#or try to abolish the monarchy

[castielsprostate]

it's been one nasty gay sex year since the queen dropped dead!! reblog for charles to slut drop into the grave!!

[polygondotcomvideoproducer]

thats not leaking blood the colours are just a little stylized 😭 i cant be the only person who genuinely likes that portrait

I said if u squint it looks that way, I understand that it's not the intention bud. And ur probably not the only one but it's certainly a niche opinion. Like I've been racking my brain to think of reasons the artist might want to make it look like he was painting on a meat canvas and none of them are particularly flattering to ol king chuck. The artist wanted the military uniform to fade into the background to bring the man himself into better focus and humanise him. Which. yeah trying to cover over their violent history by humanising themselves is certainly what the royal family are going for these days so shoutout to the artist for getting the assignment ig lmao. And the one fucking incongruous butterfly that was apparently Charles' idea really gets me

Anyway no royal portrait was gonna work for me, in the same way that I'd be pissed if my landlord was like "hey look what I spent ur rent money on" and it was a fuckin statue of themselves, yk? Royal portraits in general are flimsy fuckin propaganda that waste our damn money, and this one is no different to me, it's just a more self-serving version

[secretagentsagainstwhatever]

King Prince William paying off Trisha Paytas to get spayed is gonna start a conversation around reproductive rights that non of us are prepared for….lmao

this is mostly a joke…kind of…

[maybeheretonight]

.

[thesebloodydays]

Why are yr stans like this asdfghjkl.

[brothermouse-skeleton]

Prediction for the future of Roshar:

Jasnah, realizing that her whole family got *problems* and shouldn't be running anything bigger than a dollar general decides to abolish the monarchy and establish a democracy.

Kaladin becomes the favorite front runner candidate for president. He does not want this. He is not actively campaigning. Adolin and Shallan are making and putting up flyers supporting him without his knowledge. They have slogans like "Face the uncertain future with STORMFACE", and "The High Marshal is My Marshal!".

Wit appoints himself as Kaladin's campaign manager. He spends all day pointedly avoiding doing this job.

To his dismay, Kaladin wins in a landslide. His inauguration speech, which he did not plan beforehand, goes down as one of the most inspiring speeches ever. He was just trying to insult some lighteyes.

His first act as president is to institute a national soup day. He never attends.

[linksqueerawakening]

Miscellaneous LU Headcanons

Four doesn't cast a shadow. when questioned, they flatly state "it died" and refuse to elaborate. if pushed on the matter, they become more and more irritated, while still refusing to elaborate

Time always knows what time it is. you could wake him up in the middle of the night and before he's even fully opened his eyes he could tell you the time without having to even think about it

Hyrule has the most magic, but Legend knows the most magical theory, followed closely by Time

Warriors, Legend, and Four are the only members of the chain who are actually legit monarchists. like the others are pretty much neutral on the concept (tho Wild doesn't like how flora was treated with all the expectations and lack of freedom, but that's another matter entirely than being of the opinion that monarchy is inherently bad), they're fine with monarchy. they just don't have strong opinions one way or another, so long as the current holder of power isn't corrupt. meanwhile Four Legend and Warriors would probably fight you if you insinuated that hyrule's monarchy should be abolished

Legend and Fable are twins but it's a secret. and also due to Fable getting kidnapped and transformed in various worlds in some of their adventures, they're no longer the same age; Legend is 19, she's 16 or 17. they still look very similar so they used the excuse that they're cousins on their father's side

Legend used to want to be a knight very very badly when he grew up, because his uncle who raised him was a knight. the knights who were controlled and attacked him during Link to the Past were pretty much all trusted adults that he knew and admired. he stopped wanting to be a knight after that

Wild may be the best cook when they have good ingredients, but when the chain is down to the wire and they need to make every little bit count? Hyrules horrible concoctions are actually the best option. he can't make it taste good but he can make it keep you alive when there are no other options

Wind is the best at navigating without a map or compass due to his experiences on ships - he would rather have the tools, but he's pretty damn good at managing without

Four has a habit of referring to themselves with "we/us" pronouns ever since they were split and then reformed with the four sword. the other heroes don't know why, but sort of shrugged and started using "they/them" pronouns bc it seemed polite. Four is mostly unaware that they do this - green picked up on it but hasn't pointed it out to the rest of four bc he knows it'll make them stress, and it clearly hasn't caused any issues

