other than this short paragraph from parliamentary records…..

“On which day, the three estates of the realm compearing at Edinburgh, that is to say the earls, barons, nobles and freeholders, and [they] took our sovereign lord to the abbey of Holyroodhouse, with much praising to God and joyousness for the people, for taking and receiving the crown.”

When old enough James took control of the warring factions, created new earldoms and set about organising central government introducing central taxation. The University of Glasgow was founded during his reign, in 1451. Another notable event during his tenure was in 1440 at Edinburgh Castle and the ‘Black Dinner’, which saw the summary execution of the young William Douglas, 6th Earl of Douglas and of his brother in his presence. The inspiration for a scene in Game of Thrones.

  He successfully played the Lancastrians and Yorkists in England against each other. James enthusiastically promoted modern artillery, which he used with some success against the Douglas’s. His ambitions to increase Scotland’s standing saw him besiege Roxburgh Castle in 1460 with a sizable army and iron cannons newly imported from Flanders. Standing too close to one which exploded he was fatally struck and killed by flying metal.

And so Scotland had another boy King, with at least three factions vying to control the young monarch.

[recipedeveloper-blog]

Beyond ComPear * Loaded with tons of spices, chunks of pears and crystallized gi… Past ComPear * Loaded with tons of spices, chunks of pears and crystallized ginger and stored tender with olive oil, honey and applesauce, this bread is an ideal addition to anybody’s vacation plans or your morning cup of ☕️

[evkso]

Miss Girl you had a 1d phase. Ask Spotify

ma´m i think you´re just projecting onto me ...that was YOUR phase i was a supportive bysander

[weezardjoe-blog]