Born December 8, 1626 in Stockholm, Sweden, Queen Kristina inherited the throne at the age of six
when her father died in battle. Being the only heir, her father instructed that she be educated as a prince. One of the first things she achieved during her reign, was putting an end to the Thirty Years’ War. Nicknamed Minerva of the North, after the Roman equivalent of the Greek god of wisdom, Kristina valued education and philosophy. She showed these values in her determination to improve the education of peasants. Thanks to her rule; Sweden first began to publish newspapers and the first school system was started. Advancements in science and the enjoyment of literature and the arts were fully supported by Queen Kristina. She carried one of the greatest collections of books, paintings, and sculptures. While Queen of Sweden, Kristina chose her own ladies-in-waiting and it is believed she had an affair with one of them, Countess Ebba Sparre, whom she nicknamed “Belle” (pictured bottom left). Their intimacy is proved through the many letters passed between them. Ebba Sparre was reportedly given the title of the queen’s “Bed Fellow.” Their relationship ended soon after Countess Sparre was married and left Kristina’s court, but their letters continued. Kristina also was believed to have had affairs with women by the names of Gabrielle de Rochechouart de Mortemart, Rachel Teixeira, and Angelina Giorgino, but she later reflected in her memoirs that Ebba was the only real love of her life. Despite the urging of her court for her to produce an heir to the throne, Queen Kristina refused to marry throughout her 10 year reign of Sweden. Instead she appointed her cousin Charles X Gustav to be her heir. She immediately abdicated the throne and moved to Rome, Italy following her baptism into Catholicism. In Rome, she founded the Arcadia Academy (Accademia dell’Arcadia) and urged that the first public house of opera, Tordinona, be opened.
adelaidekane: A special message from me! If you want to be flown to LA to watch the Reign series finale with me & rachieskarsten go to Prizeo.com/Reign and donate $10 to the Nyantende Foundation! Link in bio. Hope to see you here! ❤👸🏻💃🏻
“Let’s go all the way back to last summer when Reigns was suspended for his first Wellness Policy violation. The ratings don’t lie: During his month-long absence, both Raw and SmackDown struggled mightily in that department. The first episode of Raw without Reigns dropped 10 percent in viewership while another episode of Raw during that time was one of the three lowest rated Raw episodes ever. Meanwhile, one SmackDown episode during Reigns’ hiatus neared a 2016 low while another registered the second fewest live viewers of the year up to that point. His return to Raw, meanwhile, drew 200,000 more viewers than the previous episode.
Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.
But Reigns has, time and time again, proven to be a tremendous hit among fans. In 2016, Reigns was featured in six of WWE’s most viewed YouTube videos of the year, and in five of those videos, he was the absolute focus of it. Just this week, Reigns, yet again, proved to be a major YouTube attraction, with his Raw segment with The Undertaker earning a whopping three million views. The week before that, Reigns’ contract signing with Braun Strowman topped 1.7 million views.
After all, “The Big Dog” is in a perfect position, when you really look at it. He’s popular with kids and women, who cheer him loudly and buy his merchandise in droves. Yet, he’s hated by (mostly) male fans who pay to watch him anyway.
WWE is laughing all the way to the bank.
In 2015, Reigns was the No. 3 merchandise seller in WWE and was also the No. 3 seller among WWE stars at a “major retailer.” The next year, a marketability study ranked him as one of WWE’s most popular and likable stars, alongside The Undertaker, Cena and Brock Lesnar. Reigns was also, by a country mile, the No. 2 most searched star on Google Shopping Searches in 2016, and Dave Meltzer recently tweeted that, at last word, Reigns was one of WWE’s five biggest merchandise movers.”
Y’all keep saying nobody likes Roman.
16,985,407 million likes/follows on Facebook.
2,170,000 million followers on Twitter.
No. 2 Merch seller on WWE Shop.
The ratings fucking drop when he’s absent. YouTube videos that are focused on him have the most views. Ranked most popular among the likes of Cena, Undertaker, and Lesnar. The audience are always on their feet during his matches. Why y’all always lying? Roman is one of the biggest draws WWE has and will continue to have. You don’t like Roman, fine. But don’t be trying to harass his fans into thinking he’s a worthless nobody. Y’all wanna continue berating fans with your opinions, but numbers (facts) never lie, baby.