Twilight is disarmingly charismatic but only when he's not trying. if he's talking to someone casually or even somewhat irritably, they tend to be completely taken by him, but if he's actively trying to be smooth it just comes across as awkward

Sky is the most mild mannered person you've ever met until you cross certain lines, at which point it's like a switch flips and he's so pissed that even the other heroes hesitate to deal with him

Discounting the hundred years in which Wild was unconscious, Warriors had the longest single adventure, with the war of eras lasting about 7 years. Legend's six adventures altogether may have lasted longer, but they were split up into multiple parts, not one long quest

Wild takes pictures of pretty much everything they can to show Flora whenever they're back home, because they know how much she wants to learn about the ancient past, like their species, their societies, and their magic

[malinthebodyguard]

Young Royals is anti-monarchist propaganda (always has been) 

I think it’s fair to say that most of the fandom was quite happy with the finale. However, I’ve seen a handful of posts by people who were unhappy, specifically  those who were unhappy with Wille giving up his place in the line of succession. These criticisms range in everything from dismissing Wille’s choice (Wilhelm has made a harsh decision without thinking of the consequences, this won’t actually make the media circus around him go away), to those disappointed in how the monarchy in general was represented (Wille could have modernized the institution, no one in the show attempted to consider how the monarchy could be good, actually). I don’t want to invalidate anyone’s feelings about the finale. If you didn't like it, that’s more than ok and I don’t want to argue with anyone about their taste. 

But when it comes to criticism about Wilhelm giving up the throne,  I do find myself frustrated at what I see as a fundamental misunderstanding of what this show was trying to communicate. Young Royals, plain and simple, is a story that  denounces the incompatibility of antiquated and hierarchical institutions (Hillerska, the monarchy) with equality and justice. 

If you’ve had the displeasure of being my fandom friend you’ll know that I’ve spent the last 3 years yelling about how this show is about abolishing the monarchy. I even wrote a lengthy  fanfic with the sole excuse of having Wilhelm arrive at this conclusion. Still, I knew that whatever statement the show wanted to arrive at, we’d only really be getting to it at the end of the show. 

Seasons one and two were setting up all the characters on the chessboard for the end: Wilhelm is the Crown Prince, although he does not want to be. He and Simon are in love, but Wilhelm’s role drives a wedge between them. Erik’s legacy and August's spot next in line are keeping Wilhelm in his place.

 From episode one, I think the show was telling us about the many things that are wrong with the monarchy, but I don’t think it’s until season three that these discussions become more explicit. Is this why some people were disappointed by the ending? Maybe so. Still, I wanted to look at how season three in particular answers some of the questions or issues  people are bringing up regarding both the monarchy and the Wilhelm’s choice. 

What do you like about the monarchy? 

Season 3 Episode 4 is the first time we hear an explicit discussion about why the monarchy could potentially be a good institution. I’ve seen some people complain that the show didn’t give this idea enough thought. 

I completely disagree with this take: the short conversation Wille and Simon have in this episode  is succinct, but still effective at presenting both arguments in this debate. A  longer and more drawn out conversation would have been a bit unrealistic and probably boring to watch. These are not academics having a debate, but two teenagers who are talking about what for them is emotionally charged.

There’s also no need for a longer, more detailed discussion. Wilhelm does provide a very good answer to the question: The monarchy is there to unite the people. To be a neutral party in situations when the government cannot or will not interfere. 

A quick civics lesson: In parliamentary democracies, the monarch serves as the Head of State. 

This role is predominantly representative, although in many places the government is formed in the name of the monarch. This could, theoretically, grant them some political power-- since they could technically reject the winning party from forming a government. However, in most parliamentary monarchies, the King or Queen simply has to accept whatever decision is made based on election results.

However, the value of the Head of State is precisely in its apolitical nature. Regardless of who’s in power, the head of state is a neutral ambassador of the nation, both in and outside of their country. Their job is diplomatic and representative, and one that is thoroughly divorced from politics. This is what Wilhelm meant when he said that the monarchy was there to ‘unite the people’. Whenever I’ve spoken to pro-monarchy folks about their beliefs, they cite this as the reason why they like it. 

