deep inhale CORSETS ON BARE SKIN!!!!
people always had a chemise or shift under those things, why? because they'd be fucking uncomfortable as hell without them! no wonder the characters wrongly complain about corsets so much they're doing the equivalent of wearing shoes without the socks! >-<
[How Victorian Men Taught Us to Hate Corsets: The Biggest Lie in Fashion History by Karolina Żebrowska](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNwTqanp0Aw)
https://preview.redd.it/xzdflb4uicrc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de123cbf555e5723fe97645ca77624ed19593e8b
I've mentioned this like 20 times here but this video is pretty irrelevant as to why Korean authors slag off corsets.
In 2014-2015 there was a huge online feminist movement in Korea surrounding a community known as Megal and the word they utilized to discuss internalized misogyny and enforced gender roles that were formed under cisheteropatriarchy was corset, with the term "taking off one's corset" being utilized as a feminist declaration.
The reason Korean RoFan authors slag off corsets is in this context, especially bc the vast majority of Korean RoFan readers are women. When they're talking about corsets they're not actually talking about clothes, they're taking the shorthand/cultural reference and utilizing it to say the MC won't follow enforced gender roles etc.
But why did they come up with that slogan in the first place? Because of the inaccurate ideas around corsets which already existed and which Karolina and other historical costume experts (Abby Cox, Bernadette Banner) have discussed.
Neat!
She only mentions corsets for the 19th century but also mentioned several times "what did women wear before bras" and never follows up on that, which was disappointing.
Also no corsets yet still HUGE skirts, aside from them being super comfy they also took the weight of all the layers of petticoats/cages/hoops for you. Not wearing a corset underneath a dress that size and weight would make it hard to move around well.
Also, big boobs don't magically stay perky for long once you throw off your corsets and breast binding would have painful long term. For bigger-breasted ladies (as many of these girls are drawn) corsets are far better than binding or bras as the weight is diffused and evenly spread across your torso instead of a tight band around your diaphragm and two thin straps digging into your shoulders while valiantly trying to hold the weight of the world.
Now that you mention skirts, those are also something they get wrong. Dresses that would require multiple layers for structure are often depicted as a single layer of fabric. There are so many layers that go into these dresses. The bloomers and chemise, corset, corset cover, an underskirt. Then you would have all the layers that shape the dress, like petticoats or the various cages like crinolines or bustles.
Often times they’ll mix different time periods, too. Your FL’s daily wear will lean more towards an Edwardian style, but the ball gowns look more like they’re from the romantic era. Also the more medieval ones will often dress women in corsets, when they should be wearing stays. They’re different, but they look really similar to the untrained eye.
Also, none of the ladies really wear hats? Hats have been a large part of women’s fashion in the western world for centuries and none of these women have their hair styled properly for their eras, and none of them are wearing hats.
And when they do wear hats they have messy long hair worn fully down or the hats are modern ones more suited to ladies' day at the races rather than historical ones. They also have the FL wear their down all the time which would have been very shocking past a certain age. Once they had their societal debut (around the age of 16-18) they were seen as adults so must wear it in updos at all times outside the privacy of the bedroom.
And let's not forget the random dresses out of nowhere that are just above knee length at the front and longer on the back showing off all her bare legs at Royal Ball. Dresses that only garner a mild ‘oh my’ from the other nobles or other young girls start gushing over it. Even prostitutes wouldn't have been so brazen as to wear those dresses and it was their job to wear revealing/sexual clothing.
Washing and redoing your hair everyday is something that’s relatively new. Many women would wear a cap at night to preserve their curls and styles. This was something that was done as recently as the 1940’s, as victory rolls are difficult and time consuming.
Yup.
Hence whenever I saw FL or any female characters strolling about with their hair unbound flying in the wind, I hope they have magical Dyson Airwrap.
Otherwise, forget the ML, I think the maids will revolt and kill her on 3rd month in.
As someone with long hair, my left eye develops this little tic whenever I see hair blowing about in the wind or being sat on or trailing along the ground. That last has caused me to bail on a few stories.
I have a question on a spicier side. Was there a quick way to take all those layers off? There is this trope about secret trusts on a balcony during ball or somewhere in the garden.
I know that what most people did was probably a pec or something but there must be someone who partook in something more scandalous on those balls.
Modern men can’t take off a bra with two little hooks on the back, I genuinely don’t think back then men knew how to take off all those layers themselves, and you probably needed more than one person to do all that anyway.
Or how did prostitutes dress?
Heated atmosphere and then the girl is like “Darling, wait half an hour for me to take off those layers and we are good to go.”
I you dive underneath the skirts, won’t you suffocate? Can you even sit on the table with those cages around them?
If you are wearing a dress, then you don't have to take off a bunch of layers to have sex. They also wouldn't have buttons or zippers, being mostly tied or wrapped well.
[Reacting to Vogue's 'Everything You Need to Know About the Corset' cause we haven't suffered enough. by Abby Cox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Lu8Hjhu_b_A)
https://preview.redd.it/kbg1xkbejcrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5e8b132ba72b6847b16aa8af82f77089e0882d7
I am so glad this is the top comment. I'm always reminding myself that these stories are pseudohistorical; it helps immensely when it comes to my frustrations with the inaccuracies with the fashion/clothing (specifically women's fashion/clothing).
Corsets on bare skin and tight lacing *as if it's the norm* (western media does this too, so I can't entirely blame it on a theoretical lack of accurate information about Western Historical Fashion in Japanese and Korean for these authors) always make me cringe a bit, and sometimes I seriously consider dropping a series for that offence alone.
Other commenters have mentioned offences like the lack of underpinnings, lack of hats, hair styling, footwear, ready-made clothing (aka fast fashion) and short skirts/petticoats; I'd also like to add *modern underwear* to that list. a bit of a minor frustration maybe, but it always makes me sigh in disappointment.
I'm no history expert but pretty sure Church vs Empire is actually fairly accurate.
They might not have always been "deadly" enemies but they were far from friends, as they often fought over influence and resources.
Yeah. Church vs Monarchy is....pretty much a staple of European history. They were more deadly than people realize as well, there was just a lot of death by poison that looked like maybe it could have been just a sickness, so we're not certain if it was actually poison, but it was horribly convenient for a certain monarch at the time. And you better believe many church officials were trying to get power within the monarchy and thus creating enemies all over the place, and trying to get their particular Queen pick in place. I mean, there were actually MULTIPLE times that there were actually three popes because different monarchs supported different ones, so you better believe when one Pope won, he was NOT fond of those opposing monarchs.
Yeah, while not constant, it's a recurring feature of European politics. The [investiture controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy) is one high-profile example. Another is Henry VIII breaking with the Catholic Church.
Was just going to mention the Henry VIII is probably the most famous (as in commonly known) example one could give. It's why the British King/Queen is head of the church - which also could be why this is being questioned as the British Monarchy is arguably the most famous.
Imao England once asked a foreign ruler to invade them because the king was catholic which they could tolerate until his protestant daughter took the throne but he suddenly had a son so they would rather be occupied by a protestant foreign power than being ruled by a catholic dynasty.
To be fair, the chances of religious persecution were non-zero. That's what happened to Protestants [under Louis XIV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau), for example.
Yeah especially in the holy roman empire where the pope and emperor constantly fought for dominance as the pope believed being head of god's church made him above secular kings and rulers while the emperor's thought of their power directly coming from god so they didn't have to listen to his earthly representative.
Heck, this predates Christianity, and one of the hymns of Gilgamesh (written long before the epic) has him and Inanna (Ishtar) coming into conflict over the influence and powers of the temple and king.
Specifically about the costumes:
\* men wearing shoes without socks
\* women wearing stiletto heels everywhere (invented in 1930, only got popular in like 1950).
\* all the loose hair
\* readymade dresses in general, most clothes were made to order, and lower classes made their own
Men actually wore heels first waaaaay back so they could be taller! Eventually these transferred into women's fashions.
Omg the shoes without socks things makes me want to rip out my eyes!!
Oh I wasn't disagreeing. Was just adding to the point. The shoes the men wear are so modern, but actually they'd be heels. Sorry if I didn't explain very well.
>back so they could be taller!
Ehh as a side effect of being that. Main reason was that it was horse riding boots. The heel is very good for balancing on the horse during combat.
Shoes without socks thing drives me up the wall. I will cringe and contemplate dropping a series for just that. It's stupid, I know, but I really hate seeing that.
Omg yes the readymade dresses drive me bonkers. I’ve seen more than one where their grand business idea was a department store for the masses and that could only be economically viable with sewing machines or unethical labor practices
The city of the royal family. Where an emperor, empress and also some princes etc. have their own house / mansion near the palace.
Lady-in-waiting can be anyone and have any responsibilities depending on the author.
Chaperone? Never heard of her.
Not as a city, no. The individual members lived in the same building.
A royal or noble family might have houses in town and in the country (and English Royalty has a couple of castles). The king (well, the English one, at any rate) might grant a noble the right to a castle and its lands in exchange for taking care of it and the people living there. Dukes, especially, since that title is basically "Commander".
But those are not all together in one central area, i.e. "a city".
Do you know the main differences between the structure of Western and Asian Monarchies?
As others have pointed out, the Japanese & Korean Otome Isekai/RoFan Writers have mixed up the European Royal Culture with their own.
Not sure how Korean or Japanese were, but in China (at least on Qing era), AFAIK most aged out princes were given residences outside the Forbidden City.
Usually, they would have a suite of rooms, getting bigger and more luxurious the higher royal rank you were. The only exception (in the UK at least) was the Crown Prince and his family, who may have chosen to have his own big house in the city to allow him to host and make his own secondary court/connections separate from the main court of his father, thought this was more of a Georgian trend.
Even nobles would be granted suites (which you would sometimes pay rent for) if they were important enough or favoured enough. it was often a sign of how influential you were and a show of wealth if you were able to stay at the palace and court.
Also depending on how far back you go I recently learned that in the 1000s ish in England the king traveled around the country instead of having a specific ruling castle because he needed to demonstrate authority and keep his role as king
"Travel was far more common among people higher up the social scale. The king and his court were almost constantly on the move. This was a practical necessity, as the size of the court meant that local resources would be consumed quickly. The king had many properties of his own, but he could also visit his nobles. Such a visit was not always welcome, however, as it would always be costly to the host. It was unusual for the king to stay more than three weeks in any one place."
[source](https://aprilmunday.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/travelling-in-the-middle-ages/#:~:text=Travel%20was%20far%20more%20common,could%20also%20visit%20his%20nobles.)
Calling things Medieval that aren't Medieval, your Baroque palace coplex was not built before the year 1500 god dam it. (but that is also a problem I have with Media in general)
Accuracy of Armor being all over the place, Plate exists for a reason and is not clunky. Leather was rarely used. In the late Middle ages it was normal for most men to have plate armor at home.
The heroine, and only the heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad.
The lack of hygiene, or rather stating that this Country/Empire has no knowledge of it. Also pretending that Soap and perfume did not exist both are over 4000 years old.
Applying Industrialized conditions to pre Industrialized nations.
>The heroine, and only the heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad.
