visorforavisor

[visorforavisor]

‘Catholique?!’ | ‘non, cathodique.’

I love Ghosts France. top tier joke that would also be very funny with Cap and Pat if ‘cathodic’ was the common way to refer to cathode-ray TVs in the UK. would be funny for different reasons (Protestant England, Catholic France) but still funny.

[visorforavisor]

okay I’m less than two minutes in and I already adore the military guy. very similar to our Cap.

—

bref j’ai regardé moins de deux minutes et j’adore déjà le mec militaire. très similaire à notre Cap.

[visorforavisor]

not just because it’s early modern. but because its being early modern is so critical to its plot and themes. they have printers and Protestantism, for Heaven’s sake. both of those are such massive culture changes that they’re often taken as the end of the medieval era.

every time someone calls pentiment 'medieval' an angel loses its wings

[visorforavisor]

any serif typeface with old-style numerals (especially if writing something with a lot of dates in it, like my epistolary WiP). but, failing that, Newsreader is nice.

i think i got the major ones

[visorforavisor]

oh, I’ve found it. it’s in A Lot to Take In.

“first time hunt mammoth, me big bricking it”.

Ghosts fandom! I need your help.

I’m usually practically an encyclopædia on the show, but I’ve forgotten in which episode Robin mentions having hunted mammoths. it’s important for a project I’m making. can anyone help me?

[visorforavisor]

Ghosts fandom! I need your help.

I’m usually practically an encyclopædia on the show, but I’ve forgotten in which episode Robin mentions having hunted mammoths. it’s important for a project I’m making. can anyone help me?

[visorforavisor]

I just love this picture.

it’s from the Luttrel psalter, an illustrated psalm book from around 1320 to 1340. it’s a drawing of peasants harvesting, bundling, and arranging their wheat.

and one of them has his gloves tucked into his belt. it’s such a deeply human thing to do, and something that I do too, when I’m reaching in my bag for my bike lock’s key, or answering a message on my phone.

we really don’t change.

[visorforavisor]

A Guide to Historically Accurate Regency-Era Names

I recently received a message from a historical romance writer asking if I knew any good resources for finding historically accurate Regency-era names for their characters.

Not knowing any off the top of my head, I dug around online a bit and found there really isn’t much out there. The vast majority of search results were Buzzfeed-style listicles which range from accurate-adjacent to really, really, really bad.

I did find a few blog posts with fairly decent name lists, but noticed that even these have very little indication as to each name’s relative popularity as those statistical breakdowns really don't exist.

I began writing up a response with this information, but then I (being a research addict who was currently snowed in after a blizzard) thought hey - if there aren’t any good resources out there why not make one myself?

As I lacked any compiled data to work from, I had to do my own data wrangling on this project. Due to this fact, I limited the scope to what I thought would be the most useful for writers who focus on this era, namely - people of a marriageable age living in the wealthiest areas of London.

So with this in mind - I went through period records and compiled the names of 25,000 couples who were married in the City of Westminster (which includes Mayfair, St. James and Hyde Park) between 1804 to 1821.

So let’s see what all that data tells us…

To begin - I think it’s hard for us in the modern world with our wide and varied abundance of first names to conceive of just how POPULAR popular names of the past were.

If you were to take a modern sample of 25-year-old (born in 1998) American women, the most common name would be Emily with 1.35% of the total population. If you were to add the next four most popular names (Hannah, Samantha, Sarah and Ashley) these top five names would bring you to 5.5% of the total population. (source: Social Security Administration)

If you were to do the same survey in Regency London - the most common name would be Mary with 19.2% of the population. Add the next four most popular names (Elizabeth, Ann, Sarah and Jane) and with just 5 names you would have covered 62% of all women.

To hit 62% of the population in the modern survey it would take the top 400 names.

The top five Regency men’s names (John, William, Thomas, James and George) have nearly identical statistics as the women’s names.