It’s easy to see why Wilhlem would latch on this as his main argument to defend the institution. I don’t think there is anything inherently bad about having a separate head of state that represents the country. I don’t think the major grip with this issue is the having a head of state, but the fact that the head of state is a hereditary position. Simon says this himself twice in this episode: the issue is not that the head of state exists, but that the head of state is not an elected position. Furthemore, the head of state is a role that is imposed on a person not by their talent as a public speaker or negotiator, but by a simple accident of birth. 

The job’s legitimacy or importance should not be above any individual’s right to autonomy and self-determination. Furthermore, considering that taxpayers are the ones who finance this position, shouldn’t they be able to elect who it is? 

Let’s imagine a scenario where a friend tells you they’ve gone into a career because everyone in their family works in that industry, and they simply had no choice in the matter. It wouldn’t even matter if they were good or bad, they had a job in this career guaranteed from birth. 

 Would you not be concerned that maybe your friend is unhappy for a rather unnecessary reason? Would you not think that perhaps someone who actually wanted the job would be better suited for it? Would you think it right for a company to hire someone simply because of their family history? Would you consider any of this fair? And what is so special about monarchy that makes us have a different answer for it than we would if the question was about law or medicine? 

You’ll always be famous. 

Another common criticism I’ve seen is that Wilhelm will inevitably regret his decision, especially once he realizes that public scrutiny will not be going away. This is true, Wilhelm will likely always  be a figure of public interest. But to me, this has always been a negative consequence of the monarchy, and I have a hard time seeing this is a valid reason why he should stay in it. 

From the second we meet him, we know Wilhelm is uncomfortable with both the public attention and the scrutiny placed on him. However, this goes a bit further than that. I’d argue than more than the  scrutiny itself,  Wilhelm is weighed down by having to keep a public image. Because, remember folks, Wilhelm is not merely an awkward teenage boy with acne and a crush. No, no, Wilhelm is the State. Wilhelm is going to be a publicly-funded representative of the nation . This means, of course, that there’s a narrative, as he mentions himsef, that needs to be put forward. One that’s generic, serious, and unproblematic: 

From the get go, Wilhelm is uncomfortable with the inauthentic and performative aspect of his role.This is a constant we see with Wilhelm in seasons one and two: every ‘performance’ he has to do fills him with nausea, anxiety, or some sort of discomfort.

In season three, Wilhelm begins acquiescing to this performance. Uncomfortable as he may be, for most of season 3 he’s accepted that this is his role. However, the attention this season shifts from Wilhelm to Simon, who’s now the one facing public scrutiny. The difference is that, unlike Wille, there’s no role for Simon to play. Nothing about who he is or what he believes is compatible with the public image the monarchy is putting forward. The only thing he can do in this situation is disappear, and Wilhelm is tasked with having to ask that of him. 

I know a lot of people were exasperated at Simon’s very bad and clumsy social media presence. I’m not gonna argue that my boy wasn’t being a bit cringey, because he absolutely was. But I think the larger commentary here has more to do with the expectation that these two teenagers have to censor and edit themselves to comply with a particular PR image. 

Ultimately, the criticism that Wilhelm will always be famous leads us straight back to the institution. Why does an underage boy have the same PR expectations as a politician? Why is a teenager dating his classmate + being cringe online justification for doxxing him? Unfortunately, no abdication is really going to undo any of this, and things are certainly going to be crazy once Wilhelm announces he’s stepping down .

However, this time around both he and Simon will at least have the agency to decide what they want to do with their public image, including the decision to disappear from the public completely if that’s what they want.

Queer representation 

This a sentiment that has been in the fandom for some time now. This was the main argument why some people wanted Wille to stay in the monarchy. Sure, the institution has always been about bloodlines and tradition. But wouldn’t it be so nice to have Wilhelm as a symbol for the queer community? I’ve always found this idea a bit shallow. I’m not sure how much of a symbol of a queer and progressive country Wilhelm could be, when the whole idea is predicated on absolutely no one having a choice in the matter. Is it really impressive to accept the queerness of the guy you already had no choice in accepting?  

There’s three scenes in season 3 where the potential Wilhelm -and by extension Simon-  could have for the queer community come up.  Farima brings it up in the first episode, but the framing here is reversed. Wilhelm isn’t serving the LGBTQ community by being a queer Prince, but the monarchy is using Wilhelm (and his queerness) to appear progressive.