Thankfully, @slavetothespear has already addressed some of the bitchassness in my post’s comments section left by smarks who are butt hurt that I called out the audience at last night’s PPV because they can’t recognize that Roman Reigns put Braun Strowman over. I considered leaving it alone and simply deleting their comments, but @slavetothespear replied before I could get to it and I don’t want them to look like they’re responding to no one. :-)
But let’s be clear, most of Roman’s haters – whether they’re smarks or not – get their education on wrestling terminology from smarks. That’s why most of them don’t know what certain wrestling terms mean. They just think they know what certain terms mean. Then they go onto posts written by Roman Reigns’ fans and try to spout their ignorance, thinking they’ll just leave a snarky comment then bounce.
They constantly reveal that they don’t know what a “jobber” actually is. They don’t know what “buried” means. And thanks to this (see below), they clearly don’t know what it means to “put someone over.”
At no time is it required for another wrestler to be “100%” and lose a match “clean” in order to put them over. In other words @thatmuchcooler, you’re wrong.
Putting someone over in a storyline – which is what this is, btw – is to get the audience to perceive the character the way the company wants the audience to perceive them. It’s not a simple matter of winning or losing a feud. That’s a moron’s definition of the wrestling phrase.
OK. Let me break it down for you because I know your Roman haterade has left your mind dehydrated and confused.
The company wants the audience to view Strowman as an unstoppable beast with no feelings or remorse about how he pursues an opponent. He’s this generation’s combination of The Big Show and Kane. It’s not enough for him to be big. He also has to strike fear (not just intimidation) in the hearts of the audience when his music hits. So this is a journey to building that image and character for Braun.
First, they started with Strowman demolishing jobbers week after week. Next, they gave him a mini-feud with Sami Zayn, the beloved Underdog from the Underground. Surely, he wouldn’t really hurt that cinnamon roll, right? He did. And without remorse. Then, they gave him Roman Reigns and Big Show to feud with in a semi-jumbled story because WM 33 came along and they had to juggle a few things. Not the best way to do it, but I understand the circumstances changed.
The Big Show feud was to demonstrate Strowman’s physicality as a worthy successor to this role. And the Roman Reigns feud is to demonstrate Strowman’s vicious, hyperfocused, runaway-locomotive merciless brutality. He beat The Big Show with the awesome superplex off-the-top-rope match. And last night, he beat Roman Reigns while displaying he doesn’t give a damn that an already injured man, struggling through a personal mourning phase, lying beaten in the middle of the ring completely exhausted was admitting defeat, he was still going to teach that man that this fight is over when he says it’s over.
Again, it’s not enough for Strowman to be big. He has to be brutal if he’s being set up to take on Brock Lesnar, as so many have suspected. Roman, battered and bruised before even showing up to the ring, is indeed putting Strowman over. He’s helping him earn that character image, so Michael Cole repeatedly mentioning that he’s not 100% is absolutely a part of this story.
And last night, I said Roman’s better than all those hating smark assholes because they think they know how good Roman is by shouting garbage like “Thank You Strowman!” and “You deserve it!” to a bleeding and writhing Roman Reigns. Yet he’s 10 times better than they think he is because he’s essentially playing them like a pipe and they don’t even know it.
For his part in this storyline, Roman Reigns put Strowman over.
since you were talking about that, genuine question (I don't want to start a fight or anything!): was Henry VII unfaithfull to Elizabeth? did he have mistress(es)?
*MY TIME HAS COME TO SHINE*
short answer: no. there is no account, no record, no proof supporting the idea that Henry has a mistress.
long answer: Nowadays, there is this tendency in fiction to paint Henry as a lecher and lusty man, and more precisely, as having an passionate affair with Katherine Gordon, the wife of the pretender Perkin Warbeck that threatened his reign during almost 10 years. A woman that became later lady-in-waiting of Queen Elizabeth. So i will talk mainly about her since this idea is what i found in almost EVERY talk of Henry aving an ~~affair. I will say it plain: there is no evidence or contemporary rumors of an affair between Henry and Katherine (or any other woman btw). some facts: Katherine
was close to James King of Scots, a kinswoman of the scottish Monarch.
Knowing the relationship between England and Scotland (to be short: very complicated ones), she couldn’t be
treated badly at Court —on the contrary. So she gained a high place in
the Ladies in waiting of the Queen and was treated with respect
following the King’s demand. Maybe it was even a way to watch after her
as she was the wife of the prentender’s Warbeck. Furthermore, she was
known to be highborn, kind and pretty. These reasons are explanation for the
good treatment she received. Tbh, Henry was a man and
did enjoy the sight of the beauty of women. There is this letter he sent
to Spain before Katherine of Aragon joined England to marry his son
where he asked that the spanish ladies escorting her had to be pretty
and at least ‘not ugly’. Or when after Lizzie’s death, he sent letters
asking precisely the physical description of the different candidates
for a possible new marriage (like the shape, hair, breast, waist…). And
there is another anecdote, when he received a beautiful Princess from
Portugal, and he welcame her with an embrace ‘a little bit too long’.