I struggled for the better part of a week with how to present my findings, as a big list in alphabetical order really fails to get across the popularity factor and also isn’t the most tumblr-compatible format. And then my YouTube homepage recommended a random video of someone ranking all the books they’d read last year - and so I present…

The Regency Name Popularity Tier List

The Tiers

S+ - 10% of the population or greater. There is no modern equivalent to this level of popularity. 52% of the population had one of these 7 names.

S - 2-10%. There is still no modern equivalent to this level of popularity. Names in this percentage range in the past have included Mary and William in the 1880s and Jennifer in the late 1970s (topped out at 4%).

A - 1-2%. The top five modern names usually fall in this range. Kids with these names would probably include their last initial in class to avoid confusion. (1998 examples: Emily, Sarah, Ashley, Michael, Christopher, Brandon.)

B - .3-1%. Very common names. Would fall in the top 50 modern names. You would most likely know at least 1 person with these names. (1998 examples: Jessica, Megan, Allison, Justin, Ryan, Eric)

C - .17-.3%. Common names. Would fall in the modern top 100. You would probably know someone with these names, or at least know of them. (1998 examples: Chloe, Grace, Vanessa, Sean, Spencer, Seth)

D - .06-.17%. Less common names. In the modern top 250. You may not personally know someone with these names, but you’re aware of them. (1998 examples: Faith, Cassidy, Summer, Griffin, Dustin, Colby)

E - .02-.06%. Uncommon names. You’re aware these are names, but they are not common. Unusual enough they may be remarked upon. (1998 examples: Calista, Skye, Precious, Fabian, Justice, Lorenzo)

F - .01-.02%. Rare names. You may have heard of these names, but you probably don’t know anyone with one. Extremely unusual, and would likely be remarked upon. (1998 examples: Emerald, Lourdes, Serenity, Dario, Tavian, Adonis)

G - Very rare names. There are only a handful of people with these names in the entire country. You’ve never met anyone with this name.

H - Virtually non-existent. Names that theoretically could have existed in the Regency period (their original source pre-dates the early 19th century) but I found fewer than five (and often no) period examples of them being used in Regency England. (Example names taken from romance novels and online Regency name lists.)

Just to once again reinforce how POPULAR popular names were before we get to the tier lists - statistically, in a ballroom of 100 people in Regency London: 80 would have names from tiers S+/S. An additional 15 people would have names from tiers A/B and C. 4 of the remaining 5 would have names from D/E. Only one would have a name from below tier E.

Women's Names

S+ Mary, Elizabeth, Ann, Sarah      

S - Jane, Mary Ann+, Hannah, Susannah, Margaret, Catherine, Martha, Charlotte, Maria

A - Frances, Harriet, Sophia, Eleanor, Rebecca

B - Alice, Amelia, Bridget~, Caroline, Eliza, Esther, Isabella, Louisa, Lucy, Lydia, Phoebe, Rachel, Susan

C - Ellen, Fanny*, Grace, Henrietta, Hester, Jemima, Matilda, Priscilla

D - Abigail, Agnes, Amy, Augusta, Barbara, Betsy*, Betty*, Cecilia, Christiana, Clarissa, Deborah, Diana, Dinah, Dorothy, Emily, Emma, Georgiana, Helen, Janet^, Joanna, Johanna, Judith, Julia, Kezia, Kitty*, Letitia, Nancy*, Ruth, Winifred>

E - Arabella, Celia, Charity, Clara, Cordelia, Dorcas, Eve, Georgina, Honor, Honora, Jennet^, Jessie*^, Joan, Joyce, Juliana, Juliet, Lavinia, Leah, Margery, Marian, Marianne, Marie, Mercy, Miriam, Naomi, Patience, Penelope, Philadelphia, Phillis, Prudence, Rhoda, Rosanna, Rose, Rosetta, Rosina, Sabina, Selina, Sylvia, Theodosia, Theresa

F - (selected) Alicia, Bethia, Euphemia, Frederica, Helena, Leonora, Mariana, Millicent, Mirah, Olivia, Philippa, Rosamund, Sybella, Tabitha, Temperance, Theophila, Thomasin, Tryphena, Ursula, Virtue, Wilhelmina