The show, however, does humor this idea with the May 1st photo. We see what Simon and Wilhelm could potentially do for the community by simply existing as who they are: they’re inspirational. It gives Simon, briefly, hope that maybe something good could come out of this. 

But this moment is quite literally framed by politics. It doesn't matter that Simon is not participating in that manifestation, anything that is slightly connected with politics is a challenge to neutrality of the monarchy. This same idea is stated more explicitly int the next episode, when Wilhelm is reviewing the options for his charity.

Ultimately, any action significant enough to be truly impactful, would be bordering the limits of what could be considered political. He's got to stick it out with these quite frankly boring and limited themes, all for the sake of staying on the very narrow lane of things that are not political.

The weight of the crown. 

Stories about Kings and Queens usually carry the same fundamental tension of duty vs self. 

In order to rule, our protagonist has to sacrifice themselves, usually for the sake of their country and people. The Crown is an excellent example of this type of story. Sacrifice in that series is framed as something noble and selfless. 

Young Royals started out with this same fundamental tension, but the main difference is that Young Royals has framed this debate as a question: 

Why should Wilhelm give himself up, his happiness, the love of his life, and  his mental well-being? What’s so important and valuable about this institution that requires this sacrifice?

Wilhelm’s journey is about accepting and voicing his answer. He doesn’t want to be Crown Prince, he doesn’t want to be King. 

But by virtue of taking part of this journey with him, we’re able to examine this question from a different perspective: Is this institution valuable enough to justify all of this? I think the show is inviting all of us to evaluate this situation and arrive at the conclusion that it isn’t.

Even someone like August, who wanted this, is weighed down by the realization of just how much the crown weighs. Of course, a big part of the fandom probably doesn’t live in countries with parliamentary monarchies. Still, considering the worldwide popularity of the British Royals, for example, I still think it’s a worthwhile exercise to question the validity of these institutions. Are they really worth sustaining? And if they’re not, why should we continue to drag them on into the present, citing tradition?

[thatsmybook]

Just rewatching the documentary and just before 4 mins in, Lisa is explaining to Omar her thought process for what will be the main dilemma/ crux of the show, and it made me realise what exactly Simon was saying when he broke up with Wille at the end of Episode 5. He was saying: I've seen what the monarchy does to you and how it hurts you, I've experienced it myself, so I have additional empathy for how that must feel for you. Also, I, too, am being hurt by it (see all of season 3 when he's not smiling with Wille). I thought I could try it out for your sake to see if I could handle it because you're worth it.

But after spending the birthday day with Prince Wilhelm and the Royal Court, he sees that it will continue to hurt both of them, and there will be no respite, things will only get worse. He has seen Wille get worse right in front of him on that day. It is poisoning Wille, and he is becoming someone he doesn't recognise. Simon decides that he does not want that to happen to either of them. The only thing he can do is leave the system so it can stop hurting him. Unfortunately, because Wille is entwined with Prince Wilhelm, it means he has to leave Wille too.

To me, by staying with Wille, Simon is condoning bad behaviour or the status quo by just going along with everything the Royal Court says while they both slowly deteriorate. So though he leaves Wille to save himself, he is also saving Wille because he is showing Wille that this is not alright, boundaries have to be put in place somewhere and Wille needs to start setting some boundaries for himself too. If Wille thought that Simon would stick around to support him and occasionally be someone he could lash out to, then he may not have felt the need to save himself from the monarchy. Because Simon is around to hold him up.

So for King Wilhelm truthers, Simon is required to know his place as an aid to the King, whilst suppressing his own pain and never putting pressure on the King by asking for help with his own issues. There is never a time when they would be equal in their relationship, even in private, because everything about Simon's values, ambitions, and passions would have to be deleted. King Wilhelm's needs would come first. This is what class does. It sets up hierarchies of certain humans' needs being more important than others and even that certain humans are superior/supreme to others. Therefore, to function, it needs lackeys who know their place to serve those on top. Hillerska, as an institution, is a mirror of Simon's relationship as a partner for the next king. Hillerska being closed is the equivalent of Lisa abolishing the monarchy. (By the way, there's a real-life incident of the 16 year old Prince of Denmark having to be removed from his elite school when issues of sexual abuse and other scandals came to light. This happened in 2022).

