![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnGonna go ahead and make this post even though Yuletide is coming...
But in the meantime, there has been some fic in the fandom posted!
Holding His Space (2503 words) by felisnocturna
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF, 18th Century CE Frederician RPF
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Relationships: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf/Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Characters: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf, Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Additional Tags: Protectiveness, Domestic, Character Study
Summary:
Using People (3392 words) by prinzsorgenfrei
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great/Hans Hermann von Katte
Characters: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great, Hans Hermann von Katte
Additional Tags: Fluff, Idiots in Love, reading plays aloud while gazing into each others eyes
Summary:
But in the meantime, there has been some fic in the fandom posted!
Holding His Space (2503 words) by felisnocturna
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF, 18th Century CE Frederician RPF
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Relationships: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf/Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Characters: Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf, Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great
Additional Tags: Protectiveness, Domestic, Character Study
Summary:
Five times Fredersdorf has to stay behind - and one time Friedrich doesn't leave.
Using People (3392 words) by prinzsorgenfrei
Chapters: 1/1
Fandom: 18th Century CE RPF
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Relationships: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great/Hans Hermann von Katte
Characters: Friedrich II von Preußen | Frederick the Great, Hans Hermann von Katte
Additional Tags: Fluff, Idiots in Love, reading plays aloud while gazing into each others eyes
Summary:
Friedrich had started to talk to him because he had thought of him as a bit of a ditz.
And now here he was. Here he was months later, bundled up in this very same man’s blankets with a cup of hot coffee in front of him, its scent mixing with that of Katte’s French perfume.
_
Fluffy One Shot about one traitorous Crown Prince and the sycophant he accidentally fell for.
Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-18 06:48 am (UTC)Is it possible that maybe Bertha wasn't into unspeakable sexual acts and Henry felt bad about her having to do them because she was like his sister, but didn't feel so bad about Adelheid? Or was Bertha the one who was into unspeakable sexual acts and got Henry interested? I suppose we'll never know but I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS NOW.
Well, me too, but alas the internet won't provide which unspeakable acts exactly we're talking about, and I'm currently v.v. real life busy with maxing out my Stabi library loans (20, if not sent by mail - the mail limit was 6 at a time, but I can now pick them up in person again), so it will be a while till I can get around to finding a Henry IV biography. Preferably one printed after WWII, because I'm pretty sure any earlier one would want to spare the readers.
More seriously, though, I do have an idea, which alas isn't that adventurous but is based on the question:l which sexual acts between man and wife would have been reason for marriage annullment in the 11th century if cited by the woman? I.e. at a time where the patriarchy reigned supreme, and it was a wife's duty to deliver the sexual goods?
1) Refusing sex altogether. This can't have been it for obvious reasons, but non consumation, on the male's side as well, is a genuine reason.
2) Sex which cannot result in procreation, and might even be designed to prevent it. I.e. anal or oral sex. And I'm pretty sure this must have been it. Remember, 11th century church speaking, the entire point of marital sex (which is the only allowed sex anyway) is procreation, and if Henry IV. is having sex in a way that CANNOT result in procreation, and demanding it from his wife, Praxidis is entitled to refuse and ask the church to annullment.
3.) Threesomes. This would be Henry forcing adultery on his wife, and again, in this case she's entitled to refuse, which would fit with that one chronicler, but if that had been the case, all the other chronicles would not have said Praxidis told the synod via word and gestures what kind of filfthy sex her husband wanted, and also, as in the case of the Finnish Sex Machine so many centuries later, the third party would have been named.
so my money is on 2.) Leaving aside that whichever it was, the whole affair was of course happening in the mjiddle of an ongoing long term clash between Emperor and Church and caused the then current Pope (Gregory of Canossa fame was long dead) to say, you're excommunicated again, Henry! So there's always the option of Praxidis being offered a deal by church officials - annullment vs her providing the current Pope with a new reason to excommunicate Henry IV.
