A Rant About Ranting - Most Likely Unexpected

Three guesses as to what this will address!
1. Elementary and plebeian use of language?
No. Next time maybe.
2. How Les Misérables romanticizes the French Revolution?
Not at all. We were not even ten when we were so opinionated. Incidentally, it's set about thirty years after the Revolution.
3. Ninjas?
Not bloody likely.

Well. . . Incorrect. Computer screen, I must concede you are unconditionally wrong. This will be about ranting!

Well, I guess you didn't see that coming? I know. It's quite ironic. Funnily enough, I detest hypocrisy, consequently you won't see the sliver of it here. Have a nice time. :).

Let's look at it at face value: Whether it's bickering over the relative merits of computer service, I-Pads, or whether every!-copy! of Twilight needs to be burnt at the stake until a charred pile of cinders emitting whisps of smoke results, there is a lot of ranting. I present this: While I thoroughly deplore and think the Twilight Saga an odious series, is it really necessary to criticize it at every turn? For instance, I saw - just several days ago - a remark on a photograph of a book written-on saying, "Girl, that better be Twilight or something!"
Defacement of a work of literature is deplorable, odious, and awful, no matter HOW bad it is. Like it or not, foul or not, Stephanie Meyer spent years writing and is greeted with derision? Jeez, appreciation, in my opinion, is due to a writer no matter what...With a few choice exceptions, undoubtedly...
I ask you this: Simply because something is generally looked down on, does that necessitate constant dissing? For heaven's sake! The prequel trilogy of Star Wars - Oh my God, so horrible! Ruined my childhood!
...
Jumping on the bandwaggon is generally unimaginative...

And THAT was just an instance. Really, aren't there better things to do?

I have received a question why my blog articles have to be so preachy...
...Are they? I dunno. Moral dilemma.  Similar to why a few choice books do not resolve how I want them to resolve. Stay tuned for the next post on that, kiddies!

Much thanks for reading.

Anacostia.

People who really shouldn't have been rulers but nonetheless were.

Welcome, welcome, welcome to the award-winning list of Personages Who Really Shouldn't Have Been Rulers But Were! This has been internationally acclaimed as the Only blog post to be internationally acclaimed for not being internationally acclaimed. Without further ado, dear readers, I shall embark on the List of People Who Really Shouldn't Have Been Monarchs But Were!* (Listed in order of prominence).

George III:(1738--1830) His upbringing and consequent personality did not a efficient ruler make.

Czar Nicholas II:(1868--1918) Times were changing. It was best for the rulers to change with them. Unfortunately, for many there was a chronic learning curve so, thanks to a lot of vitriol and brimstone and some psychopaths, the Russian Revolution was begun.

Queen and King Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI:(1755--1793, 1753--1793) Poor people at the wrong place at the wrong time. Desperate revolutionaries with, again, some more psychopaths are not the most bonny good adversaries.

Edward VIII:(1894--1972). Good people, let's face it; It's hard to conjure much sympathy when you see him shaking hands with Adolf Hitler, and I do not have great deals of it. However, as my father points out, he did not have the most easy of childhoods; not either, with all rulers, the least stressful of adolescences. Conflicted, unfortunate person. History turned it around... Certainly should not have ruled.

Honourable Mention: Queen Victoria(1819--1901). Good old obstinate Vicky. Unfortunately, although her longevity of reign is definitely impressive and she was an impressive person,  Dickens shows clearly the spectrum of Victorian life was not favorable to the dis-affianced. Cite: The Indian Populace, elsewise the victims of imperialism, and the impoverished of the British Isles and the Potato Famine? Eeegads. NOT PRETTY.


See, The List of People Who Really Shouldn't Have Been Monarchs But Were! It's lovely, c'est ne pas?
Thank you so much for reading, I hope you liked it.

~Anacostia.



*I agree. Very nice title.

A somewhat inflammatory discussion of the...American Revolution!