On a side note, this made me think about the Duke's role as consort and imagine that that would be Simon's role to model himself on. If we want Wille to remain as a Crown Prince and have his boyfriend, do we want Simon to become as bland and ineffective as the Duke is, where all of his focus is solely on the Queen's needs. Smoothing over any rough patches with innane conversation and totally neglecting and not 'seeing' his child. Simon deserves to be himself, as does Wille.

[oneofthosebells]

Simon's Month Day 11: Revolution ( @youngroyals-events)

Okay, bear with me... Against all expectations a left-wing coalition sweeps to power, making Simon Eriksson Sweden's youngest ever Prime Minister.

Simon's anti-monarchy views are no secret. But it's not his party's official policy and he's got away with it on the campaign trail by acknowledging that no constitutional change would ever happen unless the people of Sweden wanted it, he knows they love and support their new King, and Simon looks forward to working constructively with King Wilhelm should his party win the election.

(And despite his disdain for the whole system of monarchy, maybe he's just a little intrigued by the young, attractive, surprisingly still single King Wilhelm, who's always looked kind of wistful and sad at the couple of events Simon's briefly met him at. It's not a crush, okay, he's a grown man - he's the Prime Minister ffs! - he's just...interested to get to know him properly, that's all. See if he's imagining those hidden depths or not.)

But at their first real one-to-one meeting, Simon's left a little disappointed if not a bit weirded out. It's stilted and awkward with lots of silences and for some reason the King keeps staring intensely at him. So he tries to lighten the atmosphere by joking that, "Whatever you've heard about me, Your Majesty, you don't need to worry. I'm not about to try and abolish the monarchy or anything, hahaha."

"Right. Of course not. Haha. But..." Wilhelm draws his chair closer to Simon's, still with that intense stare. "Like, hypothetically speaking. If you wanted to. How could we make that happen?"

[starboysbrainrot]

Since it’s jetko week, do you any hc about jetko ? Any hot takes about jetko ? Any specific thoughts ?

hey anon !

i think that my fav hc jetko would have to be either Jet becoming his personal bodyguard, first as an attempt to “keep the new Firelord in check” and then in an attempt to just protect Zuko when he sees how often Zuko’s life is threatened by him being the new Firelord.

or Jet & Zuko living together far from any big cities, with a big family, after abolishing the FN monarchy. it’s probably the least realistic one but it’s I think the one where both get that they deserve : a peaceful life, filled with love and happiness.

now if we’re speaking about hot takes, i posted this thread on x bc anon inspired me to put my thoughts on paper so I’m just gonna copy past it here

it’s not specifically jetko thoughts but I do think that the fandom tends to be too harsh on Jet & Zuko in one specific episode. and for me that’s City of Walls and Secret.

now don’t get me wrong. yes, Zuko was lying about his identity, yes Jet was stalking two people and started a fight, but that’s really, textually, not that bad. Jet is traumatised, paranoid and stressed so when he has the slightest hint that maybe Iroh might be a firbender he’s TERRIFIED literally and every single part of his brain that might think rationally just doesn’t work anymore. and that’s perfectly understandable given what happened to him.

that’s doesn’t make it 100% ok since, yeah they are so many EK citizens that might come from colonies, with mixed heritage, or with fn ancestry that might make them a firebender without being fire nation, and Jet had no way of being sure about this. but as I said his reaction is textually completely understandable.

now for Zuko, he would be in mortal danger if his identity was revealed (which people tend to forget) and he cannot afford to give up on his secret identity for a boy he barely knows. I know y’all like to make it big by saying he kind of betrayed jet’s trust, but jetko, as much as I love it spent max a few days together on the ferry, and that’s it. that’s literally it.

zuko even declines Jet’s offer because he cannot afford being close to someone when he is hiding his identity. cuz it would be risky, it would be even more lying, etc. it’s perfectly understandable and sincerely it funny that out of all the horrible things Zuko did it’s often that one that people will point out. I know that canon divergent jetko au might use that angst potential with Zuko lying to Jet but in canon it’s really not that deep. if he doesn’t lie = he dies/or gets imprisoned at BEST. if he does lie, he gets a chance at surviving both the EK and the FN. and that’s basically it.