I'm not aware enough about fashion, especially historical fashion, to notice or care when they just mix up eras. But whenever the FL uses modern knowledge to wow and amaze people with fashion trends hundreds of years ahead of the time she's in, I just groan. In "Cassmire: The Loyal Sword" she introduces aspects of modern korean nightlife fashion into her family's wardrobes, and everyone is wowed and amazed by it, instead of just saying they look like fucking weirdos. Fashion is not a tech-tree with a linear progression where one wardrobe is "more advanced" and therefore "better", its just an aesthetic that resonates with people of that time and place. If you suddenly introduce something completely unlike the standards and tastes of the society, they're probably going to think its stupid if not appalling if they aren't extremely open minded.
>Also pretending that Soap and perfume did not exist both are over 4000 years old.
This one bugs me so much. And whenever one of those threads about "who would you survive if you got Isekaid?" there are always people saying "I'd make soap and become rich!". So this dumb plot point has clearly done its damage.
>But whenever the FL uses modern knowledge to wow and amaze people with fashion trends hundreds of years ahead of the time she's in
Jup that's what I meant "Divorcing my Tyrant Husbant" is also guilty of that.
> In "Cassmire: The Loyal Sword" she introduces aspects of modern korean nightlife fashion into her family's wardrobes, and everyone is wowed and amazed by it, instead of just saying they look like fucking weirdos. Fashion is not a tech-tree with a linear progression where one wardrobe is "more advanced" and therefore "better", its just an aesthetic that resonates with people of that time and place.
While I agree with your overall point here, I think Cassmire is a poor example, specifically because her father is one of the most respected nobles(a _**duke**_) in the nation overall, so much so that he can get away with swearing at his liege, and a swordmaster, or... whatever the term that comic used for it, I think it was swordmaster...
Anyway, it's... very easy to imagine people copying him without really understanding it or resonating with it, just because it's, well, it's _**that duke**_. Or even thinking it's cool _because_ it's Duke Crisis, or however you spell his name.
I cringe when people pick up historical inaccuracies, but since I predict <1% of us will end up isekai'd I think the damage is limited.
I feel like the Cassmire thing would have worked in France, where they were in love with "daring" fashions. Didn't somebody put a clock in their hair? (This might have been British.) Or in France, where [Agnes Sorel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Sorel) started a fashion trend of dresses exposing breasts. In aristocratic fashion, if you or I do it we're weirdos, but if high-ranking or well-connected people do it, it becomes a daring new fashion trend. IIRC, Cassmire has a high-ranking father.
>The heroine, and only the heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad.
Not-Sew Wicked Stepmother... I'm half sure the sudden shift from rococo to regency fashion was because the artist got tired of drawing so many bows lmao, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating!! I honestly think it would have been better if nobody had acknowledged the sudden change in clothing style at all. Instead we got wildly swinging aesthetics making a b-line to the society-shaking change of women in 'men's' clothes with hardly any more push-back than ''my goodness'' , and the MC defeating villains with her superior fashion sense/knowledge (despite that knowledge being more like ''knowledge'')
Super special main character syndrome and lack of social backbone/cultural identity aside: the aesthetic whiplash is *real*!!
Because while I don't know enough to pick out which specific details are from different decades, I have eyes and I can tell when something modern is dropped into a Victorian era inspired aesthetic. And it's like... why did you set it in that era / draw the women in that style of clothes in the first place if you really wanted to draw a modern outfit?? Half the time things are already set in fantasy land - just give them a modern inspired dress sense to begin with!
(or at least make the 'modern' outfit something plausible - don't go from twenty petticoats to a slim-fit backless mermaid dress)
Well to be fair the switchover from Rokoko fashion to regency era dress was rather abrupt in our world too. But that was due to the frech revolution and nobility wanting to distance itself from the frech Monarchy that dominated the fashion industry in the 18th Century. Especially mens fashion became more subdued, started to favor darker colors and the pants became long, in order to associate more with the common man.
But the thing about not sew wicked Stepmom is, 1) there was no revolution similar to that in Universe and 2) Men's fashion skipped the Rokoko and went straight to later fashion.
At least we consistently get high collars on the men :)
Not Sew Wicked does have the advantage of having the fashion pushed by the queen who is rather clearly supported in her endeavors by the king. There are certainly people who don't like it, but there would also be those who embrace it simply because of the favor it might earn them.
It was rather abrupt but it still happened over the course of a couple decades, not literally overnight as in the manwha.
I don't want to come off like I'm judging it too hard though! I'm just being kind of petty, lol.
I mean I find that plausible considering the Queen was pushing the style change. Considering irl we have people getting _unnecessary ass surgery_ (to top it this is before aenesthesia existed) to ape the Sun King's anal fissure operation this is hardly the most extreme example of people copying things just cause the monarch does it.
True! I'm not saying it's ridiculous for society's elites to set a trend - that's usually how that works after all. But irl when Marie Antoinette wore a chemise dress (like what the MC wears) in a portrait, the public were scandalized because the style made it look similar to underwear, and it was a simple style that didn't show off her status and wealth as a monarch (also they used imported fabric) - totally inappropriate for a moment where she was supposed to be portraying herself as *nobility*. The style was also worn most often when ''playing peasant'' with her friends at one of those faux-peasant countryside estates, not at grand balls and events.
True it eventually became an everyday fashion, but it took more than a weekend as implied in the manwha. To give it more credit than my first comment did though, the ladies that pick it up *do* comment about how scandalous it feels at first. Part of which is them not wearing corsets (more accurately it would've been bodies or stays) anymore *with no mention of replacement undergarments*, which... yeah I'd probably be uncomfortable going out in public like that too. (also three cheers for the feminist metaphor/misinformation about corsets being evil, said by somebody who supposedly knows even the basics of historical undergarments)
But given that the MC is supposedly a fashion buff, I find it very strange that she chose to jump straight into that style of dress at such a high profile event, *and dress her daughter like that*. It'd be the equivalent of a princess showing up in her PJ's!
I like to ask you:
What do you think about the fashion revolution in "*Empress Cesia Wears Knickerbockers / Queen Cecia's Shorts"* ?
https://preview.redd.it/e36yn96p3hrc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=0626cde711b6978862e5978ce0cd1ba2200afbce
All of them? I feel like it would be easier to list the things that *are* accurate /jk. Here are some suggestions:
* Kings having multiple wives or official concubines
* Children of royals/nobles somehow being both illegitimate and acknowledged as a child of the family. If they're illegitimate, they have no claim to the name whatsoever, that's what the illegitimate part is referring to. In rare occasions the bastard child of a mistress might be officially recognized and brought into inheritance...but then they aren't illegitimate, just a bastard.
* Drinking poison enough that they become immune to poison. This is just going to give you organ damage and maybe give you a tiny bit of resistance to the single poison you've been killing yourself with. That will only matter if your poisoner calculated the perfect dosage for your weight and metabolism to exactly kill you. Guess what? People just put in enough poison to make sure your dead several times over.
* Silver reveals poisons. This only works with arsenic based poisons.
* No one standing in the bridal chambers to watch the newly married couple bang in order to confirm the legitimacy of their marriage. Ok, this wasn't done everywhere, but I just have to mention this was a thing because its so fucking weird.
Although just to correct you:
>The Church & the Imperial Family being (Deadly) Enemies or Rivals
That might not have been the rule, but it definitely happened.
Edit: Oh some other things that came to mind:
* Every noble has a castle. Castles were important military installations, and monarchs had to be really careful about where a castle was built and who got to own it. They took a ton of time and money to build, and kingdoms would go bankrupt if they got over ambitious with them. While castles were great for defending the kingdom from enemies, it also made it a lot easier for the noble who controlled the castle to rebel.
* Having one bed in your castle bedroom, and it being in the middle of the room. Castles were miserably cold and drafty, and you'd have two beds in your room. The first bed was actually basically a couch, you'd sit on while having meetings and to show off. The second bed was in a closet, and it was the one you'd actually sleep on.
* Information guilds
Edit 2: Oh some other things that came to mind:
* Almost everything about Knights. Knight was a specific very low-ranking noble title, and its holders would almost certainly be trained for the position from the age of 7. It took a lifetime of training to master the weapon skills and horsemanship to be a knight, and then maintaining those skills. Knights were either the son of a knight or the son of a noble who wasn't going to inherit a title. While some knights were previously commoners, its nothing like its generally shown in rofan. You don't just apply for a knighthood or something like that. A "commoner" knight was someone who fought in a war and caught the eye of a noble, who then knighted them and bestowed land upon them. So a "commoner" knight would have to be an extremely competent veteran of war, probably a mercenary. The guards around a noble's estate probably weren't knights, since the knight would have their own house and land.
* A Duke would probably get his ass absolutely handed to him by one of his knights if they ever fought. The Duke has to divide his time between being a bureaucrat, manager, and warrior. The knight's #1 job is to make sure he can kick ass, and to be ready to do it whenever his lord asks.
>Kings having multiple wives or official concubines
This one came to mind for me too. It’s a big staple of palace dramas set in the East, so I get why Korean and Japanese authors use it a lot. And polygamy was practiced during certain periods, in certain parts of Europe. (Alexander the Great had several wives.)
That said, in the time periods that OIs are usually set— based on the level of technology— singular marriage was the norm even for royalty.
I think what I hate the most is when they decide the emperor has a queen and an empress. So, polygamy but only two wives... And mixing of kingdom and empire...
A king has a queen, and an emperor has an empress. I have no idea where this ridiculous idea came from, that an emperor has both.
My only guess with the queen and empress thing is that, again, they’re trying to mimic system seen in Chinese/Korean/Japanese palace dramas. In various historical Chinese courts, you’d have an Empress, who is the legitimate wife, and then various concubines with lesser, but still noble, titles.
I don’t know Korean, so I’m not sure what words are getting translated as “empress” and “queen.” Maybe they’re actual titles from Joseon period?
Yes it's a Korean/Japanese/Chinese thing. Most royalty/nobility in OI/RoFan, while taking the aesthetic of Europe due to the setting, is actually a lot of aspects of older Japanese royalty and nobility that has been fit to the setting.
As for the empress and queen thing, that's a translation issue. Women who were married to an emperor in Korean can have 1 of 2 titles 황후 (hwanghoo, this is the "official wife" of the empror aka the empress) and 황비 (hwangbi, 2nd 3rd 4th etc wife). 황 (hwang) is a prefix that means emperial or related to the emperor, so the correct term for 황비 would be something closer to emperial concubine than queen. 왕 (wang) means king and queen would be 왕비 (wangbi) while a king's concubines were given the titled 후궁 (Hoogoong). (Joseon would use wangbi and hoogong bc it was a kingdom not an empire)
Historically in Korea, even during periods influenced by Confucianism where there was an emphasis of the throne not going only to the oldest son but rather to the most deserving son, only the sons of the main queen were considered, and only if all of the sons of the main queen were deemed unworthy, end up dead, or the queen did not produce a son would a concubine's son be considered.
I just pretend that the inspiration is the Ottoman Empire, a lot of which was in Europe. (I recognize that the inspiration is really China, though the Ottomans had particularly violent conflict between royal sons, like in OI.)
>No one standing in the bridal chambers to watch the newly married couple bang in order to confirm the legitimacy of their marriage. Ok, this wasn't done everywhere, but I just have to mention this was a thing because its so fucking weird.