G - (selected) Adelaide, Alethia, Angelina, Cassandra, Cherry, Constance, Delilah, Dorinda, Drusilla, Eva, Happy, Jessica, Josephine, Laura, Minerva, Octavia, Parthenia, Theodora, Violet, Zipporah

H - Alberta, Alexandra, Amber, Ashley, Calliope, Calpurnia, Chloe, Cressida, Cynthia, Daisy, Daphne, Elaine, Eloise, Estella, Lilian, Lilias, Francesca, Gabriella, Genevieve, Gwendoline, Hermione, Hyacinth, Inez, Iris, Kathleen, Madeline, Maude, Melody, Portia, Seabright, Seraphina, Sienna, Verity

Men's Names

S+ John, William, Thomas

S - James, George, Joseph, Richard, Robert, Charles, Henry, Edward, Samuel

A - Benjamin, (Mother’s/Grandmother’s maiden name used as first name)#

B - Alexander^, Andrew, Daniel, David>, Edmund, Francis, Frederick, Isaac, Matthew, Michael, Patrick~, Peter, Philip, Stephen, Timothy

C - Abraham, Anthony, Christopher, Hugh>, Jeremiah, Jonathan, Nathaniel, Walter

D - Adam, Arthur, Bartholomew, Cornelius, Dennis, Evan>, Jacob, Job, Josiah, Joshua, Lawrence, Lewis, Luke, Mark, Martin, Moses, Nicholas, Owen>, Paul, Ralph, Simon

E - Aaron, Alfred, Allen, Ambrose, Amos, Archibald, Augustin, Augustus, Barnard, Barney, Bernard, Bryan, Caleb, Christian, Clement, Colin, Duncan^, Ebenezer, Edwin, Emanuel, Felix, Gabriel, Gerard, Gilbert, Giles, Griffith, Harry*, Herbert, Humphrey, Israel, Jabez, Jesse, Joel, Jonas, Lancelot, Matthias, Maurice, Miles, Oliver, Rees, Reuben, Roger, Rowland, Solomon, Theophilus, Valentine, Zachariah

F - (selected) Abel, Barnabus, Benedict, Connor, Elijah, Ernest, Gideon, Godfrey, Gregory, Hector, Horace, Horatio, Isaiah, Jasper, Levi, Marmaduke, Noah, Percival, Shadrach, Vincent

G - (selected) Albion, Darius, Christmas, Cleophas, Enoch, Ethelbert, Gavin, Griffin, Hercules, Hugo, Innocent, Justin, Maximilian, Methuselah, Peregrine, Phineas, Roland, Sebastian, Sylvester, Theodore, Titus, Zephaniah

H - Albinus, Americus, Cassian, Dominic, Eric, Milo, Rollo, Trevor, Tristan, Waldo, Xavier

# Men were sometimes given a family surname (most often their mother's or grandmother's maiden name) as their first name - the most famous example of this being Fitzwilliam Darcy. If you were to combine all surname-based first names as a single 'name' this is where the practice would rank.

*Rank as a given name, not a nickname

+If you count Mary Ann as a separate name from Mary - Mary would remain in S+ even without the Mary Anns included

~Primarily used by people of Irish descent

^Primarily used by people of Scottish descent

>Primarily used by people of Welsh descent

I was going to continue on and write about why Regency-era first names were so uniform, discuss historically accurate surnames, nicknames, and include a little guide to finding 'unique' names that are still historically accurate - but this post is already very, very long, so that will have to wait for a later date.

If anyone has any questions/comments/clarifications in the meantime feel free to message me.

Methodology notes: All data is from marriage records covering six parishes in the City of Westminster between 1804 and 1821. The total sample size was 50,950 individuals.

I chose marriage records rather than births/baptisms as I wanted to focus on individuals who were adults during the Regency era rather than newborns. I think many people make the mistake when researching historical names by using baby name data for the year their story takes place rather than 20 to 30 years prior, and I wanted to avoid that. If you are writing a story that takes place in 1930 you don’t want to research the top names for 1930, you need to be looking at 1910 or earlier if you are naming adult characters.

