#patronage

Lucifer is not just my patron. Lucifer is also my spouse. I do not use the term "godspouse" as it is a poor word that simply cannot properly encompass the degree of connection I have. I dislike labels in these manners. What I experience and have with Lucifer may simply be expressed as "Patronage" for the sakes of others as I do not require what I have to be named. In fact—for me—there is far more intimacy and power behind these bonds when they are not named.

Not only is it not necessary but there is nothing in any of the languages I know, especially not English, that can encompass the sheer intimacy and complexity of my bond with Lucifer. It is also why I do not broadcast it.

I find it unnecessary for me.

But Lucifer, no matter what anyone attempt to argue, has the power over me to control who I do and do not engage with.

"But Lucifer is for freedom and he wouldn't take that from you."

Oh you poor sweet summer child. You presume Lucifer took from me something I did not freely relinquish?

Somehow getting into paltry squabblings with people who do not grasp Patronage and believe that, especially under Patronage, Lucifer would not tell me "Do not speak to this person". Or "You are to ignore this individual" or "You are prohibited from being friends with this one."

Yes. This happens. And yes They have told me these things. I have been barred from certain avenues and I have been told to be rid of people in my life. This is indeed an event that occurs. And it comes with the territory of Patronage and the way power, trust, and consent are handled for me. I have spoken about Patronage from a far more traditional stance rather than a more new age friendly lens before. But what is incredible is that others are imposing their own ideas as to what I should or should not experience (with me having been a practitioner under Lucifer's eye for easily 20+ years of my life) as if I lack the experience (as a hereditary folk practitioner of 20+ years) or understanding for what I am doing.

The then Duchess of Cambridge attended the Portrait Gala 2017 at the National Portrait Gallery on 28th March 2017, in London

She wore the Temperley London ''Cloe'' green lace gown (worn only once for this occasion and I wish she would rewear it someday. It could be a good gown for a state dinner too to be honest) and Kiki Mcdonough earrings.

In case you weren't aware, powerful nobles and the church were funding these things?

If you had the money, so many artists would love to do this shit:

Michelangelo's Pieta 1498-1499

The church paid for it upfront.

Michelangelo wasn't buying materials upfront and hoping it sold.

Our economic consideration of artistic endeavors has changed.

Bob Ross didn't sell paintings individually. He had a brand and products.

Maybe you think his paintings are boring landscapes. But the financial reality is that artists aren't being funded by the papacy. Bob Ross made a good living off of his brand. He was right to do so. (I actually think he was good for society. Fuck the haters)

Gallery sales do not equal the patronage of the whole catholic church or a very rich noble family.

"Modern and contemporary" art

It is a product of this financial reality

And, additionally. You don't have to go to that wing of the museum if you dont like it.

Botticelli "primavera" (1470s-80s)

Botticelli and Michelangelo were both weirdos who would have still been making art if they were born in the 20th or 21st c

But it wouldn't have looked like this.

•

This, just in:

Remember (ROFLMAO) the Hoolan Ensemble, a contemporary chamber music collective based in GLA, which wrote the music for the Royal Conservatoire's winning project of the Write Start Award ((https://www.tumblr.com/sgiandubh/766161304245403648/a-good-man?source=share), last year?

Wee reminder - the award was established and funded by S, in 2024 and it offers £5,000, which will allow the winners to develop their own creative project (more on this, here: https://www.rcs.ac.uk/news-stories/write-start-2024-winner/):

Foreign Body, a silent movie project, is now completed and Hoolan Ensemble thanked the generous benefactor, who might probably not even share this on his IG account. #ochdontmention

You can watch it on #YouTube, here:

In their own words, this is 'A dreamlike meditation on the female body exploring themes of self-objectification, alienation and fetishisation. Conceived as a modern response to Germaine Dulac's 1928 surrealist masterpiece 'The Seashell and the Clergyman'

I watched it, of course (18 minutes tops, but feels longer) and while this is clearly not my cup of tea, I did enjoy the esthetics, while the message still remains to be refined, in my humble opinion. However, all the referential bells and whistles paying homage to Germaine Dulac's hermetic masterpiece are included and I was particularly interested that he chose to actively support a clearly feminist movie (both in inspiration and results), dealing with alienation and fetishization.

A bit ironic, when you consider the ongoing Sassenach Winter Tour, where both are in ample supply. But the Drooling Mommies couldn't care less: after six hours, that post barely made 40 likes and that is probably because of prominent IG Onlies accounts', such as @bella_sam_heughan_fan, sharing it.

The chasm between the amateur of 1930s European art et essai cinema and that same guy peddling booze in a reasonably embarrassing hoodie has never been wider. It goes to show, however, you'd better not judge a book by its cover. And I am, as always, so damn glad I didn't.

There is a whole side of These Two's lives this fandom has no idea about. It is a very good thing, I believe.

PS: mulțumesc din inimă, scumpo. 😘😘

Later edit: I am very glad he finally got it and shared the RCS' story: