Shakespeare Omnibus

According to a donation made by Hoël to the chapter of Sainte-Croix de Quimperlé, we can get an idea of the court of a lord in the 11th century:
“We see chamberlains or chambermaids, teachers (grammatici), prefects or provosts, chancellors, bottle cup holders, bread makers or bakers, players of various instruments, bards, jugglers or minstrels, doctors, bailiffs, porters, foresters, and the immediate barons or vassals of the overlord who owed him the war service and the court service, that is to say to assist him in the service of justice.”

The chronicles add that in 1069, in Quimperlé, Hoël, surrounded by a multitude of lords, received from the Abbot of Sainte Croix the sum of thirty pounds for the maintenance of his knights, who came to him from all over Brittany, like bees to the hive.

-Henri Poisson, Histoire de Bretagne

Did you hear about Orr? He turned up in Sweden.
His body? No, alive and well.

wizardarchetypes:
i just remember one time i saw someone say like “would you treat astarion badly if he were watching your playthrough? be honest.” i loved the way they said it. personally i think if a video game character were real then the in-game treatment of them would not be the only or even prior ethical dilemma. i think perhaps if astarion were real he might find it uncomfortable to watch you spend hundreds of hours interacting with an avatar of him even if you’re nice to it. i think if astarion were in my living room I probably wouldn’t boot up Baldur’s Gate 3 first thing. as a thought
i like ppl reblogging this post and putting in the tags the video game they WOULD boot up for astarion. fictional man gets isekai’d into your living room, and everyone’s all in agreement that he MUST play a video game first and foremost. the only question is which one

tbh I really dislike how aphobia tends to be discussed whenever there’s some kind of incident that makes it visible to general society. The most common response seems to be some variation of “why would anyone hate asexual/aromantic people, they aren’t even doing anything” and it just always sits wrong with me. It paints such a passive picture of our existence and feels like a comment influenced by the level of invisibility that aspec people have in society. Why would you be annoyed by someone who is practically invisible? Just go back to ignoring they’re existence, it’s easy!
But despite the invisibility, aspec people are actually doing quite a lot of things that will piss off queerphobic, right-wing and religious people (and hell, even left-wing people). And the most obvious point is that we are actively not performing heterosexuality the way they want us to. People who’s entire world view is “cis men and women should be in monogamous, heterosexual marriage and have (white) babies” are not going to lean back and say “oh but those asexuals and aromantics are fine”. They will also hate our guts, and they will come up with all sorts of reasons, including insinuating we’re all secretly into bestiality, or mentally ill, or not human, or attention seeking children. It’s just plain old queerphobia, and like all queerphobia, there’s no inherent logic to it which you can worm your way out of by “not doing anything”.
And like, there’s a lot more that aspect people do which people hate. Raising awareness about amatonormativity? People feel attacked, they hate it. Asexual people having sex? Or not having sex? People hate it! Aromantic people being in (seemingly) romantic relationships? People fucking hate it! Aromantic people having sex? Ohh people hate that!!
I guess the existence of aphobia can be confusing when you haven’t spent much time thinking about asexuality and aromanticism, but in the end, these are identities that aren’t heteronormative and they will be hit with the same or similar bigotry as any other queer identity. I just get tired of this response after seeing it recycled for 10 years without ever seeming to go any further.