as much as it is a popular trope to make Zuko or Jet guilty in jetko fics, I really don’t like it because canon jetko and fanon jetko are really two different things. canon jetko isn’t about betrayal. it’s more about how two severely flawed and traumatised teenagers start to form somehow a friendship because of how similar they are, but the instance of war, trauma and the sick need of survival get between them and tore them apart before they start to remotely form a meaningful relationship.

like in canon these two boys owe each other NOTHING. and I mean it. no Jet doesn’t owe Zuko his trust and no Zuko doesn’t owe Jet his honesty. not in that specific context. and that’s something that a lot of people don’t get about these two in canon

people even fail to realise that Jet’s lack of trust and hostility towards even the slightest hint of firebending & zuko trying to survive, burying his honesty to do so, are wonderful parallels that could be exploited in fics. not necessarily the “you lied/you attacked me” but just the “I had no other choice, I’m sorry” which is so much more tragic.

I would add that this specific trope of “Zuko earning Jet’s forgiveness” when it one sided doesn’t work for me. it works for ships like maiko or zukka, and especially zutara, but not really jetko. at least not if it isn’t reciprocated. like both guys did horrible things but none of these “horrible things” were directed towards eachother.

what happened in BSS is ultimately tragic because both didn’t had another choice. both were clinging on the idea of surviving. both were terrified by what could happen to them. DO YOU SEE HOW TRAGIC THAT IS 😔

[necromancelena]

not a fan of my how easily i fall victim to my itch to play map games i don't think are very good but i did pirate all the victoria 3 dlc to give it another try and i still don't think it's a good game but it was fun to watch the french overthrow king Louis-Philippe and then exile him, which makes him hireable as an outside agitator, except his interest group is 'industrialists' instead of landowners which means if i hire him he will apparently commit himself to the cause of abolishing the monarchy and establishing a republic, despite his ideology being labelled as 'orleanist' which means he simultaneously strongly supports the monarchy. and his portrait puts him in a stupid little jacobin outfit in front of the french revolution. despite him being king Louis-Philippe of france.

[breelandwalker]

@sonnabug reblogged your post:

#is myth the right word if they were the ones who felt they were being persecuted? #not siding with them just wondering about word choice and technicalities #because its true our history was founded on what they decided to tell us but is it an outright lie or did they truely feel persecuted

Oo oo oo, a teaching opportunity!

Okay, so the Puritans came to power during the First English Civil War - the one where they axed Charles I afterward and abolished the monarchy. Their whole beef was that the new Anglican church wasn't STRICT enough and still had too many Catholic trappings (and way too much tolerance for the remaining Roman Catholics in the country). So they kept pushing for Purity and Piety, in personal and business spheres, basically insisting that a strict Protestant moral doctrine should govern every aspect of life, from the management of the home to the running of businesses to interpersonal relationships to the governing of the country and its' policies abroad.

Sound familiar? Their whole rhetoric puts me in mind of a particular line from Elvira: Mistress of the Dark: "The local council is horrified if someone in Fallwell, wherever or whatever, is having a good time."

Anyway, all this religious kerfluffle (plus a couple of other factors) eventually led to the complete destabilization of the English government and the execution of Charles I. And then when the monarchy was restored under Charles II and the country was like, "Oh thank goodness, we can have things like beer and Christmas again and maybe a little less religious conservatism," the Puritans promptly went, "Well this won't do at ALL." Most Puritan clergy with separatist leanings resigned from the Church of England and many Puritans packed up to move to the colonies, where they could "practice their religion in peace." (Read: "Where they could be as stodgy and strict and bigoted as they wished and created a system of laws based on religion instead of common good.")

There's a lot more to it than that and I'm simplifying and glossing over quite a bit, but that's the nuts and bolts.

The mess the Puritans made both in England and in America was one of the reasons the vaunted Founding Fathers insisted on Separation of Church and State, as well as why Freedom of Religion is part of the First Amendment. They'd seen England tearing itself apart over a Wabbit Season / Duck Season tug of war between Catholicism and Protestantism for a good century and more, and they did NOT want to repeat those mistakes in the new country they were trying to build. (They got a lot of stuff wrong, but at least they had the sense to be like, "Yeah maybe religion shouldn't run the government.")