I combined (for my own sanity) names that are pronounced identically but have minor spelling differences: i.e. the data for Catherine also includes Catharines and Katherines, Susannah includes Susannas, Phoebe includes Phebes, etc.

The compound 'Mother's/Grandmother's maiden name used as first name' designation is an educated guesstimate based on what I recognized as known surnames, as I do not hate myself enough to go through 25,000+ individuals and confirm their mother's maiden names. So if the tally includes any individuals who just happened to be named Fitzroy/Hastings/Townsend/etc. because their parents liked the sound of it and not due to any familial relations - my bad.

I did a small comparative survey of 5,000 individuals in several rural communities in Rutland and Staffordshire (chosen because they had the cleanest data I could find and I was lazy) to see if there were any significant differences between urban and rural naming practices and found the results to be very similar. The most noticeable difference I observed was that the S+ tier names were even MORE popular in rural areas than in London. In Rutland between 1810 and 1820 Elizabeths comprised 21.4% of all brides vs. 15.3% in the London survey. All other S+ names also saw increases of between 1% and 6%. I also observed that the rural communities I surveyed saw a small, but noticeable and fairly consistent, increase in the use of names with Biblical origins.

Sources of the records I used for my survey: 

Ancestry.com. England & Wales Marriages, 1538-1988 [database on-line].

Ancestry.com. Westminster, London, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1935 [database on-line].

[visorforavisor]

tutorial for drawing characters with Down syndrome!

DISCLAIMER... please keep in mind that this is an introductory drawing tutorial and has some generalizations in it, so not every “X is Z” statement will be true for Actual People. it's more of an overview of features that are common in people with Down syndrome, not meaning to imply that every person with DS has all of them 👍👍 thanks

if you draw any characters using this feel free to tag me!!

[visorforavisor]

my favourite thing about Havers as a character is how little we know about him! we don’t get the chance to learn anything about him, because Cap didn’t get the chance to learn anything about him. and that’s the tragedy of it!

we don’t know if Havers felt the same about Cap, because Cap doesn’t know. we don’t know if Havers was even gay / bi / etc at all, because Cap doesn’t know. because Cap couldn’t know these things because they couldn’t discuss them because of the environment in which they were living and operating. it was homophobic. which is, you know, sort of the point of Cap’s flashbacks, really.

we have no idea whether they were the right people for each other because they didn’t get the chance to explore that, due to the homophobia that surrounded them! (imagine I’m screaming that bit because I feel very strongly about how beautifully that story was crafted and executed.)

additionally, of course, there’s the other reason that Havers as a character having very little detail works, which is that he can represent the non-homophobic Everyman of the time. the Joe Bloggs (or maybe Tommy Atkins works better). he represents every conversation that couldn’t be had, every sentiment of support or community or attraction / affection that couldn’t be expressed, every person who was unable to help a gay man like Cap feel that little bit less alone.

I’m a firm believer that ambiguity in story-telling can be just as powerful as giving the answers, and it’s one of my favourite examples! I’ve not done a very good job of articulating it, but there you go I suppose.

hate it when i’m reading an actually very good post about how havers is left as a shell character for a reason because of what he represents for the captain. like yes thank you. and then they end the post with a. ‘and he definitely loved the captain in return thank you for coming to my ted talk’ like. you were SO close to the point and lost it in the last second. i can’t even comprehend how someone can be so close that they literally explain exactly havers’ role as a character and still manage to fumble the ball.

[visorforavisor]

I’ve been reading from The Teares of Ireland by James Cranford, which is a 1642 English comic about the 1641 rebellion in Ireland. obviously it’s complete propaganda and I sincerely doubt the veracity of most stories told in it, but there’s some absolute gems in here. I mean, really.

At one Mʳ Atkins houſe 7 Papiſtas brake in & beate out his braines, then riped upe his wife with Childe after they had rauiſhed her & Nero like vewed natures bed of conception then tooke they the Childe & ſacrificed it in the fire.

this is gruesome… if you believe they did it.