ROFL! Now *there's* an AU. Does Catherine do a 180 and start demanding a divorce?
Well, first of all, while I'm pretty sure Henry VIII would think he could be a sex fiend, I really doubt his abilities there. For starters, the man according to his own evidence could not tell whether a woman was a virgin or not. I mean, he changed his mind about whether or not Catherine of Aragon had been one, and Anne Boleyn. And evidently could not tell that Katherine Howard had not been one, poor kid. Secondly, even before his weight exploded and he had an open leg, back he was still in fine athletic form, he was having performance problems according to the trial of George Boleyn. (Where one of the charges was that Anne had told George's wife Jane, her sister-in-law, that Henry couldn't get it up anymore.) Thirdly, the ladies he's known to have had sex with who weren't married to him were: 1.) Bessie Blount (mother of his male bastard Henry Fitzroy), 2) Mary Boleyn (Anne's and George's sister), and 3.) Unnamed lady-in-waiting to Anne whom Henry first cheated with on her. All of whom were unmarried when he had his affairs with them, and with the exception of Mary Boleyn, almost certainly virgins. (With Mary, it depends on whether or not you believe Francis I., I guess.) I therefore conclude that despite his "lusty" King reputation - which comes from the sheer number of wives, not mistresses -, Henry was presumably pretty standard and none too adventurous in bed, and also, given his obsession with getting a male heir, I very much doubt he ever got into sex not designed for procreation.
Secondly, let's say Henry gets a tip from one of his buddies about alternate sex methods. Catherine of Aragon seems to have truly loved him. And while obviously it's entirely possible for a family to consist of some members who like sex and others who don't, it's worth remembering that Catherine's sister Juana (the so called Mad) was so attracted to her future husband upon sight that the two of them didn't want to wait for the big wedding and Philip the Fair hastily arranged for an emergency wedding so they could leagally have non stop sex, that Catherine's brother Juan who married the first Margaret of Austria (sister of Philip, daughter of Maximilian, aunt of Charles V., Regent of the Netherlands) supposedly had so much sex with her post wedding that it contributed to his early demise (and thus to the Habsburgs inheriting Spain), and that Catherine's father Ferdinand was as opposed to Henry VIII a King who really did have a lot of extramarital sex, in addition to the marital variety, and he and Isabella were famously very much into each other. Basically, what I'm saying is that I think chances are that Catherine liked sex with the man she loved, and would have accepted any variety.
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-18 07:13 pm (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 05:19 am (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 03:19 pm (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 06:44 pm (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-23 04:32 am (UTC)Also Katte. I have to admit, German was more relevant to my Katte interests, and that played a really significant role. (Which is silly, because our German readers had read me literally everything having to do with Katte, and even went and talked to Wust local historians, so there was no need, and also French doesn't have this RIDICULOUS FONT I still can only sort of read, but what can I say. I just always liked German better, even before salon.)
At some point, I swear, my German reading will be fast enough that I can give French some proper focus time, and then I hope it will go faster than German. But for now, even 2 paragraphs a day is really helping.
And I'm staying strictly away from fic writing this Yuletide season to focus on languages, even though some of your prompts and Selena's are so tempting it should be illegal. :P (Only for very long fics, though, which is helping me resist temptation.)
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-11-03 04:59 am (UTC)Though I still want someone to write all my prompts! On the other hand, you guys know that I'm just going to keep asking for them, so I suppose there's no real urgency to writing them right this second...
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-20 04:53 am (UTC)Yep, this is exactly what I was imagining too.
and also, as in the case of the Finnish Sex Machine so many centuries later, the third party would have been named.
I keep forgetting I've been meaning to ask
Well, first of all, while I'm pretty sure Henry VIII would think he could be a sex fiend, I really doubt his abilities there.
LOLOLOL that is so true and at the same time, such a great burn! Actually laughed out loud here.
