🔥 Popular | Latest

England, Fucking, and Stephen: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. runawayrat: squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens Im fucking deceased
Save
England, Stephen, and Target: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens

squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard ...

Save
England, Stephen, and Tumblr: A Portrait of James Il's 'Husband' Has Reappeared in Glasgovw "I desire only to live in this world for your sake," the king wrote to him. BY NATASHA FROST SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 A LOST PORTRAIT OF THE man whom English king James I referred to as his "husband," "sweet heart," and the one he loved "more than anvone else" has emerged from conservation work and been authenticated, after having been mistaken for a copy for centuries, the BBC reports. George Villiers, the first Duke of Buckingham, rose to prominence in court after catching the king's eye at a hunt. This 17th-century painting of him, now known to be by the Flemish great Peter Paul Rubens, had been concealed by layers of dirt, as well as later "improvements." In the painting, Villiers is depicted wearing an elaborate lace collar and a sash. He was known for his good looks, and had been described as "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," with a "lovely complexion." James I lavished attention and care on him, and called him "Steenie" after St. Stephen, who was said to have had the face of an angel. However, whether Villiers and James I were lovers in the modern sense of the word has been a source of some contention. In their letters, James I states how he wept so profusely at their parting "that I can scarcelv see to write. But scholars have argued that such sentiments are not atypical of male friendship in the 17th and 18th centuries. The rumors flared up upon the 2008 discoverv of a secret passage in one of the king's homes linking their bedchambers. squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard to tell what kind of relationship they would have had, let’s not look at this through a 21st century lens

squidsticks: King James I: *builds secret tunnel connecting his room to the room of a man he calls his husband* Historians: it’s very hard ...

Save
Bitch, Bruh, and Fucking: k1113rkitty: fantastic-nonsense: fantastic-nonsense: okay but the screenwriter for Thor: Ragnarok is obviously intimately aware of what it's like to have siblings because like... the snake scene? Bickering at every opportunity? Throwing things at each other for no real reason? "You know this guy?" "I have no idea who this person is"? Smirking when your sibling does something cool because 'nothing but respect for MY sibling' and then turning around and punching each other in the face right afterward? Stabbing each other for fun and then going 'oh come on you big baby, that didn't even hurt? The fucking Get Help' scene? Like bruh...that is some Truth in Hollywood right there In honor of this post reaching 10K notes, I have more examples of Siblinghood Done Right in Ragnarok: e *parent leaves the area "THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!" . "You're just...the worst. *internally bitch Iam the only one that gets to kill my sibling back off! That little conciliatory pat on the back Loki gives to Thor after Thor says "Jane and I dumped each other" "I swear I left it right here" *casually talking to each other about something mundane with the underlying threat of violence everpresent in both of your voices* e . casual jibes and banter about the way each other dresses ("Why would I do that? I'm not a witch." "Then why do you dress like one?") "YES! THAT'S WHAT THAT FEELS LIKE!" e but also the concealed worry about your sibling getting actually hurt, even though you know they'll probably be fine Loki's extremely obvious eyerolling when those girls approach Thor in public and ask for a selfie * *sibling walks in while you're trying to cause trouble and enjoy yourselfk "oh shit" I don't even have a sibling, and I get it. Siblings, theyre just like that [Thor: Ragnarok spoilers]
Save
Being Alone, Matlock, and Tumblr: NOAM CHOMSKY: It's a pretty remarkable fact that-first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn't just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn't like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone-it's the least of it-the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it's considered-it's turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world. So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump's programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That's-the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can't believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that's just what they ought to be doing." So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That's not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it. c-bassmeow: Noam Chomsky’s piercing comments on the Democrat’s “Russia stole our election!” obsession. From an interview with DemocracyNow.

c-bassmeow: Noam Chomsky’s piercing comments on the Democrat’s “Russia stole our election!” obsession. From an interview with DemocracyNow...

Save
Being Alone, Matlock, and Tumblr: NOAM CHOMSKY: It's a pretty remarkable fact that-first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn't just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn't like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone-it's the least of it-the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it's considered-it's turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world. So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump's programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That's-the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can't believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that's just what they ought to be doing." So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That's not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it. c-bassmeow: Noam Chomsky’s piercing comments on the Democrat’s “Russia stole our election!” obsession. From an interview with DemocracyNow.

c-bassmeow: Noam Chomsky’s piercing comments on the Democrat’s “Russia stole our election!” obsession. From an interview with DemocracyNow...

Save
Being Alone, Matlock, and Yeah: NOAM CHOMSKY: It's a pretty remarkable fact that-first of all, it is a joke. Half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn't just interfere in elections. It overthrows governments it doesn't like, institutes military dictatorships. Simply in the case of Russia alone-it's the least of it-the U.S. government, under Clinton, intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So, this, as I say, it's considered-it's turning the United States, again, into a laughingstock in the world. So why are the Democrats focusing on this? In fact, why are they focusing so much attention on the one element of Trump's programs which is fairly reasonable, the one ray of light in this gloom: trying to reduce tensions with Russia? That's-the tensions on the Russian border are extremely serious. They could escalate to a major terminal war. Efforts to try to reduce them should be welcomed. Just a couple of days ago, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jack Matlock, came out and said he just can't believe that so much attention is being paid to apparent efforts by the incoming administration to establish connections with Russia. He said, "Sure, that's just what they ought to be doing." So, meanwhile, this one topic is the primary locus of concern and critique, while, meanwhile, the policies are proceeding step by step, which are extremely destructive and harmful. So, you know, yeah, maybe the Russians tried to interfere in the election. That's not a major issue. Maybe the people in the Trump campaign were talking to the Russians. Well, OK, not a major point, certainly less than is being done constantly. And it is a kind of a paradox, I think, that the one issue that seems to inflame the Democratic opposition is the one thing that has some justification and reasonable aspects to it. Noam Chomskys piercing comments on the Democrats Russia stole our election! obsession. From an interview with DemocracyNow.

Noam Chomskys piercing comments on the Democrats Russia stole our election! obsession. From an interview with DemocracyNow.

Save
China, Chinese, and Japan: The Chinese missile frigate Yulin fires an anti-surface gun battery last month during exercises with Singapore's navy in the South China Sea. Some analysts fear China is elevating its presence in the sea so it can conceal its submarines. BAO UELI inua via The Associated Press fie ト ASIA ta China may be using sea to hide its submarines li a. to th d to nual n th di U and certainly not to furth- er militarize outposts in the South China Sea." nuclear-powered. It also has at least three nuclear- powered that developed by the United States and Russia. Its submarine program is a major Since submarines can often avoid detection, United States was tracking their submarines in the open ocean. submarines ca- he The South China Sea-pable of launching ballis- bounded by Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Japan, the ning to add five more, part of that push. So the Soviets created te heavily mined and forti- ed tic missiles and is plan- fied zones for their subs to Philippines and Malaysia according to a Pentagon they are less vulnerable to operate as close to the ly is one of the world's most report released last year. a first-strike attack than United States as possible. ti important shipping lanes. In an April media brief- land-based intercontinen- One was in the White Sea a d- f ing in Washington, a top U.S. Navy official said the tal ballistic missiles or nuclear bombers. of northwest Russia and the other was in the Sea of China asserts it holds maritime ights to 80 China's JL2 submarine Okhotsk, north of Japan, lock the said Cole is watching
Save