English Proteſtantas, ſtriped naked & turned into the mountaines, in the froſt, & ſnowe, whe:reof many hundreds are periſhed to death. & many liyinge dead in ditches & Savages upbraided them ſayinge now are ye wilde Iriſch as well as wee.

likewise. they perished to death, guys [/s]! and the worst thing the Irish could think of to say was… that these English Protestants were also Irish now? really, Cranford?

Drivinge Men Women & Children by hundreds vpon Briges & caſting them into Rivers, who drowned not were killed with poles & ſhot with muſkets

at this point I’d like to remind you that it was only in 1609 — not very long previously — that these same Catholics had been forced out of their homes and off their land in Ulster so that English Anglicans and Scottish Presbyterians could be moved in, in an effort to Anglicise and de-Gaelicise the nation of Ireland.

Mʳ FFordes houſe rifled; and to make her confeſſe where her mony lay, they tooke hot tonges clappinge them to the Soules of her feete & to the Palmes of her handes ſo tormented her that with the paine thereof ſhee died.

okay, so this one is also utterly ridiculous. but I am making a point here.

when I was reading these pieces — as well as the testimony of Elizabeth Price, an English woman, in June 1643 about the same rebellion — what really struck me was the similarity to Israeli propaganda about Palestinians. from Elizabeth Price:

shee often heard the Common sort of Rebells say, that when they had distroyed all the English in Ireland they would goe with an Army into England and destroy the English there

sounds a lot like Israeli claims that Palestine doesn’t want Israelis to exist. she also talks about how brutal the Catholics are in regard to religion:

hearing in Irish words answered and said Cuir do anim in diouall, which in English is Give or bequeath thy soule to the Divell, And at other tymes would say to the protestants (vpon their knees, begging with teares, that they might pray before their deaths) Why should yow pray for your soule is with the Divell already, And therevpon and with those words in their mowthes would slaughter and put them to death

firstly, what she means is “cuir d’anam i ndiabhal”. secondly, this once again reminds me of the propaganda of Israel as concerns the Palestinian people.

my point here, really, is that it was extremely clear to me upon reading these 1640s texts that the horrific details of the Irish rebels were made up. please have the same doubt about claims regarding Palestinians, things you hear from Israel. especially things that sound like they don’t have any evidence.

[visorforavisor]

well, this is disappointing.

I know Gaiman’s probably trying to be neutral, but the situation doesn’t allow for neutrality.

“if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. if an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” — Desmond Tutu

this is one of my favourite quotations, and the man who said it campaigned strongly against apartheid.

I can see the desire to say that everybody should stop fighting and calm down and get along, but I don’t think that works when the so-called state of Israel displaced the state and people of Palestine. thinking that “Palestine should be recognised as a state” is all well and good, and I agree, but how could that happen if some of its land is still assigned to Israel?

the existence of Israel is inherently violent against Palestinians, as it necessitates the stealing and colonising of land that was already Palestinian land in the first place.

Mr Gaiman, I know you’re probably doing your best to not insult anybody and probably had good intentions in saying this, but we can’t just go back to when there was no bombs and no creation of refugees in the area that is rightfully Palestine, because that state of affairs is still violent against Palestine. I hope you learn and come to understand this.

·—·

(side note to pre-empt any misunderstandings: I asked a Jewish friend of mine to read this post over and confirm it did not unintentionally promote any anti-Jewish sentiment or prejudice, as I’m aware some people are using their anti-Israel opinions as an excuse to be violent towards Jewish people, which is unacceptable. my friend does confirm this.)

Hello, Mr. Gaiman.

Recently, an old tweet of yours from 2015 resurfaced, in which you show support for Israel in the ongoing conflict. Is that still where you stand, or have you changed your mind in the past 6 years since that tweet was written?

The one where I say that Israel has the right to exist and that Palestine should be recognized as a state? I haven't changed my mind about either of those statements, or about any of the ones about people not killing other people and standing with the refugees and the children.