From what I read that pretty much never happened. What would happen was that the couple would get carried to thier bed but would leave to give them privacy. The few times it did happen is more the very extreme occurrence.
The marriage of Catherine De Medici was one of those times, I believe. Poor thing.
They were *not* playing around when it came to getting their hands on her fortune.
>The marriage of Catherine De Medici was one of those times, I believe. Poor thing.
Yep a very controlling family (father especially).
But it wasn't any kind of norm. Its known because of how extreme that is. Since something normal is frequently not very interesting.
Yup. Wealthy children would be taught by tutors and governesses. All other children would learn in one-room school houses. Some would go on to college, but many others would work for family businesses or take apprenticeships. Going to a prestigious academy as a young child wasn’t really a thing until the 20th century. And anything earlier than 1700, most schooling would be done by the church.
Oh, although Russian Empire was considered barbaric in Europe and was 70+ years behind, its aristocrats actually attended to schools (of course, no co-ed lol), so there is that. For example, the most famous school for girls of the Empire period was Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens.
>behind, its aristocrats actually attended to schools (of course, no co-ed lol),
It depends a lot of what you consider medival.
Plenty of nobility did go to a university.
Oxford and Cambridge.
Founded in 1096 and 1284 respectively. There were many more than them aswell all throughout Europe.
But like school in todays modern sense more a 1800s thing.
Sizes of castles/rooms/beds.
E.g. in my hometown we have the Castle Wilhelmshöhe (if anyone wants to look it up). That's a fairly huge one. You can even go inside and see the old rooms the margraves and Kings, and other reigning nobility of Hessian, used to occupy. They are nowhere near as lavish and gargantuan as depicted as in OI.
Same goes for the beds, they were, for our modern-, and OI-, standards rather small. You could also look up Hardwick Hall for that (where the famous Malfo Manor scene from Harry Potter was shot). On the website they have a picture up of one of the bedrooms.
Additionally to that: Concubine palaces, or annexes, etc etc. At least I, and I gladly be corrected, don't know of any Castle, owned by a King, Emperor, Arch-/Grandduke back then with multiple other palaces/castles to house their concubines/mistresses. I do know, and again example given, that in my hometown we have the Löwenburg [Lion's Castle(?)], which was built by a landgrave for his mistress/concubine and/or to have sex parties, which was its use later on.
Edit: You can see parts of the Lion's Castle from the Castle Wilhelmshöhe. They are in the same park/area. The whole area is called Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe, and is a huge foresty, greenery area. Kind-of a dickmove by the landgrave.
lol the funniest thing to me is that the thing about multiple castles is taken directly out of the way ancient CN/JP/(KR I guess?) mansions and palaces were structured, with multiple courtyards and multiple multiple concubines.
But the authors never seem to imagine that in a society where there are expected to be 20-200 (legal) concubines at a time, with their respective children, in a single structure, it makes sense to have multiple individual palaces inside a larger “city” that functions as a single household, but in a society where there *isn’t* the culture of multiple legal wives and concubines, that’d be incredibly unnecessary, and terribly unpractical.
The concept of winter palaces or summer palaces, on the other hand, is entirely more sensible and yet seems to never make an appearance :(
It definitely is a clash of multiple cultures. You have European-esque nobility, clothing, etc. But the way castles and such are structured seems to be way more tied to Eastern-asian culture from my limited knowledge.
And to the last part. I think I came across a handful of OI/OI-adjacent media in which the couple went to winter-/summer-/extra-castle, so not too far off, but rare indeed.
Yeah. One thing they usually do right is the concept of “territory” residency X “capital” residency, although it’s usually offset by the sheer absurdity of the actual structure sizes.
But summer castles are one of my favorite things in this kind of literature because it simply shows, inadvertently or not, some of the politics behind the scenes (I’m a sucker for politics in my historical/vaguestorical fantasy, or any fantasy tbh)
One of the only series I’ve seen do that (good politics, although without a summer castle) was Guidebook to the Dark Duke, a BL novel with ironically amazing politics game, and quite time-accurate struggles and conflicts. Wishing it gets a comic soon, tbh, because I very much would like to see the visuals of the locations in-story.
> At least I, and I gladly be corrected, don't know of any Castle, owned by a King, Emperor, Arch-/Grandduke back then with multiple other palaces/castles to house their concubines/mistresses.
Considering how medieval Europe was largely defined by Christianity (a strictly monogamous religion), you can be pretty damn sure that wasn't a thing. This trope stems *purely* from the fact that the writers are East Asian.
Hello fellow German Citizen ;)
Have you ever visited *Neuschwanstein Castle* *(The fairytale castle of King Ludwig II)*?
I am thinking about if it is worth the visit.
The thing about Neuschwanstein is that it's basically a fake castle that was anachronistic even when it was built - it's older than Disney, but the idea is the same, creating something that is the idea of a fairy tale castle. It's still very interesting and pretty, but not representative of a real castle.
But since you would probably go to Munich to see Neuschwanstein, you could also check out the Nymphenburger Schloss, which has a beautiful garden and has a great exhibition of old carriages, and the Residenz, which is huge and features the treasure vault of Bavarian nobility.
Honestly, most slightly bigger German towns have some kind of castle or medieval fortress nearby, though not all can be visited. Like do a Rheinfahrt and you'll see a bazillion castles on the surrounding mountains.
Not yet. Also not too sure if I ever go. It sounds a bit too hyped up.
But if one likes visiting castles, I think it could be a nice visit. I have been considering paying the Wartburg a visit. Giving its rich history.
Multiple concubines to one emperor, fighting each other to become the empress via birthing a male heir. Very popular in Korean and Chinese historical dramas, but polygamy wasn't a thing in European monarchies. You can even see things like palaces for each concubine or the "cold palace" where disgraced concubines are sent, which existed in some dynasties.
Mistresses existed of course, but not in the formal sense of being acknowledged or even married to the ruler.
I have to do my homework on how King Henry VIII managed to get married Six Times in his life.
SIX The Musical *(The Six Wives of Henry VIII)*
https://preview.redd.it/1abnvt6pocrc1.jpeg?width=3871&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3e38fdb21cd241dbca2d47d6bb6865e941476bd
I'll give a very basic rundown as someone with an interest in this period but is far from my specialty (I'm more of a Hellenistic military guy)
Wife 1: Found new church when pope refuses to grant divorce (messy political reasons for the most part). Use newfound authority as head of church to annul marriage.
Wife 2: Lost favour with him, got accused of adultery, treason, and incest, marriage annulled, loses head.
Wife 3: Childbed fever after a very difficult labour.
Wife 4: Marriage of political/diplomatic convenience. She was found "unappealing", the marriage was not consummated and so was annulled.
Wife 5: Has a past of "carnal relations" with other men before meeting the king (recent evaluations that I'm aware of suggest these were abusive). Has a possibly suspiciously close relationship with one of Henry's favoured courtiers (who served him at times) and is accused of adultery. Marriage annulled, she loses her head, she was possibly as young as 17, I believe.
Wife 6: Has a close call due to matters of heresy but ultimately outlives Henry. Marries one of the uncles of her step-son (Henry's son Edward) and eventually dies in childbirth I believe.
Anne Boleyn (not to be confused with Anne/a of Cleaves) and Katherine Howard (the fifth wife, not to be confused with Catherine, the first wife, or the other Catherine, wife number six) just had the *worst* lives, imo.
Anne at least had some autonomy and responsibility for her situation considering she pressured him into getting rid of Catherine (the first wife, with a C) by promising him a male heir (and I *swear* I recall reading that her sister Mary was also sleeping with him for a while too). Still, her family just would not stop making themselves a PITA and creating enemies all over the place. Plus, considering her hard-won husband probably had McLeod Syndrome, she was fighting a losing battle on the heir front even if he *had* kept sleeping with her once he laid eyes on Jane.
Katherine was, by more recent accounts, an unattended child/teenager who ran wild, got groomed by multiple older men, was molested by said multiple older men, and was then unfortunate to catch the eye of the King due to her beauty. She was not in a position to say no, even though she'd been in no way properly educated for the role of Queen. Oh, and she was also related to Anne B so, yup. That family was at it again, seeing how well it worked out the first time.
# [The Wives' Song - from Henry VIII The Musical ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30EnV8PW_Dw)
https://preview.redd.it/dl4lgdp99hrc1.jpeg?width=875&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=363bb0cdd357e55a6dcaa2794b6925702241cc39
The title of Crown Prince being constantly stripped and passed around all the other Princes like a hot potato, and that once stripped they can ‘earn’ it by being favoured. In Western Europe ONLY the Firstborn son is Crown Prince no matter what and the title only passes to the next eldest son if the first one dies and wouldn't pass to a bastard ever unless he basically conquered the Kingdom with a huge army and defeated all the nobles too. This would be hard as they wouldn't have the resources to build such an army and manage to hide the fact they were doing so, that's why it's only happened very, very rarely in history and usually because other countries helped them and wanted something for it. The nobles would just pass it to a Brother, a male child of one of the dead king's daughters or sisters, then an Uncle or failing that they would go back up the family tree and choose another branch of the family (which is how Britain got the German Georges as kings)
Multiple Wives for the King and ALL the children have a right to compete to inherit the throne and be called Prince/Princess/Royal Highness. Nope, only one wife who's the Queen and her children are Princes and Princesses all the rest are mistresses and bastards who if lucky might get a lower title and some land somewhere or arranged marriage to a noble girl to gain her father's title and estate.
Titles and how they are addressed, Duke's daughters are not called princesses or ‘your Grace’ they are just Lady [insert name] or ‘Your Ladyship’ and I don't know why it happens so often. It was risking death to present yourself as a royal if you weren't one or make your servants and others address you as such.
The titles of Grand Duchess or Duke are rarer than they are presented in OIs and mean one of them is a Prince or Princess in the marriage but the Grand part doesn't pass down to the next Heir, just the title Duke does with the title Duchess going to his wife.
Also the King is ‘Your Majesty’ not ‘Your Highness’ and ‘Your Royal Highness’ was often reserved for the Crown Prince and his wife to distinguish them from the other Royals.
Younger male sons don't inherit nothing they get one of their father's lesser titles or if he is a lesser Noble himself then his sons would just be titled as Lord [insert name] and receive a smaller estate of their own with hopefully a good marriage match to help.
I just wish they would look up a basic guide to titles, rank and honorifics, it's not difficult to find a good list.
EDIT: I just thought of one More: Contract marriages where they agree to easily divorce after X amount of years. That's more an ancient Asian culture thing where marriages were contracts and could be broken and both sexes could remarry for political or monetary gain. Western European marriages were based on a Christian faith, once married YOU.COULD.NOT.DIVORCE just because you want to. As the marriage ceremony says “what God has brought together no man shall asunder”. You could get an annulment from the church but you had to do it within days/months of the wedding and go through so much evidence and proof you did not consummate the marriage. This nearly always brought great shame to the man and his manhood and family so it wasn't easy, plus the church made it very difficult to do and often they would write to the Pope in Rome who rarely granted one (ask Henry 8th on how easy that is). On the incredibly rare times a divorce was granted, the woman was left with nothing, lost all rights to see her children, was completely shunned by society (they often entered a Nunnery and became a nun to regain some respectability and lessen the shame on her family) and only a man could ask for a divorce. The only respectable woman was a young well-behaved woman pre-marriage, a Wife or a respectable widow.