For starters, the man according to his own evidence could not tell whether a woman was a virgin or not.
To be fair, my understanding is that the presence or absence of a hymen and bleeding is a really poor predictor of whether someone is a virgin or not. But in general: yes, you may be on to something there.
And while obviously it's entirely possible for a family to consist of some members who like sex and others who don't
See also: my sister (pregnant at 16) and me (virgin at almost 40). ;)
Basically, what I'm saying is that I think chances are that Catherine liked sex with the man she loved, and would have accepted any variety.
Aww, poor Catherine.
I guess Wolsey's off the hook, then, if the sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts wouldn't have worked on two counts! But it was a hilarious mental image, and
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-20 08:11 am (UTC)Definitely, do give them to me! : D
I guess Wolsey's off the hook, then, if the sex fiend demanding unspeakable acts wouldn't have worked on two counts! But it was a hilarious mental image, and
I also laughed. : ) And I laughed at the original comment in this thread, which had Henry IV simultaneously saying that he not capable of carrying out conjugal relations with her any longer AND that she was a virgin. Perhaps he should pick a story and stick to it? *g*
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-20 10:49 am (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 05:21 am (UTC)Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 05:18 am (UTC)Hmm, if it's anal/oral sex (and now I find the "showed them through words and gestures" part even more hilarious) I guess it's possible that maybe Bertha liked it! Or was up for it, anyway!
Well, first of all, while I'm pretty sure Henry VIII would think he could be a sex fiend, I really doubt his abilities there.
I also find this sentence EXTREMELY amusing :D
For starters, the man according to his own evidence could not tell whether a woman was a virgin or not. I mean, he changed his mind about whether or not Catherine of Aragon had been one, and Anne Boleyn.
AHAHAHAHA oh Henry. ...I certainly hope someone pointed this out to him. (I imagine no one pointed this out to him.)
it's worth remembering that Catherine's sister Juana (the so called Mad) was so attracted to her future husband upon sight that the two of them didn't want to wait for the big wedding and Philip the Fair hastily arranged for an emergency wedding so they could leagally have non stop sex
Oh, I'd forgotten that, thank you for the primer! I did remember she was really into him. :(
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-22 03:13 pm (UTC)Hee!
Blamepraise Selena! I was going to make you all wait until I had finished one German book, started another, and done a write-up, which as we all know, can take months! (I have finished Otto and am about to start Henry IV, but sleep is killing me and so is my consulting gig, so...thank goodness for Selena, as always.)Oh, I'd forgotten that, thank you for the primer! I did remember she was really into him. :)
Same!
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-23 10:40 am (UTC)AHAHAHAHA oh Henry. ...I certainly hope someone pointed this out to him. (I imagine no one pointed this out to him.)
Wellllll, there's the slight problem of suicidalness and the lack of same when doing so. I mean, even his long term bff Charles Brandon probably knew better than to risk that. Someone of equal rank and no dependence on Henry to survive could have, so, say, Francis I. during one of those summits when they kept triyng to show each other up. At a stretch, I could also see Anne (Boleyn) making a comment in that direction in the heat of an argument during the last weeks before her arrest, but while Anne daring to argue with him was both what originally attracted him and then doomed her, I doubt she would have even in argument at that point, since she knew her time was up. (Not in the sense of getting executed, I think she probably assumed he'd do to her what he did to Catherine of Aragon, have their marriage declared invalid, plus getting her locked up in a nunnery if he was really angry.)
Still another possibility: Martin Luther. Who had been trading insults with Henry via pamphlets anyway, didn't take him seriously as a true reformer, didn't need his support, and certainly would not have been above that particular observation in writing. Alas, as far as I know, he did not.
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-10-26 03:20 pm (UTC)He even pushed the argument that the Pierleoni had only recently converted from Judaism and who could ever let a Jewish convert onto the throne of Saint Peter. I assume that nobody dared to enlighten St. Bernhard about St. Peter’s religious affiliation before he became an apostle?