[visorforavisor]

I know I’m very late to the whole thing, but here’s my take on ’60s fem Aziraphale and Crowley in the States. more details after the cut!

decided to make Crowley a hippie because obviously. lust, substances, free love, questioning authority: all of these things that Hell probably think are a great way to win people over to their side. Crowley would insert themself into that crowd quickly as an easy way to get points with Hell: hang out, enjoy a bit of music, and let the humans come up with the supposedly immoral things themselves.

Aziraphale is just in a gentle, cute version of the “cleaner”, more mainstream fashion of the time. I didn’t know what Aziraphale would wear if presenting fem, given the general lack of change in their outfits, so I sort of went with what I could. I thought they’d look lovely in this style. a good outfit for going around and not doing much other than eating and having a nice time.

[visorforavisor]

my Watson:

buff — 6/10. he is decently strong and muscular, a large fellow, although he has multiple physical disabilities so he’s not always able to use his physical prowess.

fluff — 8/10. both kind and handsome, and very gentle whenever needed.

gruff — 8/10. do not piss this Watson off. also I have him vent his frustrations to the reader because it’s fun. has a slightly bitchy internal monologue, and also genuine outrage sometimes.

stuff — 9/10. competent doctor, knowledgeable about things he finds interesting, very calm and capable in an emergency.

bluff — 6/10. can lie, to the reader and others, but doesn’t too often. only when needed and / or funny.

chuffed — 10/10. absolutely adores spending time with his Holmes. would spend his life doing it. and he quite likes being a mystery writer.

·—·

my Holmes:

deductive — 9/10. an excellent detective most of the time, but has been known to fuck up (see SCAN, YELL). I keep this in.

seductive — 3/10. has appeal to some people (mostly to Watson), but also is fairly sex-averse most of the time.

destructive — 7/10. will not hesitate to destroy things if needed, but won’t unless it is needed.

productive — 10/10. loves to help people, and is motivated far more by this than by “queen and country” nonsense (because I am Irish). also good at it.

obstructive — 10/10. absolutely lying to the police, refusing to cooperate with them even a little more than in the originals maybe, depending on the case. loves getting in the way of rich and / or powerful people.

instructive — 8/10. encourages Watson to learn and observe, as well as any others who don’t treat them like shit.

Presenting: The Six-Point System For Rating Your Watson

(Developed in collaboration with the Letters From Watson server, thanks folks)

On a scale of 1-10, rate your Dr Watson for the following qualities:

Buff - strength and build

Fluff - handsomeness and kindness

Gruff - sternness and anger potential

Stuff - can he do things besides just watching Holmes

Bluff - how unreliable a narrator is he/can he lie

Chuffed - is he happy to be there? Does he like hanging out with Holmes?

Go forth!

[visorforavisor]

oh fear not. my Watson (whenever I finally get to start writing my Holmes stories) is utterly pathetic [/pos] for his lover.

Nothing but love and respect to the recent batch of grumpy, self assured Dr Watsons who rolls their eyes at Holmes, but we are due for a truly down bad hype-man/wife-guy Watson

[visorforavisor]

this is the funniest joke I’ve seen in a long time @readingtheentrails the footnote I cannot

na rudaí is tábhachtaí i ngaeilge

clapsholas: twilight

gealach úr: new moon

urú: eclipse

éirí na gréine: breaking dawn

grian mheán oíche: midnight sun

[visorforavisor]

warning: Good Omens series / season 2 spoilers

you have been warned

final warning okay thank you

(also Pride and Prejudice spoilers I guess if anyone still cares about that 210 years on)

·—·

they’re Pride and Prejudice, people! I’m telling you!

Aziraphale still holds onto his anti-Hell, pro-Heaven, anti-demon, pro-angel bias, his prejudice telling him that there is no “institutional problem”, that Crowley fell because he asked questions rather than because Heaven didn’t want questions asked.

Crowley refuses to let go of his pride in his identity (whether that be as one of the fallen, or as part of a side that is neither Heaven nor Hell), and go back to the Heaven that betrayed him, which he doesn’t trust not to ruin everything.

Aziraphale is Lizzy, Crowley is Darcy.

and, come on, we all know what happens in Chapter 34.