Firstly, for the last thing I would wish to do is subjugate the reader to the assumption that I am a portion of that band, I declare, although I am not altogether the most linear of personages, I am not a hipster. While I take an alternate perspective in some respects, nope. It is with that intelligence that I proceed to something known as. . .
The American War of Independence!
There are a great many thing available for ranting fodder! I'll endeavor to brainwash alter the reader's perspective on that, eh?
Contrary to many a popular culture, George the III really wasn't that awful of a guy; His mother Augusta frequently chastised him for un-regal behavior when he was a child with the adage: "George, be a king!" As he progressed to his majority, it seems that some of this had a not-so-great effect on his self-esteem, and, also, inflated his head a little bit. In a nutshell, he is on the list of monarchs that really shouldn't have been a monarch (e.g. King Nicholas Romanov, Edward VII, Marie Antoinette and her spouse Louis the something-th oh-yes-sixteenth).
In fact, those upstart 'Mericans were most irked by forcing themselves not to drink outrageously priced tea. The horror! My poor nerves!
Nevertheless, so, George? His infamous "madness" was correctly variegate porphyria, an illness that he suffered from after the Revolution. Incidentally.
(Also interestingly this was the instability that Lady Arbella Stuart, a possible heir to the English crown during the latter years of Queen Elizabeth I's reign, may have suffered from. However, as, if at all, these people were related it would have been infinitesimally so - sundry cousins fractured the line of descent between them - and maybe it was a coincidence.)

Onto the next rantiness! The Sons of Liberty, the final bastion of freedom in the Christian World! And...also the people who rarely joined the Revolution as headed by George Washington (more on that fine person later. That isn't sarcasm!), and the personages who tarred-and-feathered innocents simply to get back at the British. Hoo-ray, fine gents.
Tarring-and-feathering was an inhumane practice in which the ill-starred man or woman would have burning-hot tar poured over them, then be covered in feathers. One man, a customs officer named John Malcom, would be dragged from his family of five and subjected to that treatment, while being pulled on a sledge through Boston, on a freezing night. (N.B. He also appeared to be proud of that incidence, although that hurt to his family is unpardonable. He also was mocking, baiting, and boasting to the revolutionaries earlier, basically spurring them on!)

Plus, when you consider the Americans were partially stroked up on account of being disallowed settlement across the Appalachian Mountains due to a treaty with the Native Americans between them and the English, it's more irksome! (Cite: David McCullough's 1776. It's ignominious to consider this writing being doubted to the point of necessitating citations, but I shan't be too curmudgeonly!)

Aforementioned, I happen to take an...inclement view of American history, chiefly because of the invasion of Native American nations. In some portion that may result in slightly irked writing. I apologize for being inflammatory; again, not a hipster, but I resolved it was high time you upstarts learned of those other upstarts the Americans Rebels!

Ah, yes, requisite dissertation. Interestingly enough, Thomas Gage (or General Charles Lee, or William Howe; I embarrassingly forget), an English general, fought with one George Washington in the French and Indian Wars of North America.

Merci beaucoup for reading this post!

Upstart Bloggess,

Anacostia Mirabow-Marignac!

A much-appreciated dissertation upon pirates

On the urging of my brother I am embarking on a publishment of pirates. Very well, brother.
Pirates were pirates that sailed around pirating lands, pirating, and by that the meaning is generally that pirates were doing pirating things, thus they were pirating in the pirating lands. The pirating lands were conventionally that of the Caribbean, the Caribbean was accordingly where pirates pirated and pirating was their chosen trade, as pirates. However, many other pirating places were deemed worthy of pirating, among them the land of some pirates but not as many pirates: The Middle East.
Pirates were known as pirates, and detested as pirates, unless, of course of course, you have watched a particular show on pirates known colloquially as Pirates. That encloses several dissertations of themselves upon pirates doing the aforementioned pirating things, as well as being piraty and in general, acting like pirates.
Those pirates most likely would not approve of the many conjugations enclosed in this very thing but nevertheless, I reiterate: Pirates were pirates who sailed around in pirating waters pirating, also being piraty.

Thank you,

Ms. Anacostia Mirabow-Marignac.

And remember,

But, needless to say, those shipwrecked and worse, by pirates did not see it in quite a casual light.

1492. A Tale of An Accidental Tourist That Possibly Was A Spanish Jew(and thus in a perilous position), Fame, Overratings, and Opinionated Rants

(All thoughts exhibited, suggested, quoted, seen or found, either are direct quotations, are personal opinion, or employed colloquially. They are not meant to reflect, suggest, or state the reader's opinions.)

1492. On the command of Queen Isabella and her consort, King Ferdinand, an armada of ships were sailing across the Atlantic (Their names are famous already, it doesn't add to the hitherto poetic flow. And fine! There were three ships! Hardly a fleet). In the distance, loomed a landmass, verdant, huge, like a coiled tiger (Fine, fine, it was an isle of moderate stature.) They had sighted the Indies!

