✨

I try not to make sweeping statements but I think there’s a case to be made for bernini as the greater sculptor there’s ever been.

here’s his bust of costanza bonarelli

here’s apollo and daphne from the front, where she’s mostly human

from the back, where she’s mostly tree

and details

Insanely detailed feet with veins from “Aeneas, Anchises, and Ascanius”

Another foot from the same statue because a) he textured underside of the foot and the folds of skin in the arch and b) can you see the light coming through the thin marble between the toes?

One of the mouths of Cerberus from “The Rape of Prosperina”.

Prosperina/Persephone’s facial expression and HAIR TEXTURE

Hades’ hair as well - this man was entirely too good at making CURLS out of ROCK.

A (poorly lit) close-up on the tree textures from “Apollo and Daphne”.

Hand, sling, and rock from “David” which I think deserves to be at LEAST as well-known as Michelangelo’s. Saw them two days apart and I prefer Bernini, honestly.

Facial expression from “David” - I just love the character in this so much.

Kind of a weird angle but look at the texturing on the sling pouch!!!

We also got to see one of Bernini’s earliest works (possibly his very first) in the Uffizi; it’s not currently on display, unfortunately, but look at this:

Forgive the poor photo quality but. He was 14 when he carved this. FOURTEEN.

Man was a straight-up wizard.

ao3 doesn't have an app because for it to have an app, appstore will have to approve it first. and if, hypothetically, ao3 needs appstore to approve it, it will also have to abide by appstore's pro-censorship stance and start banning dark and taboo fics, which is against its own core principle of being completely against censorship.

ao3 doesn't need an app. it works more than fine without an app. the reason ao3 can allow dark and taboo fics, the reason it can allow the most disgusting and shockingly vile fics, and be completely against censorship is because it doesn't need appstore's approval. it stands on its own as a non-profit organization with functioning site and a team of lawyers protecting its platform, its users, and every single fanwork on its platform.

everybody say thank you ao3

It depends on which system of ranking you use, of course (there are several), but in most systems there’s actually a rule covering this scenario: in the event that a consort’s courtesy title being of the same rank as their spouse’s would potentially create confusion over who holds the title by right and who by courtesy, the consort instead receives the next-highest title on the ladder.

So the husband of a prince would be a duke; the wife of a queen, a princess; and so forth.

(You actually see this rule in practice in the United Kingdom, albeit not in the context of a same-sex marriage; the Queen’s husband is styled a prince because if he were a king, folks might get confused about which of them was the reigning monarch.)

The only common situation where you’d expect to see, for example, two queens in the same marriage is if the reigning monarchs of two different realms married each other - and even then, you’d more likely end up with a complicated arrangement where each party is technically a princess of the other’s realm in addition to being queen of her own.

1. The system described above is, admittedly, merely one of the most common. Other historically popular alternatives include:

The consort’s courtesy title is of the same rank as their spouse’s, with “-consort” appended to it: prince and prince-consort, queen and queen-consort, etc. This is how, e.g., present-day Monaco does it.

The consort is simply styled Lord or Lady So-and-so, and receives no specific title. I can’t think of any country that still does it this way, off the top of my head, but historically it was a thing.

(Naturally, your setting needn’t adhere to any of these, but it would be highly irregular for it to lack some mechanism for clarifying the chain of command.)

2. The reason why the consort of a prince is historically a princess even though those titles are the same rank is basically sexism. This can go a couple of ways:

In many realms, there was no such thing as being a princess by right; the daughter of a monarch would be styled Lady So-and-so and receive no specific title, so the only way to be a princess was to marry a prince.

In realms where women could hold titles by right, typically a masculine title was informally presumed to outrank its feminine counterpart. So, e.g., kings outrank queens, princes outrank princesses, etc.

In either case, no ambiguity exists.

(Interestingly, this suggests that in a more egalitarian setting where masculine titles are not presumed to outrank their feminine counterparts, or vice versa, you’d need to explicitly disambiguate rankings even outside the context of same-sex marriages. Food for thought!)

3. It would also be possible to have two kings or two queens in the same marriage without multiple realms being involved in the case of a true co-monarchy. However, true co-monarchies are highly irregular and, from a political standpoint, immensely complicated affairs. If you’re planning on writing one of those, be prepared to do your research!

4. The next rank down from “countess” is either “viscountess” or “baroness”, depending on which peerage system you’re using.

Bill Nighy

Hugh Laurie

James McAvoy

John Lithgow

Katherine Parkinson

Keira Knightley

Kit Harrington

Leo Woodall

Mackenzie Crook

Mathew MacFadyen

Matt Berry

Nick Frost

Paul Whitehouse

Peter Serafinowicz

Riz Ahmed

Shirley Bassey

Simon Armitage

Simon Pegg

Stephen Fry

Stephen Mangan

/ban user:1153984868804468756

to get rid of it.

if you're interested in the Colorful support post i made regarding this, its under the cut. i'm livid.

Discord bots you need to ban

1104973139257081909

1288638725869535283

1090660574196674713

1104973139257081909