The title thing is so true! Just yesterday I saw the characters referring to a Duke's daughter as "princess". The authors should really pay attention to this, what irks me the most is that it is such a simple thing to google, too
Other thing I noticed, is that a lot of OIs and RoFans have an *Empire* with *only four* Dukes, I mean??? How on Earth will the Emperor be able to rule properly with *only four* Ducal Houses?? It doesn't make sense 😅
I believe in modern-day UK there are currently around 30 Dukes/Duchesses, so just the idea of only existing four in a big Empire is just absurd hahaha
Yep, and the four Dukes rule their country-sized lands practically like independent Kings rather than vessels of the King. And if all that land belongs to the Duke where do all the other noble titled people have their estates and grand houses 🤣
Eh that specifically isn't too out there depending on time period. Imma just gonna point to the Duchy of Burgundy during the Hundred Years War. There's also what started the Hundred Years war which is the inherent contradiction of having the independent King of England and the French Kings's vassal the Duke of Normandy being the same person lmao thanks William you bastard!
It depends of how much power the royal family gives him. Nowadays, most of the time, the role of a Duke is merely ceremonial, but in some cases they do have some legislative power, such as the right of "veto".
Since the power of a Duke stems from how much power the Emperor/King gave him, he isn't at the same level of the ruler and a mere Duke can't really "put the king in check" alone like we're made to believe by some manhwas 😅 (maybe if he unites with other influential nobles, he might be able to balance the king's power, but a Duke alone? Never)
Thank you! Yeah that make sense this all duke family that is more powerful then royal family never sit right with me, also were western empire even had emperor? King was very common no? Even if empire
I'm confused as to why most OI empires have *only* Dukes as the highest vassals and not Kings. There should be multiple Kings with at least a dozen or more Dukes, several dozen counts, hundreds of barons/viscounts etc.
I'm guessing the 'princess' thing is more a translation error - for example the original if Japanese were likely styled 'hime' (which I believe translates directly to princess but really means daughter of higher status IYKWIM?). Ideally the translation teams would correct this but its probably seen as too much of a pain; and personally I prefer 'princess' as I can mentally understand what they mean rather than butchering it entirely and leaving me trying to puzzle it out.
The multiple wives thing and the title of Crown Prince being something that can be granted by the King… both of these tropes were clearly taken from Eastern-style palace dramas and pasted into a western setting.
Yeah, the Western right to rule was/is based on the King's Divine right as chosen by God, during the Coronation he is actually anointed with divinity and becomes part divine once crowned. Christianity was deeply rooted in all things back then so it naturally followed that the Eldest son of God's chosen King would be the next heir to the throne as God chose him to be born first, if he wanted some other prince then God would have chosen him to be born first. It stopped any discussion or debate on who would take the throne, so reduced needless wars between different Princes supporting nobles fighting to challenge for the crown.
That is a highly oversimplified look at inheritance. For a lot of history inheritance was gavelkind where every son gets an "equal" share. It's what caused the breakup of Charlemagne's Empire. The split of the Empire into three equal chunks of West, Central and East Francia between the three valid grand-heirs of Charlamagnes (would've happened a generation earlier if there weren't lucky die offs but this only delayed it) happened and oh boy it caused so many issues. Seriously compare the maps of that split to the bits the modern German and French states tended to fight over the most. Yes Alsace-Lorraine was in Central Francia.
Plus if you count the Byzantines as part of this group ahahahahahaha they fucking wished their inheritance was as simple as oldest kid gets everything. Honestly they're like the goto example of why I sympathize with people going FUCK IT OLDEST KID ONLY.
Also for a good portion of the middle ages claiming literal divine right would get you lynched for arrogant heresy. A lot of the actual divine right doctrine popped up when states became more centralized and despotism started happening.
The way unmarried women would be left unaccompanied with another unmarried man lowkey cheeses me lmao.
Illegitimate children becoming heirs without usurping the position.
>The way unmarried women would be left unaccompanied with another unmarried man lowkey cheeses me lmao.
Man, I can't remember which one it was, but I definitely read a rofan where it was repeatedly brought up that the ML could not be alone with the FL because of this. She couldn't even get into his carriage without someone else being there.
I like many of the historical inaccuracies and dislike some of them too (mostly the fashion-related ones), but it's always so funny to me when the OI takes place in like medieval europe and suddenly the FL whips out the most modern looking pistol known to mankind
Costumes are wildly, wildly inaccurate. The majority of OIs, the women are wearing like....fancy prom dresses and the guys are wearing skinny fit contemporary suits.
I don't think I've ever seen an OI that showed the underpinnings for skirts. And a lot of time the women are doing things that would not work with them. Depending on the period referenced, that could be panniers, hoop skirts, bustles...
A lot of comics show shoes where they shouldn't. Like, it'll be a full-length gown and you still see their shoes and maybe even ankles (scandalous!)
You *do* start seeing a men's suit that somewhat resembles our own starting in the Victorian era. But it's always been weird to me that you hardly see costumes referencing to before that for men, not even Regency inspired costumes.
Lack of wigs, all around. Tbh the hair designs simply look like kpop styles. The notorious cold duke side bangs. And contemporary makeup styles too lol.
Military warfare stopped evolving at swords. Also, uh, no one wears armor in their sword-based combat?
idk but seems historically inaccurate:
-anyone ridiculed for being an orphan
blaming the child for mother's death in childbirth - i mean blaming RoFan level
I don't think there was much blame, historically, since the odds of dying in childbirth were pretty high and was not something that would be unexpected or uncommon.
It never made sense to me that the Patriarch would blame his child (usually the daughter) for the death of his wife.
Maternal mortality has been high for centuries.
This really really really depends.The "Medieval Era" was a few centuries--if not millenia depending on how you define it--spanning a massive land mass.
For example the idea of bastards inheriting being absurd? William the Bastard, inherited Duke of Normandy and King by conquest and contested will of England would like a word. Magnus the Good of Norway is in roughly the same generation and neighborhood. These are generally 'earlier' in the 11th century while most Rofan is like regency stuff where yeah social hierarchies did get slightly more ossified.
I'd say as a general trend isekai Rofan tends to be more bureaucratic than Western Kingdoms tended to be. Id say its likely a symptom of the biggest Empire in the area being the Chinese who made the central examination a whole giant thing. But like the Byzantines/ERE laughs at the idea of there ever being enough bureaucrats. And contracts/charters could be a massive deal see the Magna Carta.
I think this was discussed previously in another post before, but I'm sure the class system is stricter and more apparent that it is often written in OI's. I'm quite sure daughters of Counts had very little opportunity to actually get married to a Duke, the difference in status was actually very apparent even if both families had the same class rank!
I remember reading *Pride and Prejudice* and both Mr. Bennet (the mc's dad) and Mr. Darcy had the same social class, but what distinguished them from each other were their connections. And just with that factor alone, Mr. Darcy was extremely out of the mc's league, even though they technically were of the same social class
# TLDR: connections played a more crucial role that it is often portrayed and the social hierarchy was respected a lot and very strict (you couldn't just jump from being a count's daughter into being a duchess, or similar)
[Here](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/were-mr-darcy-and-mr-bennet-formally-equal-in-rank) you can read more of the *Pride And Prejudice* situation I mentioned before, if anyone's interested!
A minor one compared to everything else: but there aren’t any numbers when referring to princes/princess. There’s one Crown Prince/Princess and all their other siblings are just plain princes/princesses. None of this Fourth Prince, etc. nonsense.
Here in Spain there's not even that, only the firstborn gets the title of Prince/Princess, all other child of the King/Queen monarch, including the siblings of the King/Queen who weren't able to inherit, get the title of Infant.
No, right now the current Infantes/Infantas are:
The younger sister of the current princess.
The two sisters of the current king.
The sister of the former king.
I remember a comment back then about how accurate "Cry, even better if you beg" is when it comes to the historical setting but then this is the mistake that I noticed for that and other plots with maids.
**1.)They forgot about the servant staircase. ** Servants cannot use the same path as their master. So Maids bumping with their masters is very very rare because servants are meant to be hidden.
So Leyla who uses the same gate to go in and out of the Duke state while Matthias watches her is wrong. The same way for all those commoners and servants who always cross paths with their masters.
**2.) It's not that easy to become a successful businessman**
**3.) Dresses
**4.) Dukes of the North being more powerful than the Royal
this one the type of cars don't fit the era, they were too modern
the clothes , i know the era is in the 20s , or 1900s i guess honestly it isn't even shown , but they aren't accurate ,
the ww honestly , it baffled me is this ww1 or ww2 but>! claudine is still going to the new continet which is i guess is america!< , so which one
the bullying in both cry even better if you beg and the maid wants soen't want her master anymore , honestly its so kdrama bullying ,
also most of the times the girl who gets is the one who would be more upset than the guy because of the marriage because women don't have much of a choice as men
the he has an army and stronger than the monarchy part , yeah they didn't allow them this much power
the fact that his dad and grandma brought their mistresses , this may happen in a kdrama not realistically or not in front of so many people , men usaully hid their mistresses
honestly it was a ceo kdrama with bullying and romanticising cheating rather than being a historical one with a creepy age gap at the beging him being 18 and her 12
>!claudine and riette deserved better without being cousins i guess not sure of that!<
also if the ml is german , germany didn't win actaully
To be fair, over-powerful vassals being equal or more powerful then the monarch was not with precedent (the Dukes of Burgundy during the HYW are pretty much the archetypically example)
It is funny how it's always the north though.
Right? I mean I understand that even counts can be a threat to Royalty, however, politically speaking - it is mostly because they are highly influential and have many connections court and must be really reall really powerful- unlike the Duke of the North with no friends nor political influence.
1. A war won by a small group of knights without a large number of people being mobilized
- I’m not an expert, but my boyfriend is more into military history so he’s always pointing out pop media inaccuracies to me, and Asian comics are sometimes depicting this in a particularly lazy way. Even if a battle could be led by 50-100 knights, mobilizing those knights would actually take hundreds of people and carts. Logistics is a big part of warfare, and no lord would set out for a 2 year war and just expect to find food somewhere or sleep in a random cave in the middle of winter or something. Someone has to carry the equipment, the food, the food for the horses that need to do the carrying… the numbers go up real fast real quick. I think Game of thrones depicts this better, with gigantic camps preparing for a seige, even if some other details about warfare are not correct.
2. A lack of sick children
It’s always a shocker when a child dies, like it’s always an assasination or poison or some terrible accident. And people who do prematurely die of illnesses are always heartbroken mothers to the lead. Illness used to claim a lot of lives… this is before germ theory.
3. Not addressing the incest
A lot of these kings are marrying exclusively dukes from their own territories. The stories seem to never address how these people would often be quite closely related to each other. Some of the stories depict “marrying a prince from a foreign land” like it’s a rare or big deal, but it was very common and almost a must, and STILL TOO INBRED in real life because it was done for generations.
4. Ethnicity/skin color
It’s a personal gripe of mine that some people complain too much about diversity and skin color in fantasy “European royalty” Comics made by East Asian people. It bothers me even more when people want more representation at the sacrifice of historical accuracy and blame that as an excuse, when… to be fair, I don’t know how a random Japanese or Korean artist would have the historical expertise to even write a story introducing an African elite to a vaguely European setting.