The first millennium C.E. was finished. The son of an exiled Viking was standing at the prow of a longboat. Four hundred and ninety-two years before our aforementioned incidence, Leif Eriksson "the Fortunate"  was traveling to Greenland. Yet Greenland was not what he found.
 In the icy mist came a shoreline. Helluland, Markland, Vinland  (i.e. Baffin Island, Labrador, Newfoundland). He, his crew, and perhaps a few vermin living in the ship were the first Europeans to glimpse America, be it North or South.

Also, there is a contending theory for one extraordinary admiral of the fifteenth century called Zheng He (Properly pronounced "Jung Hu") proposed by one Gavin Menzies. (Incidentally, this personage respects that theory but takes it with a grain of salt, however amazing it is. More on that later). Anyway, Zheng He.
The theory which this Admiral Zheng He discovered the Americas himself,  in 1420. Besides the contention, the fleet was amazing in and of itself: Over four hundred ships, sailing around the Indian Ocean, battling (Yes, they battled pirates, cite "The Ming Voyagers" on Asia for Educators,  "Ancient Chinese Explorers" on PBS.org; if you would like to learn more). Battling pirates, arresting usurpers, and finding exotic species such as the giraffe!  the leopard! And the zebra! among others. Or being gifted them, but either way.

Allow me to return to Columbus. Hopefully you, Reader, are not too disdainful of the prior theory for it really is fascinating!
 Columbus. 1492. Brave explorers. Valiant Spaniards. Cheating, barbaric, filthy, conquistadors.
Columbus, wasn't one of course, he was a man trying to make his way in an emerging time. Other contending theories state that he could have been a covert Jew or converso (See: Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean, Ed Kritzler). However, the greed, inhumanity, cruelty, and duplicity that followed cannot be understated - The Aztecs failing, the Mayans tricked, the Incas hidden - later eradicated.
Soon(ish), as the Pilgrims arrived on the shores of the Eastern Seaboard, they were advised and aided by the Native Americans, until the advent of King Phillip's War, and the natives' subsequent deriding and loss...
"Manifest Destiny." "It is our manifest destiny to overspread the continent." Said John O'Sullivan, an editor - Unlike many editors, his words became famous - Now, isn't it fairly apparent when you attain the word "over" in a sentence that it probably isn't beneficial?
Filthy, lying, cheating, duplicitous, foul, cruel, inhumane, conquerors. Unfortunately, that is the main reason American history and I do not get along.  Fascinating, but in the wings lurks brutality.

In essence: Personal statement? Columbus did not discover the Americas.


Of course, it wasn't his fault, he was simply sailing for the Indies - the origin of the (politically incorrect) term "Indians" (I believe Native Americans is more respectful) for he thought he had discovered those islands.
Past is past, but the conquest, thievery, and brutality is still bloody outrageous!

And there's the rub with history: Behind every picture-perfect moment, whether it be of exploration, of innovation, of travel, conflict, story, tale, it will most likely be anachronistic, erroneous, or spoilt by another piece of history.
 Have a nice day.
                                                       
Well, truly, have a nice weekend. I wish that you were in some way surprised or appreciative or enlightened of these moments and possible happenings of history.

Thank you for reading,

~ ♫  ♫ ♫~ Anacostia Mirabow-Marignac.   ~ ♫  ♫ ♫~

Game of Popular Hothouse Flowers: A Song of White and Red

In the course of a blog first thought of as Opinionated Historical Rants there must be an entry which is legitimately a historical rant. With a great deal of excitement I produce the first of the Opinionated Historical Rants in the Rants of Opinionation -----

It is probable that you've heard of the(disturbingly) popular H.B.O. serial and progression of books known as Game of Thrones and A Song of Ice & Fire, set in the icy and admittedly somewhat of a crapsack world Westeros. Ring a bell? Allow me to elaborate with further insight(Adding to whatever insight previously discussed).
Deep in the prior days of English history are interred the artifacts of the Wars of the Roses, an inter-dynastic conflict fought between the various propagators of the Houses of Lancaster and York, the white rose of the Yorks, red of the Lancasters. Beyond the samely interred bones of hundreds upon hundreds of people dead in those wars are many interesting folks: Queen Margaret, wife of Henry VI,  Richard III of Shakespearean infamy, the scheming but also to me sympathetic, Warwick.

