#dad and dog

[20kmemesunderthesea]

Meanwhile on the Nautilus:

[luke-demoverse]

Dad: (doesn’t want a little dog)

Mum: (gets one anyway)

Dad and the little dog:

(My dad hates his photo being taken so his face isn’t in any)

This man taught the dog high five and now the dog constantly demands it

[james-vi-stan-blog]

to your knowledge, did King James ever abuse George in some way? I’ve seen people throw that word around

tw abuse, child abuse, coercion, violence against animals and stuff

It depends on what you mean by abuse. If you consider a severely power-differentiated relationship abuse, then the whole thing is abusive, but also every interpersonal relationship in the 17th century is abusive.

I don’t know of any reported instance of James hitting George, nor of overt sexual coercion (though we know very little about their bedroom life, such as it is possible for historians to argue that they never had sex, although this is a minority view now). James was VERY into marrying off his courtiers, including his favorites, and when George married Katherine, while James still expected George to be constantly at his side, he encouraged them to go at it and make babies. Most of James’s favorites seem to have transitioned out of sleeping with him, and he remained very affectionate with them. Also, remember how James called Carr not wanting to sleep with him “a mere unkindness”? He was hurt, and I read those words as being whiny and guilt trip-y, but it’s not like he was demanding constant service. (Also, many historians think George was probably not having sex with James towards the end of James’s reign simply because James was very sick. Yet this is the period of James’s most intensely romantic letters.)

James, we should remember, hated violence (at least between humans) and had trauma over being shouted at. This doesn’t mean he would never perpetuate it. He did have a temper (nothing like Henry VIII levels though). He led armies, personally oversaw torture, sentenced people to brutal death, etc. — although in this period these would be seen as just actions that a moral king should do, protecting his people against criminals and outlaws. James was popularly criticized for being too soft.

There is an oft-repeated story about him trying to strike a teenage Henry Frederick with his cane during a hunt. This would have been considered acceptable discipline for a father to mete on his son, if “justified” by bad behavior. However, Henry Frederick simply rode off and most of the hunting party went with him, signaling that the prince was more popular than the king and James was not considered justified in this case. (Though, I heard this story told once where HENRY FREDERICK is the one who tried to hit JAMES.)

James and George did argue with raised voices, James publically snubbed George during problem periods of their relationship, but I don’t know that these would really be “abuse” rather than conflict. There is the aspect of the power differential, where George has to grovel and apologize to get James to forgive him, because James was the king. However, James very readily gave his forgiveness (and not just to George, he was generally very eager to forgive any of his friends or favorites for anything if they promised him their love).

Robert Carr DID yell at James, and the main thrust of James’s extremely long feelingsdump letter to him was that he felt hurt and betrayed that Carr wanted to “hold him by awe” (fear) “rather than by love”. So James felt Carr was controlling him by threats and angry outbursts, which James resented, saying that he would do anything for Carr for love, but if he felt he was being taken for granted and Carr was bullying him, that that love would swiftly turn to hate.

(Of course, we must remember that James was a divine right king, so we should be suspicious of his characterization of Carr’s behavior. When James is this massively entitled, such that he genuinely thinks it is a religious sin to resist his will, is he correctly perceiving this situation? Is he overreacting to a relatively modest drawing of boundaries by Carr? I’m inclined to think James genuinely felt betrayed and Carr really was yelling at him and scaring him, but we can’t fully trust James’s perspective.)

So, the short answer is, I don’t know of any instance between James and George that is unambiguously abuse, although of course their whole relationship is colored by power and manipulation. But I’m not a historian or biographer or anything. I’m just a James enjoyer, constantly learning new things, so there could have been an instance somewhere, I simply haven’t learned of it yet.

In the Mary & George trailer, there’s an instance of James wiping George’s face with blood, but this is not from violence against humans; this is a ritual of the deer hunt, where the leader of the hunt (James) marks his companions with the fresh blood of the kill. So this is an act of favor and weird homoerotic intimacy rather than violence towards George.

[crumb-crumblet-s-crumbington]

he needs him by his side

[otto-doctavius]

Logan and Mary Puppins are so “dad and the dog he said he didn’t want” coded. He was acting disgusted by that dog for 90% of the movie, then when they were going to fight the Deadpools that almost baby-talk “You won’t wanna see this, bub.” slipped out. Then ofc there’s the bit at the end when they’re all at the table and he’s just sitting there playing with her ears and laughing as he makes her high-five Laura. I see you, mr “she is NOT coming with us”. You like that nasty little dog

[okjii]

“give Andrew Minyard a pet/plant to take care of” what do you think Kevin Day was.

[mellosdrawings]

Guess what happened to my dog yesterday.