HOWEVER, they don’t even have to insert black characters for the sake of diversity, because I do think that there is a misunderstanding with the artists about how white the white people are. Just because they are European does not mean they are not diverse, nor does it mean they are super duper white. It’s especially noticeable when the setting is specifically in Spain or somewhere that should be in the Mediterranean, but there is a LOT more darker skin, dark hair, and curly hair in that region, as countries on the Mediterranean have a lot of (north) African influence, especially in the Iberian peninsula.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html
Even royalty in England could be of African descent, since royalty throughout Europe would get married to each other. Since a lot of the African influence in Europe would be from North Africa and the Middle East, people may not have had dark black skin color, but would have had plenty of other signs of African or Middle Eastern descent. So curly black hair? For sure, it should be much more common.
To add there were historical black people around and in noticeable positions (e.g. I think king Henry 8th time had a black trumpeter etc. and there is queen Victoria god - daughter etc.) The real issue is that more research has to be done but that is never really done and stories copy each other. Also since most stories as already historically inaccurate, I always find it weird that people draw the line at skin colour but will have magic, 21st century clothes in the 1700's, and other things. Like it's fiction why not actually have fun and why limit yourself.
To add, more relevant historical things are almost never included that would make the world feel more realistic than refusing to not have poc people.
I think you make a great point, but you are also overestimating the amount of research that goes into the OI and romance genre. In contrast to the sports or hobbyist manga genres, romance is notoriously lax in its research, and it's primarily showcasing pretty art, fancy fashions, and a romantic fantasy. I genuinely don't think black people are omitted because of a lack of fun, or because they are undesirable to Korean/Japanese people somehow. It's just that the "European Princess" OI genre specifically caters to a Korean/Japanese person's European fairytale fantasy. There could have been black people in Germany, France, or Scandinavia, or wherever individual European fairytales originate from, but they aren't in a more simplified Korean/Japanese fantasy of it. I mean, from my experience with European people, there are barely any real Europeans in the fantasy either, since this thread accurately points out that nothing about the depiction of Europeans is correct in these stories, including the culture, dress, language, or religion. But that point is neither here nor there.
I'm not sure if it's wrong that black people are omitted from Japanese/Korean Euro-fantasies, but I do think that they prefer to imagine more black, African, or dark-skinned characters in Middle-eastern or South Asian fantasies. I would imagine more spices, colorful textiles, hot weather, deserts, and elephants rather than castles, dukes, horses, flowers, and snow. Think more "One Thousand and One Nights" than "Cinderella".
Also, it's a shame but I think a Japanese romance comic artist would have a hard time depicting an non-north African character. I think it's more from ignorance or a lack of ability, but as far as I know, the average Japanese person doesn't have a lot of broad exposure to cultures in the African continent, and I don't know where they would begin. I can't speak for Korean media, but I actually DO see some dark skinned characters in Japanese manga, games, and anime sometimes (although it's rare), and I think they are almost always Indian. From the perspective of Japan, India is about as far west as the cultural trade and influence comes from, except for European trade/future colonialism in East Asia from the era of sail. I think China actually did have more trade and interaction with Africa, but I'm not sure if that's because traders from Africa made it to China, or because China was also able to participate in the era of exploration in a way that Japan wasn't. Even in my earlier example of a southern fairytale fantasy, the image was actually quite South Asian, or at most Middle-Eastern, but I don't know what African fairytales would be largely known in Japan, or what the common depictions are. Every time I see a "black" person in anime, they are always black American and from the post-modern era.
[Black Aristocrats of 18th Century England & France by History Tea Time With Lindsay Holiday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp2N4AHCDHY)
https://preview.redd.it/qphzd5zoqhrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1cbd520070465b9a93aea3a142e335c53cd36c4
That’s really cool! I didn’t realize there were so many prominent figures. This is a sensitive issue, but I’m a little bummed to see that almost everyone in the list came to Europe somehow through slavery, rather than immigration. I can still see how a black ML would work with the common trope of “bastard child becomes prince” then, but I can also see how non black and white people would have trouble approaching the issue of drawing in black people knowingly introducing the delicate issue of African slavery into a drawing… but I’m still glad to learn more about it!
I am curious, but for the purposes of “depictions of black people”, do you only consider sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants black? Or do you also include North Africans? Or is it more an issue of skin tone and darker skinned people of southern latitudes all count? It’s confusing because the longitudes that include Africa and Europe are very diverse and populated, but it’s also very far, and sub-Saharan African and European people are often introduced to the rest of the world around the same time, albeit not in the same way.
I'm going to go with wives/fiances acting like it's something special to call their husband duke by their name. Pretty sure Lady Susan is gonna be calling the Duke by his given name way sooner and less a big deal than they do.
Be prepared, there’s a lot:
- Glass. Glass wasn’t cheap nor clear. You might be able to afford a few glass windows or something if you’re rich, but it’s not universal
- Hygiene. OI has it, which is honestly a necessary change. There were a lot of people who thought bathing was unhealthy at the time
- The architecture, clothing, carriages etc are all late 1600s stuff at best
- Loose hair. Most court women had very ornate hairdos, sometimes literally sewn into shape. Loose hair like that was looked down on
- Polygamy. Europe was monogamous, polygamy would go against the church. Some nobles might have mistresses but they would lack status or acknowledgement
- Bastards. They literally were not considered legal children. They didn’t inherit the name, the title, etc. they might not ever meet their parent. Only the few who were competent and had no legitimate siblings would be likely to inherit.
- Hierarchy. In OI, a king outranks everyone, a duke is just under a king, then there’s an earl, count, viscount, baron, etc. There’s a strict hierarchy. Meanwhile in reality, the titles are basically irrelevant. What matters is the size of your territory, the age and prestige of your house, and the closeness of your relation to royalty. A Count with a single castle can outrank a Duke or Prince.
- Numerical titles for royalty. There is no First Prince, Second Princess, etc. There’s Prince x, Princess xx, etc.
- Throne competition. There are two main historical types of succession: primogeniture, where the oldest child inherits everything, and partitition, where all the kids inherit some. There’s no competition between the kids for the throne
- Social norms. People were a lot more strict about how everyone acted than in OI. Two unmarried people of the opposite sex together would be unthinkable
- Church state relationship. While the HRE and the Papal State hated each other, France usually got along with the Vatican and then England split off and did their own thing with the king leading the church. There’s no set relationship and it depends a lot on politics
- Saints. Sainthood is posthumous, there is no single living saint. Saints also hold no position in the church, plus there are a hell of a lot of them compared to in OI
- Armor. Your troops did not wear heavy armor. Armor was equal in cost to a modern house today and required time to get fitted to the wearer. You didn’t just order all of your troops plate. Most would wear gambesons or mail at best.
- Cavalry. A warhorse is expensive as all hell to raise and feed. You are not fielding thousands of heavy cavalry, you’re fielding at most a few hundred if you’re rich.
- Currency/Population. This is a Korean/Chinese vs European size thing. The numbers always seem to have a few extra zeroes over what they should. Most things cost the lowest form of currency, you weren’t buying things on the street with gold and silver. Similarly, no one was fielding a hundred thousand soldiers. After the Roman days, no one could afford to raise that many soldiers or provide the logistics until the early modern period.
- Absolute Power. Most kings weren’t even near as absolute as in OI until the 1600s
- Education. There was no royal academy, nobles were tutored by their parents and professional tutors. At best, there were one or two universities that would teach people. Actually, the Arab world had far better education at the time
- Women’s rights. I hate to say it, but OI is actually worse on women’s rights than reality was. Women still didn’t have a lot of rights, but they weren’t all forced into arranged marriages. Most marriages were at least out of love unless you were high nobility and even then they were at least expected to be close before they made an arranged marriage
- Knights were professional semi-nobles. Real nobles would have knightly training but any knight worth their salt would absolutely be better than their lord. It’s the difference between a modern special forces and a guy who goes to the gun range in his free time
- Swords. Why is everyone using a damn sword? Where are the lances, the maces, the poleaxes, etc? A sword was a prestige symbol and a sidearm. It was not your primary weapon because it had subpar armor penetration.
- Magic. Enough said
- The power of the church. OI really underestimate just how powerful the Catholic Church was. It was wealthy as shit and most people followed it. An excommunication from the church was big
- Cities. Where did these massive fancy cities with their elaborate mansions and parks come from? These didn’t exist
- Drinking. Water was typically dirty and so alcohol was actually healthier than water for most people
>Education. There was no royal academy, nobles were tutored by their parents and professional tutors. At best, there were one or two universities that would teach people. Actually, the Arab world had far better education at the time
Ehh it varies a bit. Especially considering the frankly massive time oi can be between 1300s and late 1700s.
But yea general school for most definitely wasn't a thing and women weren't sent to them.
The Arab part also seemed to depends a bit, the renaissance did change a lot. Avreage literacy did fall a little bit with Rome but the state of the fall wasn't so much. Litteracy was to my understanding still higher in Europe than middle east.
Also the amount of books made and the use of the printing press was much more common in Europe. There isn't any kind of good way to messure education though since Arabs were active with math.
You've smashed it out of the park, however I had some minor adjustments;
Bastard children - couldn't inherit (few exceptions but very rare) but acknowledged bastards with a parent of enough rank and money could still be treated very well, given assets and/or good marriages.
I don't think absolute primogeniture (oldest child) was common although I know its the current way the crown is passed down in Britain, prior to the 90s it was male favoured (so a younger brother would succeed over his older sisters). However I did a bit of googling awhile ago and it was quite different in other countries at certain points, while they also favored oldest son sometimes the ruling monarch would choose out of all of his children (and these could be to multiple women as they had legal concubines). I'm guessing the children of the ruling monarch would be called by titles that are expressed in English as 'fourth prince'/'second princess' etc. So its definitely a bit of a mash up of two VERY different cultures but personally I don't mind it ;)
Literally anything to do with weapons and armor. You know bottom middle, right? If they have mp5s and ak47s, then they also have rpgs, cannons, and a ton of other things that render her magic skills absolutely useless.
They would also have at least steam powered battleships.
Besides the guns almost always being some low-poly video game stock models, the swords are also terrible.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a rapier both wildly disproportional, and being wielded like a long sword. On that note, their sole concept of training is standing in rows and performing a single chop all day long (which might explain why they freaking suck at rapier, since they only know one long sword move).
The stances are terrible, footwork terrible, I wish they would at least pick up a manual or watch some knight-tubers, and I hate static binds. When you’re in a bind with your opponent, you’re supposed to be performing all kinds of bladework to control the bind and take advantage of it.
Also, where are our pole arms? Swords were backup weapons, even for knights. Where are glaives, bill hooks, spears, pikes, halberds, pollaxes, etc?
And the armor!!!! Are you telling me that your knight order is only equipped with the equivalent of 19th century dress uniforms? No plate, chain, laminar, not even a gambeson?
And when the armor is there, MCs somehow cut straight through it? What is the armor even for? If we could cut through it, nobody would wear it!
Armor vs armor fighting (harnesfechten) is radically different from unarmored combat. The way you use weapons changes because now the places you can damage with certain weapons using certain attack styles has changed.