Also, Cahn, I thought of you when I got to:
This week we take a little detour to catch up with our friends in Rome, the popes. Do not worry, the popes are no longer all goody two shoes, we are back to the usual shenanigans of murder, backstabbing, betrayal and the Normans.
This guy gets it!
Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-11-03 05:06 am (UTC)Lololololol, well played podcaster!
This week we take a little detour to catch up with our friends in Rome, the popes. Do not worry, the popes are no longer all goody two shoes, we are back to the usual shenanigans of murder, backstabbing, betrayal and the Normans.
I am intrigued by "Normans" showing up with all the other shenanigans. What makes Normans more shenanigan-prone than anyone else?
Also, who were the popes who were goody two-shoes? Living in a primarily-Protestant world, I was under the vague impression that none of them were, back then.
Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-04 09:12 pm (UTC)Lol, well, maybe not exactly more shenanigan-prone per se, since everyone is shenanigan-prone, but I think from the papal and imperial perspective they were something of a wild card. They might take the Pope prisoner, protect the Pope, sack Rome, all of the above, whatever they were in the mood for. And they had a formidable army and navy, so you messed with them at your own risk.
See, once upon a time, some Norman mercenaries went down to Italy because there wasn't enough for younger sons to do back home in Normandy. (When your dad has 12 sons, that's a lot of younger sons to become mercenaries.) One day, they realized that money was good, but land was better. And since they were *really really* good mercenaries, they managed to conquer southern Italy and work out some deals with the Popes. The Popes officially granted them that land, even though the throne of St. Peter had exactly zero claim to southern Italy, and Sicily was still in the hands of the Saracens. But hey, granting somebody something you already don't own is cheaper than paying them, so, "If you can conquer Sicily, you can keep it as far as I'm concerned!" is a pretty sweet deal for a Pope who has an emperor and Roman nobility to deal with.
Until the Normans finished conquering the area, and managed some domestic stability by allowing Jews and Muslims to practice their religion and serve in the military in return for a tax. Which from the papal point of view was like, "A, you're not allowed to do religious tolerance, and B, what do you mean religious tolerance gets you loyal and competent Saracen troops, shit, now I have a really powerful neighbor with expansionist tendencies!"
So sometimes the popes fight the Normans and sometimes the popes hire the Normans to deal with the emperors, and sometimes they all go on crusade together while on really bad terms back home, and it's shenanigans everywhere. To quote the podcaster loosely from memory, "During the Second Crusade, Roger of Sicily offered to provide the French and German crusaders passage to the Holy Land via his navy, but they declined, as they had no interest in being thrown into the sea halfway there."
And to quote me when talking to my wife, "Gregory VII will later die in exile with his pet Normans. And having a pet Norman is like having a pet wolf: you know who's in charge, and it's not you." Very next episode, the podcaster said something about the Normans having pet popes, and I was like, "Yeeeeeep. Exactly."
So while I'm not sure the Normans are *more* prone to shenanigans than their already shenanigan-prone contemporaries, having them as neighbors definitely makes the geopolitics more interesting. For example, Southern Italy, which the Normans owned, was claimed by the Holy Roman Emperors, the Popes, and the Byzantine Emperors, all of whom said the Normans were their vassals, and very few of whom had any power to make the Normans do anything they didn't already want to do. And since there were three of these supposed overlords of Southern Italy at any given time, it was even harder to make the Normans do anything. So like if the Pope and the Emperor invaded Southern Italy together, they would end up squabbling with *each other* over who was really in charge there, much to the Normans' advantage.
Eventually, Barbarossa's son will marry Roger's daughter (going from memory here, but I think that's right), and the product will be Selena's fave Frederick II Hohenstaufen, "stupor mundi", who will be a German-Norman Holy Roman Emperor who lives in Sicily. I did read a bio of him for German practice earlier this year, but I haven't yet got to that part of the podcast, so he's still a little hazy in my memory.