So while it's true that the Puritans may have felt persecuted, it was for basically the same reasons that conservatives and fundamentalists claims to be oppressed today - people generally don't like it when their stodgy uptight neighbors try to beat them over the head with a Bible and demand that one particular interpretation of a single religion should be the driving force behind the running of every aspect of an entire country.

But since they got to write the earliest chapters of American history with no one to provide a strong counterargument, we get this pervasive self-created myth that the Puritans were these poor ragged refugees, fleeing religious persecution for a new land where they could live in peace and harmony and...decimate the local indigenous population and murder their own neighbors in the name of piety. The Pilgrims were assholes and we've been fed pretty lies in our schoolbooks for decades.

(For modern context, religion wasn't a strong part of American politics until McCarthyism happened, at which point we got the God references in the Pledge of Allegiance and on our currency. Then the Moral Majority movement got Reagan elected in 1980 and we've been fighting modern Puritans in government ever since. America has never been a Christian nation, but conservatives keep doing their damnedest to try and turn it into one.)

Hope this helps to clarify things! 😊

[duckbunny]

I saw this a lot when Liz died and King Prince Charles got his promotion, people saying "They could just stop it now" and "let it die with her" and I'm not trying to be rude but I think you don't know what a monarchy is and, even more so, I think you don't know what a country is? like on a fundamental level? it's not impossible to abolish the monarchy. conceptually it's quite simple and in practical terms you could probably do it with one act of parliament and a gamble on getting royal assent. but that's a whole process right there. that's not "you can just stop". that's a major constitutional change. unless and until that happens, it's a monarchy, and a monarchy is not voluntary. it is not in place by the consent of the people. it does not require our consent. it does not acknowledge the possibility of our consent. it's a monarchy.

I'm not a defeatist about this. I think we can and should abolish the monarchy in this and every other state. I just don't enjoy the wide-eyed innocence of "can't you just have William instead?"

No. We can't. If that's a surprise to you, please consider this a sign that you should not offer opinions on foreign politics, because you don't have the background knowledge to contribute to the conversation.

[omgthatdress]

Everything I know about the royals comes from Tumblr memes and one bonus episode of a totally unrelated podcast but now I'm morbidly curious, so: what's up with William? And the Middletons? Or if that's a longer story than you want to explain, do you have recommendations for where to read about this that is likely to be fairly accurate?

I don't have any facts I just have pure fucking speculation if that's okay. :)

Like I've been saying for a long-ass time the one thing I absolutely LOVED about The Crown was its portrayal of generational trauma. It very skillfully showed how being a shitty husband who cheats on his wife and treats his kids like garbage was passed down from Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark to Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh to King Charles and then to Prince William. Hell, it probably started long before that but holy shit THE CYCLE OF DYSFUNCTION AND ABUSE BE REPEATING ITSELF.

And if you really want to dig into it, well.... I think he and Harry followed a pattern that a LOT of siblings of bitter and messy divorce fall into, one kid sides with the mom, one with the dad. It's been said a LOT that Harry was Diana's favorite son, so it probably started with that. And OF COURSE William is gonna side with Charles because well... he's the heir. They have that shared trauma.

And then there's the way the whole "heir and spare" thing absolutely perverts any relationship they might have had as brothers. Charles managed to have a decent relationship with his siblings, I think, because first of all, Anne was a girl, and then Andrew and Edward were significantly younger than him and Anne, so there wasn't this unnaturally massive imbalance of power between them. One of the reasons I've come to believe the monarchy should be abolished is because of how badly it damages the structure of a family in a way that no one should have to deal with.

I think Diana might have been able to guide William into being a better person if she'd have lived, but idk. It may be wishful thinking. His relationship with her became kind of strained when he was a teenager and she was going on TV to tell the whole fucking world about her sex life. I think Diana did the right thing exposing the family like she did, but I can also understand how a 13 year old boy would be absolutely humiliated by that.

THEN there's the whole way he was a MASSIVE heartthrob as a teenager, and was intensely sexualized for it. Like it will absolutely mess with you when you have girls screaming and throwing themselves at you when you're still trying to figure your own sexuality out. It will also massively inflate your ego and convince you that the whole world loves you and there's nothing you can do wrong.