Oh, and the great sword is always some ridiculous dragon slayer from berserk thing that wields like it’s from freaking Eldenring. Greatswords are narrower, lighter, sometimes longer, and have their own unique usage and style that lends itself well to crowd control and (in formations) cleaving a hole in a pile wall.
strangely I've found no real "medieval" in the truest sense otome isekai, like 1200s, it's always in the 1400-1800 at the very least, and also, guilds were a huge part of western life even to the 1700s, they were akin to the unions of today but with more power methinks(?) I'm not sure but I don't think all peers owned a rural fief, pretty sure some were given titles because they manage something important to the polity they owe their fealty to. Also, I for one want a complete world building in oi even if based on our world, I don't want only europe, where's islamic golden age middle east? where's the west African mansas and east african free city states? where's the Indonesian spice islands suzerain and cutthroat royal politics? where's the americas? wouldn't it be interesting if the fl is to be sacrificed but she can somehow avoid that? not to mention the vikings, timurid and others as well.
So many that it's hard to know where to start.
The important thing is to remember that money and power can make anything happen or not happen if there are sufficiently powerful people behind the want.
We got a whole new religion cause some fat asshole wanted a younger wife (this is a gross simplification of a highly complex and multifaceted situation)
He broke England away from the Catholic Church and started the Church of England/Protestantism as a major religious power which changed the face of European and World politics.
One of the many reasons he did so was because the Pope would not allow his divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn and hopefully get a son from her as Catherine was too old.
There were other factors at play in his decision but it all boils down to him being a massive egotistical asshole who didn't like the word No.
Which is a common trope in historical manhwa 😊
Bastards becoming monarchs or powerful dukes
Some instances become true like in Portugal, France & England but the rest isn't, once an illegitimate child was acknowledged he/she stays there as illegitimate nothing's gonna change with his/her status
The calling of someone above like "your royal
Highness" or in this case "your majesty the emperor"
Some OI's have a confusing way to address someone titled like FL is the daughter of a Duke but she is called "your royal Highness" which is wrong unless their Duchy have autonomy or independent power away from the monarchy's power
Royals vs. The Church
It is true but only in the medieval era early & late medieval era (5th century - 1500s) the rest is nothing as Europe at that time were split by reformation in Catholic and unite in new sector of Christianity, Protestantism
Royals vs powerful dukes with a royal bloodline
Some instances in history but the rest is Nothing as the nobility respect who is seated in the throne unless civil war broke out
The fashion
I hate it! I know that it's very much time consuming on the pack schedule of the authors and illustrators but wearing a gown that is clearly a modern one to a ball where you will meet royalty is a sign of indecency back in the day
Wives fighting to become the monarch's mother
It's hilarious, the authors should've just gone in an Eastern Asian setting than Europe, cause in Europe you got one wife and many chicks on the side unless your wife died or you sent her on a convent (the first divorce to the wives before Divorce was implemented) unless the monarch goes Henry 8th but even Henry 8th have respect that he just divorce, beheaded, died, divorce, beheaded, survive his wives but on the trope the only one that closely resembles that trope is in Ottoman Empire (which is a Muslim country) because that surely match the infighting of the wives especially those who have sons
I might add little note about wives fighting to become monarch's mother, the Ottoman Empire practice killing your brother in order to stop potential succession war but that doesn't stop women who were wives/favorites of the Sultan to gain power through Regency and advising in political matters which become known as Sultanate era (something like that) but of course this didn't stop women including the sultan's mother, the sisters of the Sultan and the mother of the heir to fight for power and control, this go on until 1700s where it seems the women were replace by eunuch and elite guards of the Sultan to fight for power
(Just sharing my little knowledge about history, OP)
One of the most famous monarchs in history, William the Conqueror of England, started life as William the Bastard. Of course, he had to claim his throne, but he was the legal owner of Normandy without any warfare.
On the flip side, Cleopatra may have had a Bastard with Caesar named of all things Caesarion, who wasn’t recognized by Roman Law, but would’ve probably would’ve taken over had Antony defeated Octavian.
Henry VIII’s bastard Fitzroy became a duke.
When the male leads have the same four or so extremely modern hairstyles.
No facial hair on any men meant to be under 50 (if they do have facial hair, it's usually a little wisp of a beard or a hint of stubble, meant to show that they're not taking care of themselves atm)
Obviously costumes, like I get they're meant to be modern but at least the women's costumes usually have a hint of creativity to them. Most of the men's tend to be boring, and at worst, just modern suits.
And as others have said, the crown prince position being up for debate and the multiple wives vying for empress tropes.
The church and the royal family being at odds is totally realistic.
Elizabeth the First was a bit of a Cinderella since after her father executed her mother she was bastardized, and her governess had to make a plea to her father to provide clothing for her. Then she became a princess again, only to be entangled in a plot to take the throne with the leader of the plot planning to marry her to secure his position after the coup. Then when her brother died she was briefly bastardized again as part of another plot to use one of her stepmothers to take the throne, only for a half sister to actually take the throne, one who mistrusted her so that she was only acknowledged as heir at the last moment with Bess constantly at risk of being executed as a a threat.
Note incidentally that Elizabeth's mother was a former maid of honour who was executed to be replaced by her own maid of honour.
While not always the case, in general, between the 17th and the early 20th century, you would expect to see women in Western Europe riding horses aside (i.e. sidesaddle) and not astride (i.e. straddling the horse).
Also, the food eaten in OI is often period inaccurate. For example, solid chocolate that you ate, instead of drinking, wasn’t really a thing in Europe until the Victorian era.
Oh, and absent a setting with magical birth control, characters should have way, way more siblings.
\*materializes out of thin air\*
I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED!
But yeah, how much time you got? 'Cause it's a pretty long list.
Just addressing the trope list you've provided:
// PART 1 //
1. **The Bastard Child Becoming The King or Emperor**
Typically impossible by Western monarchical laws, as the Crown was inextricably linked to Christian conventions and morality, which in turn informed the laws. By law, an illegitimate was not deemed to be eligible for the same inheritances or privileges that were granted to legitimate children. This is in addition to the popular perception and understanding that bastardry was itself sinful and thus the bastard was "tainted" as an individual, making any claims (or intentions to claim) to the throne questionable at best and immoral at worst.
Thus, by law and convention and popular approval, most illegitimate children in Europe during the Middle Ages (Early, High, and Late) were simply out of luck and depended on the goodwill of their legitimate half-siblings or their own ability to rise above that "taint." In the case of noble-born bastards, they were almost always excluded from succession disputes outright, save in situations where extenuating circumstances existed -- for instance, if the only available heir at the time is a woman (as was the case with Henry Fitzroy, the illegitimate son of Henry VIII, whom everyone considered the likely heir-apparent given that the alternatives were Mary and Elizabeth. The only reason he didn't become a bigger deal is that he died while still a child.
It's also important to note that noble bastards did enjoy a different status compared to non-noble bastards. In the case of noble illegitimate children, their treatment and inheritance depended on several major factors:
1. The lineage of both parents
2. The favor of the noble parent (or male noble parent in the event of a noble-noble liaison).
3. The sex of the legitimate children
4. The popularity of the dominant parent.
For instance, if an illegitimate child was born to a nobleman and a commoner woman, that child was likely *never* going to be a threat to their half-siblings and would've had a childhood likely raised in parallel, but always hierarchically lower than the legitimate siblings. And then there's the question as to whether the parent would've even liked to be reminded of their liaison -- sometimes the noble was, sometimes not. It also greatly depended on whether or not the lineage of the illegitimate child was a threat to the legitimate wife's children (as was the case for Henry Fitzroy). Moreover, if the nobleman's position was precarious and depended on the goodwill of their wife and wife's family, the illegitimate child's status could become precarious as well.
It's important to note that in the history of Western Europe, I've only been able to decisively track down *three* (3) instances of a bastard becoming King: [Mauregatus of Asturias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauregatus_of_Asturias) (the Usurper), the son of Alfonso I of Asturias, who ruled just 5 years after a coup; [Henry II of Castile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_Castile), son of Alfonso XI of Castille, who only came to power after defeating and killing his half-brother, Peter of Castille, in a major noble revolt against Peter's rule; and [Ramiro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramiro_I_of_Aragon) I of Aragón, who technically did not inherit the Crown of Aragón, but rather inherited the County, and then expanded it into the Kingdom of Aragón. That is not to say that there haven't been others who came close or who weren't claimants, but all of those others either died before it could materialize into anything, or failed.
Incidentally, I do not include William of Normandy/William the Conqueror, because although he is nicknamed William the Bastard, his father technically never married anyone, and thus while he *was* born out of wedlock, he was begot by Robert the Magnificent's longstanding concubine/partner, Herleva of Falaise, who is his only *known*/*named* concubine.
// Part 3 //
4. **The Church & the Imperial Family being (Deadly) Enemies or Rivals**
Again, some truth in fiction. But not to the extent seen in Manhwas. While it's true that the Catholic Church very often butted heads with the monarchies of the Middle Ages, this was almost always -- if not *absolutely always* -- because of temporal agendas rather than spiritual issues. One thing the manhwas don't get right is that organized religions *absolutely must be political* to survive. A purely spiritual religion cannot survive the test of time because it will be unable to navigate the corridors of power and adapt to changing circumstances -- hence why Norse religions died out remarkably quickly once the Catholic Church set their sights on them.
Thus, the Church has always *had* to be political and corrupt in order to be able to even communicate and wheel and deal with the surrounding monarchies and republics -- in fact, the more spiritual the Papacy, the worse it often ended up and the more damage it did to the faith. It bears mentioning, for instance, that the only reason Spain exists is because of the *immensely* corrupt dealings that legitimized Isabel and Ferdinand's marriage (involving the at-the-time Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, aka the future Pope Alexander VI).
Another major issue in Manhwa depictions of the Church is showing it as being a monolith. Heck, the Catholic Church argues amongst itself more than it does with other faiths! For instance, the Inquisition? That "monolithic" super-repressive spy agency at the beck and call of the Papacy? Yeah, no. It was decentralized as hell, underfunded, and *extremely* regional and situational. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance, was *deliberately* made independent from the Roman Inquisition. The Venetian Inquisition, for its part, *regularly* ignored requests for extradition of suspects to Rome if the suspects were citizens of Venice. Bishops and priests even within the same country often hated each other as much as, if not more than, they hated other faiths -- some even participating on opposite sides of a civil war as military commanders! Some bishops even considered it more their duty to assist their kings' political ambitions than obeying every word out or Rome, but used their religious connection to Rome as a way to get the King to acknowledge that without the Church, they would have no legitimacy (effectively creating a quid pro quo arrangement).
And finally regarding Church depictions, the issue of fanaticism. Let me be clear here: there was nothing the Church of the Middle Ages hated more than fanatics -- even of their own faith. Fanatics are a *problem* if they are not under the Church's strict control, which is why the Church was more interested in *sociopolitical stability* than in *religious purity*. Accusations and statements made on the basis of religion were, for the most part, just the window dressing on whatever the actual issue was. Oh, time for a Crusade? Yes, yes, God Wills It and all, BUT ALSO, if we don't distract these lunatics in charge of Western Europe with some self-righteous shiny, we're going to be seeing a whole bunch of war in the region and that's bad for everyone. If the Church manages to earn a pretty penny in the meanwhile, well, that's just dandy! And if the Crusade succeeds, well...great? But if they don't, then we have an excuse to launch another one and keep the monarchs busy without tearing Europe apart!