[clumsypuppy]

the pullerrrrr

[brandirecognition]

two dads

[cornflowersandspoons]

Detective boyfriends with their racoon son. 🦝💕

[spicy-apple-pie]

I want Damian to get a really ugly foster cat. Greasy fur, meows like a smoker, eyes constantly goopy, the works.

Bruce was hesitant to allow him to foster because he knows they'll all end up foster fails and Wayne Manor is already turning into a glorified petting zoo. Damian promises that wouldn't happen. So, it ended in a bet, if Damian can successfully foster this cat, then he'll be allowed to foster more cats.

Bruce figured if Damian adopts this ugly cat, then no cat is safe.

It takes a long time for the cat to even warm up to them. She was left at the shelter in a cardboard box so no one really knows what happened to her. Damian spend almost every second he can generally in the same room as her. He just sits there, sometimes just mediating, but sometimes he has a book or a sketchbook. The cat slowly gets more comfortable around Damian. One day, she's brave enough to rub her head against Damian's hand. And it's like she turns into a whole new cat. She's suddenly the most cuddly snuggly cat on the planet. She purrs really really loud too.

And Bruce starts to think that they're going to need a couple more litter boxes.

Damian names her something really elegant, to make up for her unfortunate exterior. Something like Petunia or Tanya (idk if that's an elegant name, but it's really elegant to me). She gets along really well with Alfred the cat too. They can usually be found together cuddling or playing. She didn't like Titus at all at first, but he's as diligent as his owner, so she came around. Although she always has to be the one to initiate the interaction usually, or she'll hiss and scratch.

Predictably, it ends in a foster fail, and Damian thinks that it's probably a good thing he's not allowed to foster.

He still argues with his father though.

[lazylittledragon]

of course he still gets his bear in this universe :3

[james-vi-stan-blog]

a interviewer (for a magazine or something like that) asked Nicholas “does George genuinely have feelings for King James?” and his response was “first, their relationship is very transactional. I don't think he develops feelings until a few months, perhaps years, into it, but there ends up being this very sincere love between the two of them. While there was definitely something for George to gain, the love was very much real.”

I wanted to ask what’s your opinion on this? do you love/like the idea, do you hate/dislike it, or do not mind it! I personally like the idea because it makes it all the more interesting and maybe even heartbreaking. though I’ve seen a lot of mixed opinions about it a few being it’s not accurate because George never loved him (from what I remember though his feelings were a mystery so we don’t know if whether or not he loved him or if it was all just about power) or people thinking we’re “shipping” them even though their relationships is “grooming” and unhealthy. which I agree about the relationship between them being unhealthy but they still loved each other through the madness of things and James didn’t groom George. I have so much to say but I’ll explain them when I can! I just wanted to hear your thoughts:)

-✨

While I think that part of the allure and mystery of George Villiers is the deep unknowability of his true feelings (I've rambled on the mystery of George's sexual orientation before which may be of interest), if this relationship is gonna be dramatized, I would prefer a depiction where affection and even love exist alongside politics, greed, and manipulation, yeah. That's just more interesting, you know? When simple, earnest human needs and vulnerabilities are at play, that's way more engaging to me than pure realpolitik chess games. There's more stakes, more tragedy.

We don't know that George loved James, but the thing is we also don't know that George didn't love James. He understood James really well. He exerted himself very hard every single day for James. (He never got complacent like Robert Carr.) Was every single time that Buckingham had a breakdown and cried in public fake? Were his beautiful words, which showed the close degree of attention he paid to James's moods and preferences, all just evidence of his masterful manipulation? (If he was so good at faking it for the English king, why was he so bad at diplomacy elsewhere, and why did he cause offense everywhere he went?)

If it were up to me, I think the dream would be to craft a story where sexual enjoyment, sexual resentment, familial affection, romantic love, disgust, greed, coldness (even sociopathy), parasitism, mutualism, and gratitude all swirl ambiguously around this relationship.

And from James's side, not to depict him as purely sex-driven, but also not to depict him as totally naive in his pursuit of true love, but to entwine his quest for homosexual love with his intellectual ideals of kingship and generosity (idiosyncratic to say the least, yet in his arrogant mind, philosophically rigorous).

Most likely, in Mary & George, we'll get a "good guy" to "villain protagonist" take on George, and his feelings and actions will be explained to the viewer because he's a viewpoint character. Given that, I prefer the relationship to be depicted as including love. I would rather see the possibility of love in this situation embraced, than to have the more traditional take that such love would be impossible… grotesque… unnatural… hmm… why do all these words just smell like homophobia… But also, I don't want George Villiers defanged.

[mothmanforreall]

Puppy

[pidgydraws]

💛 if only... 💛

[mischievous-thunder]

The Terri-fic/ble Trio they warn everyone about in the entire multiverse