Also, who were the popes who were goody two-shoes? Living in a primarily-Protestant world, I was under the vague impression that none of them were, back then.
So you are generally right--but! A thousand-plus years is a long time for there to be fluctuations in papal trends.
Somewhere around the end of the first millennium, the Roman aristocracy is very powerful and major clans fight with each other, and the Pope can best be defined as "some dude a powerful Roman clan managed to put on the throne of St. Peter so they could get money out of him." It was actually preferable that he *not* have a religious calling. This was the period of the "pornocracy", because the Popes were basically just fucking and gambling all the time, and sometimes the city was even being de facto run by a WOMAN. This lack of moral high ground meant the popes had relatively little influence outside of Rome and were not at this time the powerful autocrats of Europe that you probably think of them as. And inside Rome, they were largely puppets at the mercy of whatever clan had put them on the throne.
Every so often, a German emperor would have the time to go "OMGWTF" and try to do something about the situation, but the German emperors also had their hands full with things like the German dukes and the Poles and the pagan Slavs and the Bohemians and the Hungarians and trying to make sure the French didn't get Lotharingia back and trying to get the Byzantines to acknowledge that the Holy Roman Emperor was at least as prestigious as the Byzantine Emperor, and all the other things you can imagine they were busy with.
So fast forward to the 11th century, and there's a reform movement going in Europe. People have started to care deeply that the Church is corrupt as anything, and if your priest paid for his office and has a mistress or even wife and six kids, are your baptism and your last rites and other sacraments that he performed really valid? And if not, does that mean you're going to hell?
Here's where Henry III of Germany comes in. He's been elected king by the German nobles. In order to become emperor, he has to get crowned by the pope. (This will later change, precisely because it's so complicated to go all the way to Italy to get a coronation from a pope you might not be on good terms with, and even if you are, you might have to leave your squabbling nobles behind in Germany.) Henry marches down to Italy and goes, "I'm here!...Oh shit, there are three popes, and one of them straight up bought his office, and the other two are sketchy in other ways, and if I get crowned by any of them, I'm going to have a hard time passing that off as a valid coronation, and then my status as emperor will be invalid! I need a holy man to be Pope."
So Henry III deposes three sketchy popes in one go, and starts putting goody two-shoes on the throne of St. Peter, and telling them to behave themselves!
This works great for a while: he gets his coronation, and Leo IX gets the papacy some much-needed respect and influence. He travels all over western Europe telling people what to do, and boom! The papacy is now the "I tell monarchs what to do because I am the supreme moral authority" institution that you probably think of it as.
Then the German emperors have a *big problem* that the papacy is now a legitimate contender for "top dog in Europe," and they're all, "That's not what we meant! We depose popes, popes don't depose us!"
Gregory VII: "Tough shit, I depose you."
Canossa: *happens*
Shenanigans in Italy and Germany: *happen at great length*
Normans: *happen* (sack of Rome)
So after a string of goody two-shoes popes, the Roman nobility decides it's time to go back to the good old pornocracy days. I'm now at the point in the podcast where this papal election is happening:
On September 7, 1159, an unknown number of cardinals gather behind the high altar of the Basilica of St. Peter to elect the new pope. The majority vote for Roland Bandinelli, and he proceeds to put on the Papal mantle. At that point Cardinal Octavian rugby-tackles the elected pontiff and grabs the mantle. He then tries to put the mantle on himself, but the pro-Bandinelli rip it out of his hands. An attendant brings Octavian a copy of the original mantle he now attempts to put on, but gets it back to front. Despite the wardrobe malfunction, the minor clergy of St. Peter acclaims him as Pope Victor IV.
So now there's yet another papal schism, and this time it isn't even the emperor's fault.