SOOOOOO

as for his relationship with Kate. She's much harder to pin down because she hasn't spent her entire fucking life in the spotlight, and the Middletons are sill granted a certain degree of privacy that the Windsors aren't. I don't think they're as absolutely fucked up as Diana's family was but I still definitely think her mom was a major driving force behind her staying with William.

I think there actually was some initial mutual attraction and that they may have even actually been in love. Buuuut then he waited ten years to propose to her, during which he cheated and they broke up and got back together. Honestly, I don't know what Kate's damage was with all of that, whether or not she was able to convince herself that William wouldn't be another shitty husband, or if she was willing to put up with his bullshit if it meant she would be queen.

Diana was more or less picked out as a bride for Charles because it was assumed that she would be a meek and beautiful wifey who never caused any problems. I mean, she was 19 and he was 32 for fuck's sake. She very much wanted to be queen. BUT what everyone wasn't counting on was that Diana would *gasp* have some serious emotional needs. She was deeply traumatized by her own parents' incredibly bitter divorce, overwhelmed and deeply lonely in her position as princess, and on top of that, suffering from bulimia and then post-natal depression. She needed love and support and Charles spent the whole marriage balls deep in Camilla.

Kate had a much more stable upbringing and had more than a few months to get to know both William and what her role as a princess would be. Ultimately, the vibe I get from her is that she's willing to be the perfect meek beautiful wifey who puts up with William's bullshit if it means she can be royal, which is exactly what Diana was supposed to be.

And I don't mean that to knock or belittle her. She's good at it. She looks incredibly happy when she's doing that. It's her career. It's an exchange I can actually really understand making, especially when your only other prospects involved working for your parents' party company.

But I could be extremely wrong about all of this Maybe she's absolutely miserable but she feels like she has no other options and worried about losing her kids and is terrified of what happened to Diana. It's hard to know, and I wish The Crown would have at least committed to *something* rather than just brushing all of this off.

[longing-for-rain]

Katara ain't even the last southern waterbender. The post-ATLA material shows that there were other waterbenders in the SWT all along but they were in hiding or couldn't be contacted because the South Pole is too big and communications broke down during the war.

It would be more revolutionary for Katara to end up with a SWT boy so they could rebuild their tribe together and help pass down customs, but Katara doesn't know ANY southern water tribe boys her age except for her brother. Bryke literally couldn't be bothered making any other SWT boys Katara's age, so she has no viable romantic options left apart from Aang. Katara herself was even SUPPORTIVE of settler colonialism if it meant the outcomes could benefit the future mixed kids she would have with Aang. Kataang being "revolutionary", my ass. 😭

I also think it's kindaaaa ironic that someone going on about how "revolutionary" a particular romance is supports Maiko and literally has the url of "Fire Lady Mai" when the Fire Nation monarchy should have been abolished because they gained their power through eugenics over the centuries by breeding the royal family with noble lineages to produce the world's strongest firebenders, and Mai was literally a colonizer who never learned that colonization was bad and becomes the queen of the nation she colonized in the name of. Lol um, okay.

That response was…something, for sure.

I agree, if we’re taking the “Katara has a duty to marry a specific kind of man to fulfill a duty to her people” angle, then yes, someone from the Southern Water Tribe would best fulfill that.

But what I have an issue with is the whole idea that who she marries should be dictated by a sense of duty. Or politicized in general. That’s just a classic misogynistic narrative (so unsurprising to hear from a kataang fan) that a woman’s relationships is not about what she wants, but rather, what would be for the greater good. That is not a healthy basis for a relationship. A relationship shouldn’t be political; it should be about you as a person and who you love. And ultimately I think that’s why Zutara is so hated, because ultimately it does represent placing love above the greater good. Some people view this as traitorous and selfish for a woman to do, but couldn’t be me. Katara, and all women, are not wrong for choosing love. We don’t live very long and love is one of the most beautiful things to experience. We have a right to experience it.

However, I disagree that Katara supported settler colonialism, assuming we’re talking about The Promise here. What she believed was that families shouldn’t be separated and lovers shouldn’t be kept from one another just because their ethnicities are different. She brought up the children to convince Aang to reconsider his stance on enforcing racial segregation (too bad certain fans didn’t get the memo). Also, Zuko wasn’t even trying to recolonize that province; he and Katara only supported their right to self-determination. That’s the opposite of colonialism.