Darcy proposes to her. he talks about having tried to pretend the love is not real (“in vain I have struggled”), and asks Lizzy to marry him despite the fact that they come from two different factions who traditionally wouldn’t marry, and despite the fact that he knows she does not possess the same identity he is proud of in himself.

and Lizzy turns him down, because she’s prejudiced against Darcy’s type and this has influenced how and what she thinks about him specifically.

Darcy leaves this proposal feeling hurt, betrayed, and upset, while Lizzy is too confident that she is right in the core beliefs that influenced her decision. and they go away needing to work on themselves.

(is all of this sounding familiar?)

and then they meet again and fall in love and there’s a successful proposal etc etc.

Crowley’s pride in what he is won’t let him take Aziraphale at half quality, still part of Heaven; Aziraphale must be so exceptional as to transcend that restrictive category. an angel who would buy into that nonsense is not what Crowley stands for. he cares about people in his own, very small category: their side, which he thought included Aziraphale. those outside Crowley’s side are not to be ruining Crowley’s “precious, peaceful, fragile existence”.

meanwhile, Aziraphale’s prejudice presents him two options. either Crowley remains a demon which means he is bad, or Crowley becomes an angel again, which means he can be properly good. in the second case, Aziraphale can have him. Aziraphale can’t have Crowley if he’s bad, which he must be if he’s a demon.

there’s a subtle difference between the two.

Crowley’s tactic is more about self-preservation for his group (which would have included Aziraphale if Aziraphale’d agreed to dump Heaven for their side, just as Darcy’s remaining pride extends to protecting Lizzy when they are married (“Darcy could never receive him [Wickham] at Pemberley”)).

Aziraphale is being self-righteous for the good in the world (which he would have done for Crowley too if Crowley’d agreed to be an angel, just as Lizzy loses her shit at Darcy for not helping Wickham and all of his myriad other moral failings and then turns around and defends him once she’s convinced he’s good (“that [her dislike of him] is all to be forgot”)).

of course, this all might be an accident on the part of the writers, but then again….

Crowley and Aziraphale’s ideas to get Nina and Maggie together were sheltering from the rain, one fabulous kiss, and Pride and Prejudice.

Crowley and Aziraphale have already had their sheltering from the rain — twice, actually (at the end of the creation scene, and the end of the Eden scene). they have also had their kiss — no explanation needed.

this is their Pride and Prejudice, right down to Crowley (Darcy) protesting when a dance with Aziraphale (Lizzy) is suggested.

I could go into how Pride and Prejudice is in and of itself a Much Ado About Nothing retelling, but honestly that’s not particularly relevant, just cool. (do watch the David Tennant and Catherine Tate Much Ado, though.)

so, my hypothesis for the conclusion of a potential series 3 is as follows.

it will involve Crowley’s equivalent of “one word from you will silence me forever”: Aziraphale’s last chance to answer in the affirmative and be with him. Aziraphale will learn that Crowley is not bad simply for being a demon (I hope), and Crowley will realise Aziraphale should be let into his heart even if he wasn’t always on Crowley’s side (I hope).

Darcy / Crowley stops refusing to interact positively with anybody not in the little clique, and Lizzy / Aziraphale stops believing an entire group to be awful.

I don’t know if I have anything else coherent to say on this. something about how they have to accept the things they cannot change about the other and change the things the other cannot accept about them?

(also Gabriel could arguably be Wickham, given that Crowley tries to convince Aziraphale that Gabriel did a nasty thing and should be kept away from those he wants to keep safe but Aziraphale won’t believe Gabriel is a bad person because Gabriel isn’t one of the group he considers to be bad… I mean, it’s just their pride and their prejudice again isn’t it. whether we’re talking about Darcy, Lizzy, and Wickham, or Crowley, Aziraphale, and Gabriel.

I’m not going to follow that extension of the comparison too far, though, because I don’t think I can reasonably claim that Beelzebub is Lydia.)

concluision: I don’t care whether it’s Benedick and Beatrice, or Darcy and Lizzy, or Crowley and Aziraphale. I love all of their dynamics.

and we have amazing things to look forward to if we can convince the company to make series 3.