Re: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-04 09:27 pm (UTC)Until the Normans finished conquering the area, and managed some domestic stability by allowing Jews and Muslims to practice their religion and serve in the military in return for a tax. Which from the papal point of view was like, "A, you're not allowed to do religious tolerance, and B, what do you mean religious tolerance gets you loyal and competent Saracen troops, shit, now I have a really powerful neighbor with expansionist tendencies!"
Oh cool. I mean, I knew the Muslims did the "religous tolerance in exchange for extra taxes" thing, but I had no idea the Normans had done it.
Re: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-04 09:29 pm (UTC)I could not make this up!
ETA: But apparently 19th century Protestant German theologians could, since Wikipedia tells me that's where the term comes from. Color me unsurprised.
Also,
I mean, I knew the Muslims did the "religous tolerance in exchange for extra taxes" thing, but I had no idea the Normans had done it.
I seem to recall that when they conquered Muslim territory, they just took over this practice.
Re: Normans and Popes
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2022-11-06 10:16 am (UTC) - ExpandRe: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-05 01:32 am (UTC)To clarify, not that you or I think of individual pre-Reformation popes as so morally upstanding, but that as an institution, they had more clout post-reform to go, "No, you can't divorce your wife," and all that.
Re: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-05 03:35 pm (UTC)I should add that the geopolitics here is even more complex than that: precisely because the popes had no claim on southern Italy and Sicily, there was some quid pro quo at work here. If the Pope formally *grants* this land to the Normans, and they do homage for it to him and receive it from his hands (after they conquered it), then that gives the popes a claim to overlordship over southern Italy and Sicily, which they didn't have before.
Now, everyone (i.e. the Byzantines and Germans, the other contenders for overlords) realizes this is totally bogus and "You can't do that!" But it was an A+ chess move by the popes, who managed to hang onto at least nominal overlordship until well into our period, the 18th century. (I forget which king of Sicily and Naples neglected to pay homage to the Pope as he thought was his right, but I remember it being a thing that came up.)
Re: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-05 05:12 pm (UTC)Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-05 05:05 pm (UTC)Yes, that's right, and it's also why my fave's second name was Roger - Federico Ruggiero in Italian, and as he grew up there it was his first language. (Well, the Sicilian variation.) (He was seventeen when he came to what is now Germany for the first time. Being linguistically gifted, he did pick up German, but it wasn't his mother tongue, literally.)
When Putin went on with his "but it belonged to Russia once" arguments, some kidder on twitter wrote "so.... Sicily back to Swabia when?" (Swabia being where the Hohenstaufen came from.)
Goody two shoes popes: the first one, the one appointed to clean up the original three shady popes mess, was a local boy: Clement II, formerly Bishop Suidger of Bamberg. He loved Bamberg (aka my hometown) so much that he wrote this most adorable and heartbreaking letter when becoming Pope, addressing the city as "my dove, my beloved" and saying how much he'd rather be there than in Rome. Which as opposed to all over Popes, who automatically became bishops of Rome and Rome only, Suidgar/Clement kept Bamberg. When he died after a short papacy, his body was transfered back to Bamberg, which is why we have the only Pope's tomb north of the Alps in our cathedral. Also, when his remains - some of which were amazingly long preserved - were analysed in the mid 20th century - , it turned out he was poisoned. Go figure.
Re: Normans and Popes
From:Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Papal Love Letter To Bamberg
From:Re: Normans and Popes
Date: 2022-11-11 05:23 am (UTC)A thousand-plus years is a long time for there to be fluctuations in papal trends.
Hee, I guess that makes sense!
But I think it's hilarious that goody two-shoes start getting put on the papal throne because the other ones were too sketchy to crown Henry!
Also, like
Re: Normans and Popes
From:Re: Unspeakable Acts discussed
Date: 2022-11-03 05:00 am (UTC)Yeah, I figured no one would point it out to him for that reason! But I like the Martin Luther angle! Alas that he doesn't seem to have.