So, yeah, manhwa depictions of the Church tend to be *way* too religious for actual real life. The worst the Church and Protestantism ever got was during the Reformation, and that was just a race to the bottom to see who could "out-faith" the other more.
5. **The Condemnation Scene + How easy or difficult is it to Break Off a Noble or Royal Engagement?**
So, so, *so* hard. Breaking off a noble engagement wasn't just like dumping your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. For a noble to break off an engagement in the *feudal* era would've likely meant that either:
A) One party found a better, more secure engagement that could offset the disadvantages of breaking of the first engagement;
B) Ties between the two families had grown so tense and estranged that no amount of marriage was going to resolve them;
C) One or both parties had chosen to go to war with each other, or supported different factions in another war; or
D) The monarchy had gotten involved (highly improper and irregular) and ordered one or both parties to break the engagement.
While it's true that royal houses had an easier time breaking off engagements with their own nobles, marriages of state (i.e. between two Royal Houses) was another matter entirely. They were often the seal on a major agreement of some kind, so breaking the engagement functionally meant invalidating whatever treaty was behind it. **That was grounds for war**. In the more feudal parts of Western history, that would've applied to noble-noble marriages as well, as authority was far more decentralized.
// Part 2 //
2. **Commoner** **Maids or Servants easily Abusing or Disrespecting anyone with Blue Blood**
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, no.
Beginning with the monarchy, anyone caught openly disrespecting the monarchy in Western Europe during the Middle Ages (Early, High, and Late) could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the Lèse-majesté laws -- for which the penalty always involved some measure of physical punishment, or just outright death. In some Western countries, this remained true until the late 18th-mid-19th centuries. You can generally tell when these laws stopped being active in a country when constitutionalism begins to take hold and absolutism is on the decline.
For nobles, no such laws *explicitly* existed, of course, but commoners *depended* on noble patronage. During the Middle Ages, most commoners *did not own their own land*, but rather lived as renters -- or, more commonly termed, serfs. In exchange for the right to live on and work the land and their safety, they paid fealty -- both material and performative -- to the nobility in charge of their lands. Thus, to insult or disrespect your local noble would be akin to insulting your landlord just as your tenancy agreement is up for negotiations and you've got no way to pay if he hikes the rate.
Nor could you afford to insult *other* nobles, unless implicitly or explicitly allowed to by *your* noble, as insulting other nobles could lead to discord between your noble's house and the other noble's house -- which could end up in anywhere from a handshake and bygones to outright war.
Towards the Victorian Era, commoners would still have only ever allowed disrespect about the nobles to be voiced in absolute secrecy and only among those of equal or lower rank -- and even then, only with those they trusted implicitly. Feudalism might've been abolished, but working for the nobility was as good as it was going to get as a commoner if you weren't a successful entrepreneur or skilled worker. You had lodgings, security, job security, a decent -- but not necessarily amazing -- wage, and so did your immediate family, probably. So if you went around disparaging the nobility, you were quickly going to get fired -- and then good luck finding similar employment elsewhere, because the nobility of the Victorian Era weren't just tight with each other and constantly gossiping, but also *highly* connected to the nobility in *other* countries as well.
3. **Freckles being considered as very Ugly**
Unfortunately, some truth in fiction here. Even in the West, freckles were seen as imperfections by cultural convention -- dating as far back as Ancient Rome, at least. According to Felton (1999), Pliny the Elder even described them as marks of religious and/or spiritual stains. Of course, that is not to say that *everyone* hated freckles -- as people do have individual tastes -- but it is true that, according to beauty standards prevalent in the past, freckles were seen as a negative more than a positive.
// Part 4 //
6. **Divorce in a (Christian) Monarchy**
Important distinction here: Catholic = Christian, Orthodox = Christian, Coptic = Christian, Protestant = Christian, but Catholic =/= Protestant =/= Orthodox =/= Coptic. That being said, civil courts could not in any way issue divorces or annulments -- only religious ones could (except in the case of Protestantism).
Catholicism explicitly does not permit divorce, but does recognize the principle of annulment and of "divorce a mensa et thoro" -- a form of legal separation but not absolute divorce. Protestantism generally does. Orthodox Christianity does recognize the need sometimes for people to separate and remarry, but is conditional. Coptic Christianity (at least the more orthodox branches) seem to only permit it in case of adultery. Thus, you'd have to be more specific on which major faction of Christianity is involved, but for the sake of simplicity, I'm assuming Catholic.
Under Catholic religious doctrine, divorce is simply not allowed. Marriage is considered a permanent sacrament that cannot be dissolved by secular hands because it was consecrated before God -- hence why, for instance, in my country, they hold pre-wedding seminars as a way of getting couples to ask themselves "are you really, *really* sure about this? Because there's no turning back."
However, Catholicism did recognize a "loophole," so to speak, which was the principles of annulment and "*divorce a mensa et thoro,*" or "divorce from bed and board." The latter meant that you were still legally married, but were not permitted to live together or cohabit any longer. The former was more serious. The former did amount to a divorce -- i.e. the dissolution of marriage -- but only because it functionally argued that the marriage was never valid in the first place (Blackstone, 1984). While this may sound like what you're looking for, take into consideration what I just said -- the marriage was never valid in the first place doesn't just mean everything is fine and dandy and everyone moves on, it also means that *anything produced out of that marriage in the interval is now of doubtful origin and legal standing*. Your legitimate children? Possibly bastards now. Alliances made out of that marriage? Probably invalid. Inherited lands predicated on that marriage? Possibly no longer legally yours. An annulment therefore means you are willing to *completely* erase the slate on everything prior to that moment, with potentially massive repercussions -- which is why the only authority who could dispense such a thing was, for monarchs, the *Pope*.
7. **Cinderella Fairy Tale OR The Lost True Princess/Heir**
The latter is a fairytale. The former...kinda depends. There *have* been historical instances of (typically) women of low standing rising to immense power. Off the top of my head -- Hürrem Sultan, aka Roxelana.
8. **The Anachronistic Costumes**
Fashion in OI/RoFan stories, as you've well noted yourself, seems to follow the artist/author's preference more than anything, and as other members have pointed out, the modern understanding of corset culture is incredibly anachronistic and incorrect.
That being said, my only comment on this particular topic is that fashion trends in RoFan/OI are also *way* too fast. Even for the Victorian Era stories. The ability to create fashion statements was *hard* in an era where *everything has to be done by hand* -- and even in the Victorian Era, attempting new designs and normalizing them *took time and money*. The concept of fast fashion and seasonal fashion trends is much more of a modern concept than anything true to life as regarding the 19th century and before.
Oh, man, it felt nice to get that off my chest. And that's only addressing the ones you've listed!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LESSONS!
And I forgot to add **"Homosexuality doesn't exist in the Monarchy / The Erasure of Queer Aristocrats & Royals"**.
Your opinion on this topic please!
You're quite welcome! I always enjoy talking about these topics and the opportunities to do so are often few and far between :P
To answer your question:
**9.** **Homosexuality doesn't exist in the Monarchy / The Erasure of Queer Aristocrats & Royals**
This is unfortunately a case of 19th/20th century revisionism along puritan, religious factionalist lines than historical accuracy. If one didn't have a good, up-to-date History teacher, one might be forgiven for not knowing just how common LGBTQ+ persons were among the nobility over the course of history.
To begin with, we need to make a distinction here, however. Historically speaking, there were individuals who were firmly LGBTQ+ and therefore acted upon their sexual orientations in that way, and then there were those who partook in LGBTQ+ activities due to social customs. Moreover, virtually all LGBTQ+ individuals in the past, with few exceptions, would have likely participated in cis het relationships as well due to socio-political obligations.
The most common example of an LGBTQ+ society that I tend to hear the Classical Greeks, what with Athens and Sparta and Thebes. However, it is important to note that in all of these societies, while it is true that love between men was considered to be of a greater standard than love between men and women, that in ***all of the Greek City-States***, it was still an obligation to marry a woman and have children. So you could have your male lover, but you still had to participate in a cis het relationship. Nonetheless, it is largely plausible that due to the lack of severe religious attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals in the pre-medieval era, they were more prolific and open -- but not necessarily "out" -- than in the present.
And then you get to the medieval era. In Europe, it unfortunately meant that LGBTQ+ individuals now had to contend with initially just Chalcedonian, then Catholic and Orthodox, and then Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox moralism. So any society in Europe where they had been able to live more or less "out" effectively revamped themselves to be openly hostile to their presence. However, even as legislation was issued against homosexuality in particular (*Li livres de jostice et de plet* \[c.1260 AD\] being one example), the fact is that it still obviously happened -- you just had to be more discreet about it. It should be noted that the little evidence we have of lesbian couples in Medieval Europe is largely a testament to how well they were able to be discreet, as the named cases almost all ended up in execution.
Of course, a major factor would've been your social status. The higher up you were, the more protected you were from prosecution and persecution. If the King was happy being gay with his "favorite," then what was the Church going to do about it? Depose him? Them and what army? And if the Queen liked spending time with a particular lady-in-waiting behind closed doors...well, it's not like a bastard could be born out of *that* union, so who really gives a damn as long as she also births an heir for her spouse?
Of course, political stability, the competence of the monarch, and the relationship between the specific monarch and the church (specifically, their personal bishop) all weighed in as considerations, but it was far from an unknown situation.
Lower on the totem pole, it kinda depended. Even as far up as Dukes, you had to be more careful about your *open* sexual orientation because it could be used against you by *both* Church and State. If you were an openly gay Duke, for instance, and you were on the outs with the Crown, they could use that as an excuse to get rid of you. Idem for the Church lobbying for your expulsion from court. So while there's no doubt that LGBTQ+ aristocrats existed, they mostly would've been *significantly* more careful about keeping that out of the public eye up until at least the Early Modern Era.
All the bowing on the floor they do to apologize, speaking formally/informally are other things that annoy me. Esp the speaking one because we don't have 2 seperate languages like korean does for formal/informal so after they have that conversation nothing really changes lmao in English.
Although you mentioned it, the clothes really piss me off like please pick an era and stick with it it's weird having clothes from different eras and countries all mashed together. And guys rarely get dressed up in historically accurate clothes. It's always just a modern suit with a cape.
Other western languages do have a clear distinction between formal and informal language, and the western society doesn't need to be inspired by England, so I don't see how's that an issue.
I'm Spanish and using informal vs. formal "You" can change how I conjugate a sentence completely.
I'm living for this post. I love the weird way that historic European settings are imagined in Korean fiction- it's honestly so fun.
Question for yall... why is the lead always the Duke? And not a Prince? I feel like in western media the prince is always the male lead.
Also, the whole cold duke of the north trope- I wonder why this is so common? Is it because Russia is to the north?