So he seem to enjoy beauty. And Katherine is depicted as beautiful… so Henry could have wanted that her stay was
pleasant. Knowing how Henry is depicted as inscrutable and hard to ‘win’, imagining him trusting and seducing the wife of pretender who
fought him during a decade is… what? it’s Henry VII we are talking about! and i genuinely think, it would have be noted somewhere if Henry was lusting after another woman at Court. It was noted he admired her (by the flowery Andre). They could have been acquaintances
or even friends. Why not? Man/woman friendship exists. Maybe he was even charmed at some points by her but
Henry was recorded as devoted and ‘faithful’ during his marriage. And
do you think that EoY, Queen of England, ruling over her own household,
would have kept the mistress of her husband by her side? no. IIRC,Katherine of Aragon, wife of henry VIII, dismissed Anne Boleyn as soon as she perceived Anne was a threat for her marriage… Sure, EoY is not the same nature as Katherine, but accepting the mistress of your husband in your household? no. Being a high born lady
from Scotland. Henry couldn’t permit her to be badly treated as she was
close to the scottish King. Some people like to use the ‘Henry bought her expensive gowns’ as an evidence of him being smitten but *BREAKING NEWS* Kings regularly bought expensive clothes to their wives’ attendants! Interesting to notice that the few dresses
he bought to Katherine happened around the period the discussion for an
alliance between England and Scotland started. Clothes were made for
her as the companion of Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry, for her marriage with James IV of
Scotland. Spending money on the ladies-in-waiting or dancers
or minstrel was something common for him. He was not a miser when it was
for the prestige of his Court. For what happened after Elizabeth’s
death, perhaps they spent time together, bonding over Elizabeth’s memory
and Henry held fondness for her (when she joined the Court
the first time, he asked that Katherine had to be treated ‘like a
sister’ and i do think that he percevied her at first as a victim of Perkin’s
plan, feeling sorry for her -a highborn mady married to a liar) and i think that they became friends, a sort of pleasant companionship for
Henry. They played cards together and she even give him a present a few
days before his death. A Scots chronicler/ambassador wrote about that time they spent together after the Queen’s death, that one ”would have thought they were secretly married…” but this account was
written 20 years after Henry’s death. And in Scotland. Sadly, the whole Katherine Gordon drama comes from this very ‘reliable’ account (and the gowns) and i am like ‘oh’…Looking secretely married means she is mistress? hmmm idk Furthermore, Henry’s household was right next door to his son’s
rooms, so if something ever happened between them (or with any other
woman), Prince Henry -and ourself- would have known now if she was his
mistress. And the King was feeble and weak, his condition more and more
deficient during his last years. Having a mistress now would have been
almost incongruous (i have already difficulties to picture him sexually
active). Catherine didn’t remain at the Court all the times after Elizabeth’s
death and left the palace like the rest of the ladies in waiting, but
she visited the court regularly. And she had to wait 1510, during Henry VIII’s reign,
to obtain letters of denization to be considered as a English citizen,
including the right to hold land, to marry and to travel… If Henry was truly smitten by her, he
could have at least given her the simple right to own her own place. But he didn’t. Catherine was virtually a prisoner. So
really, nothing reall support the idea of them as lovers. Close acquaintances, why not? She
indeed visited him, talking, playing cards with him, and even visiting
him a few days before his death to offer him clothes, but she clearly
acted like a nurse, a companion, a support. Not as a mistress. I am not an historian. I can’t be 100% sure but this is my viewpoint with all i know about Henry and the little is known about Katherine, and the evidences we have. a last point: no matter who you are, even the King, you do not put your mistress as the chief mourner at your wife’s funeral.
And, imho, if Henry took a mistress, why not a new wife? Knowing
Henry’s fear to have just one and only son as heir, knowing his fear
for his dynasty and his want to keep the throne, knowing his love for
money as well, he could have remarried for political purpose, to strenghten his
position as King and to gain a new dowry as well –or just by personal comfort. But he didn’t, despite being something expected for King.
in conclusion: no contemporary account or rumor or fact support the idea of him having a mistress.