Back to Westeros, eh? It features quite a lot of charming, lovable folks itself. Between the houses of Lannister and Stark(tho' that house was called after Tony Stark, Iron Man, but that's another manner), there are the deformed Tyrion Lannister, his delightful siblings(heavy sarcasm), including the psychopathic golden boy Jaime Lannister and his conniving sister Cersei who equates the state of psychopathy and who carry more than a little resemblance to Queen Margaret - Who drove her son to conquer and fight in the civil war  and largely controlled her husband Henry - and the Yorkist victor Edward IV, who was considerably more popular than his hunchbacked, short, maligned brother Richard.

There were various houses and fiefs involved in the aforementioned war. The Tyrells, featuring James Tyrell a noted player in the legendary(and it may just be a legend) murder of the Princes in the Tower.
Let me digress and mention House Tyrell, another delightful component of A Game of Thrones, who side with the Lannisters(Although Other Tyrell was a Yorkist, not a Lancastrian).

See, I happen to adore history so be prepared for multiple digressions.

While I deplore the über-family-unfriendly-really-graphic TV series and almost equally dislike the series of books(of which, if you're wondering, I have read the titular A Game of Thrones) I am not putting-down the work George R.R. Martin committed to it,  it would be nearly thirty years when A Dream of Spring emerges. I believe that each to their own, and they do possess a sort of escapist quality. With loads and loads of beheadings and else nastiness.

I am not done, yet, however, and you are not yet released from my doubtlessly exquisite storytelling.
Given leave to digress, I digress upon the the fact that digress is a wonderful word, and, also, the story of a player in the stage of the Roses. Videlicet the Earl of Warwick, Kingmaker.
At the beginning, quoth my reference, Earl Richard Neville and Edward IV were the best of friends. Think Falstaff and Hal. That lasted approximately the time it took for Edward IV to become Edward IV and leave the Kingmaker without someone to mentor, or, in any case, influence. (If you're into the scheming vizier stereotype, although he fit that role to a "T")
And then began the Kingmaking, feeling betrayed from Eddie being more independent as the king than he was as a prince, Warwick began to fulfill the scheming vizier stereotype in earnest. Conspiring with, (among others), the king's brother Clarence, he plotted several revolts, some succeeding and placing him as the power behind the throne.
(However, the scheming viziers are never long to last) At last, Edward IV fought and defeated him and at the Battle of Barnet he was killed.

You are welcomed to history.



I don't truly mean this as a rant to disparage, but rather a rant to enlighten. The Wars of the Roses were fascinating and in this post I only wish to show the fascinating people of the (un)civil wars and their times.
 And remember,

Thanks for reading!

I can't help it: Blaaackaader, Blaaaackaader...

A digression upon the ludicrous and shallow posts of Pinterest: A polite essay

This day I have since been ire-struck on a certain description on Pinterest and then, summarily cogitating, considering changing my Goodreads status, Google+ posts, until finally I figured: "Oh, wait. Why do I have a blog?"
The answer, of course, Dear Reader, is to rant about things that annoy me! There are sundry. At present the chief offender is thus:
"Photography trick: women with no hips strike this pose to give them curves. The great camel color is all bonus points."
Look. At. That. The practice of photography is a very fine habit and profession, but it is a nascent notion to myself that even that can be pervaded by fashion and "beautifying". Millions upon millions of dollars are wasted by millions of people for the procreation of oft supercilious clothing - if indeed you can say some things are worthy of that name! - and the vile degradation and starvation of many "models" solely for the purpose of one culture's standard of beauty. Whilst plenty of starvation, mal nourishment, and illness exists in the world at large, Africa, China, slums of every country?
It is doubtless that all for of humanity events necessitate a distraction, whether it be Hollywood, literature, or another form of media. However, is it requisite to encourage a base fashion?

Nota bene. This is solely created to express the author's thoughts on a personally abhorred trend of some fashions, although she does subscribe to some fashions(though not such featuring an ill "model" or a particularly inane article!) on the regarded time-waster Pinterest. It is solely meant to reflect one single feature of the fashion franchise.

I close with the acknowledgement that I, and many, do try to look good. Discouraging style is admittedly ridiculous. I hold that, videlicet, a person's best fashion is a smile, book, and correct carriage. Namely, that is. Not totally.

BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.