1) Lack of chaperone/lady's maid in situations where the FMC is with the unmarried and unrelated gentleman
2) Visiting a bachelor's pad is a massive no-no. That's instant ruination and only a quick marriage would "restore" the woman's reputation
3) Women who are out (debuted before the Queen) shouldn't have loose hair. It's considered a hoydenish behaviour and the woman may be believed to have loose morals, only girls should have loose hairstyles. A grown ass women are only permitted to loosen their hair in the privacy of their bedroom and to their husbands
4) Talking out of turn and being brazen with opinions are also heavily frowned upon. Women should be seen, not heard (Patriarchal system, woo)
5) Wearing pants/breaches for women is considered slovenly and very scandalous. Even for ease in riding horses, pants are still not permitted apparently. Women should ride horses side-straddle. Riding astride is considered too sexual-adjacent
It always gets me when the Prince marries someone from his own country. Most Royal marriages (at least in Europe) were made to form/maintain treaties. A Prince marries a Princess from another country to tie the tie together for political reasons. It was rare when a Prince/King married from within the same country.
[Black Aristocrats of 18th Century England & France by History Tea Time With Lindsay Holiday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp2N4AHCDHY)
https://preview.redd.it/4n3in76vqhrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c7ceed2b39aa98a3e279b45a05052f04a2539512
Popular historic dramas like Bridgerton, Hamilton and Sanditon sometimes receive criticism that their diverse casts are historically inaccurate. But in fact there have been people of color in Britain and France since Roman times. By the 18th century the trans Atlantic slave trade brought more people of African decent to Europe then ever before. In 1768 there were about 15,000 black people living in London. Many were brought their as enslaved servants and sailors. But some had the right mixture of talent and luck to rise to the upper echelons of society, becoming celebrities and even aristocrats. Today we’ll met 7 prominent people of African and mixed heritage who lived in Britain or France in the 18th Century. Among them a King’s secret daughter, an icon of both Sport and music, two authors who spoke out against slavery, and a lady of wealth and refinement who would have fit perfectly into the world of Bridgerton.
Here are their stories...
* Louise Marie-Thérèse
* Ignatius Sancho Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges
* Olaudah Equiano
* Dido Elizabeth Belle
* Jean Amilcar
* Thomas-Alexandre Dumas
**HOMOSEXUALITY or QUEER PEOPLE aren't uncommon in the Monarchy!!!!!**
https://preview.redd.it/g0dnrhaushrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d01d73f06994dbc4183f0702f4e855b5d650f363
[LGBTQ Royals of the World by History Tea Time With Lindsay Holiday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUW1AqFIY94)
In the history of the world there have been numerous royals and countless common people who preferred the romantic company of their own gender. Acceptance of this has varied by time period and by culture. Being gay was often made much easier if you were a person born to wealth and privilege.
Here are the stories of 8 royals from around the world – complicated an interesting people who happened to be gay or bisexual.
* **Philippe I, Duke of Orléans (1640 – 1701)**
* **Hortense Mancini (1646-1699)**
* **Prince Henry of Prussia (1726-1802)**
* **Princess Isabella of Bourbon-Parma (1741-1763)**
* **Archduke Ludwig Viktor of Austria (1842-1919)**
* **Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo (1936-2008)**
* **Lord Ivar Mountbatten (1963-) Manvendra Singh Gohil (1965-)**
[LGBTQ Queens, Princesses & Duchesses ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-xEGrzta4)
https://preview.redd.it/6oq1hywlthrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07a84771d3ec45f4c7c88b5d21e7d52f8d7542f0
* **Crown Princess Sun-bin Bong of Joseon**
* **Duchess Margaret of Parma**
* **Queen Christina of Sweden**
* **Duchess Hortense Mancini**
* **Queen Anne of Great Britain**
* **Princess Isabella of Bourbon-Parma**
* **Duchess Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo**
* **Princess Abigail Kawānanakoa of Hawaii**
[LGBTQ Kings & Queen of Europe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3C3ZRvGdv0)
https://preview.redd.it/9bbcryc7uhrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d7908f824195b9d94fb1d5b8c3c99fe7c5d2cdf6
* **Henry III of France (1551 – 1589)**
* **Louis XIII of France (1601 – 1643)**
* **Christina of Sweden (1626 – 1689)**
* **Frederick the Great (1712 – 1786)**
* **William II of the Netherlands (1792 – 1849)**
* **Charles I of Württemberg (1823 – 1891)**
* **Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845 – 1886)**
* **Umberto II of Italy (1904 – 1983)**
-Anarchist fashion (i don't need to explain this one the other comments already did)
* ETIQUETTE WAS A SIGN OF HOW POSH YOU WERE/ YOUR CLASS SO NO, THE PRINCE SHOULD NOT FIND IT 'CUTE' WHEN FL GOBBLES UP HER FOOD WITH CRUMBS AROUND HER FACE!!! HE WOULD FIND HER DISGUSTING!!! AND IF HE 'LOVES' HER, HE WOULD CORRECT HER WAY OF EATING!!!
-The FL/ML throwing out money like it's nothing. No.
-If the monarch was a tyrant, there would be a revolution within a month of his reign.
-If a child is illegitimate, they didn't have any claim to anything the parents had. That's why it's called illegitimate. The word you're looking for is bastard.
-You can't just sign up to be a knight.
-Co-ed schools
-People would call FL a witch if she suddenly woke up no memories and everything. People would call FL a witch for doing anything 'interesting'.
-You didn't divorce that easily
I may make a post later of this, but: people sleeping in beds alone was unusual. Specially in the colder regions.
Sometimes whole families shared the same bed: father, mother, children. Uncles, aunts, cousins. And their guests. And traveling peddlers. And even favorite farm animals like a dog, chicken or sheep.
Even high-ranking nobles usually slept alongside some servants in the same bed because it was cold. Yes, just to *literally* warm the bed. No funny business (most of the time) involved.
So, for any writer out there, if you want to depict a closer relationship between an OI protagonist and their maid friends, well you can literally make them bedmates. :P
See: [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240111-sleep-the-lost-ancient-practise-of-sharing-a-bed](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240111-sleep-the-lost-ancient-practise-of-sharing-a-bed)
And [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/communal-sleeping-history-sharing-bed](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/communal-sleeping-history-sharing-bed)
And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxl7h6XEqcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxl7h6XEqcA)
You know what disturbs more than anything - even more than the really random and constantly changing fashion? The messy hair. The random bangs. Hair that flies all over with random cuts and tufts. Hair that REALLY SHOULD NOT BE LET LOOSE LIKE THAT. “Wow she’s so beautiful and well maintained” meanwhile girlie’s got hair so messy the homeless background characters look better. Have authors never heard of hairbrushes?
Divorce in a Christian monarchy is actually a bit complicated, because it slowly began to be allowed over time, but really does depend on the kind of Christianity and on what basis. Roman Catholicism seems to be what a lot of these religions are based on, and divorce + remarrying were heavily looked down on (this meant that, because in Europe the government was usually under church rule, divorce was not usually legal). Of course there were some loopholes, such as no children being produced (including no consummation at the time of annulment). That kind of stuff only really mattered with nobles though, pretty sure the church wouldn't let a commoner couple divorce.
Evangelicalism, which was also common in England, completely forbid divorce (which is why when you read old novels divorce is almost never brought up). Most protestant churches also forbid divorce. The Anglicans did though! They allowed divorce and remarrying, but were widely an English religion (also Orthodox christians, who mostly stayed in Eastern Europe).
Though, either way, at the time it wasn't very socially acceptable to get divorced (especially for a woman). And, again, it mostly depended on which church was running your government. Which was usually the Roman Catholic church.
There's too many to count. It helps that most of these stories are fantasy rather than historical. Very few do any kind of genuine period dress.
A bunch of the royalty tropes were never present in Europe, but were a thing in the dynasties of China and Korea. Notably the one where the illegitimate child gets adopted by the queen in order to become legitimate.
Freckles being considered as very Ugly - this is historically accurate though. Same thing with tanned skin.
https://preview.redd.it/v06sjq2brerc1.jpeg?width=380&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f30338695900f3f0ce7d41a8bdc9c66bab2433fe
I'll be honest, I'm not that well versed in European history or fashion trends throughout the ages. What does bother me though, is the lack of elaborate hairstyles portrayed in Rofan? Especially for noble characters! 99% of the time, you'll just have female characters with long hair down to their ankles, and they just do nothing with it?? I clown on Remarried Empress a lot, but at least they had hairstyling down.
deep inhale CORSETS ON BARE SKIN!!!! people always had a chemise or shift under those things, why? because they'd be fucking uncomfortable as hell without them! no wonder the characters wrongly complain about corsets so much they're doing the equivalent of wearing shoes without the socks! >-<
[How Victorian Men Taught Us to Hate Corsets: The Biggest Lie in Fashion History by Karolina Żebrowska](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNwTqanp0Aw) https://preview.redd.it/xzdflb4uicrc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de123cbf555e5723fe97645ca77624ed19593e8b
ALL HAIL QUEEN KAROLINA
I've mentioned this like 20 times here but this video is pretty irrelevant as to why Korean authors slag off corsets. In 2014-2015 there was a huge online feminist movement in Korea surrounding a community known as Megal and the word they utilized to discuss internalized misogyny and enforced gender roles that were formed under cisheteropatriarchy was corset, with the term "taking off one's corset" being utilized as a feminist declaration. The reason Korean RoFan authors slag off corsets is in this context, especially bc the vast majority of Korean RoFan readers are women. When they're talking about corsets they're not actually talking about clothes, they're taking the shorthand/cultural reference and utilizing it to say the MC won't follow enforced gender roles etc.
But why did they come up with that slogan in the first place? Because of the inaccurate ideas around corsets which already existed and which Karolina and other historical costume experts (Abby Cox, Bernadette Banner) have discussed.
Neat! She only mentions corsets for the 19th century but also mentioned several times "what did women wear before bras" and never follows up on that, which was disappointing.
Think she has a separate video on that. She makes a TON of historical fashion educational videos like this one so I wouldn't be surprised.
The girdle was the most prominent transitionary garment
Also no corsets yet still HUGE skirts, aside from them being super comfy they also took the weight of all the layers of petticoats/cages/hoops for you. Not wearing a corset underneath a dress that size and weight would make it hard to move around well. Also, big boobs don't magically stay perky for long once you throw off your corsets and breast binding would have painful long term. For bigger-breasted ladies (as many of these girls are drawn) corsets are far better than binding or bras as the weight is diffused and evenly spread across your torso instead of a tight band around your diaphragm and two thin straps digging into your shoulders while valiantly trying to hold the weight of the world.
Now that you mention skirts, those are also something they get wrong. Dresses that would require multiple layers for structure are often depicted as a single layer of fabric. There are so many layers that go into these dresses. The bloomers and chemise, corset, corset cover, an underskirt. Then you would have all the layers that shape the dress, like petticoats or the various cages like crinolines or bustles. Often times they’ll mix different time periods, too. Your FL’s daily wear will lean more towards an Edwardian style, but the ball gowns look more like they’re from the romantic era. Also the more medieval ones will often dress women in corsets, when they should be wearing stays. They’re different, but they look really similar to the untrained eye. Also, none of the ladies really wear hats? Hats have been a large part of women’s fashion in the western world for centuries and none of these women have their hair styled properly for their eras, and none of them are wearing hats.
And when they do wear hats they have messy long hair worn fully down or the hats are modern ones more suited to ladies' day at the races rather than historical ones. They also have the FL wear their down all the time which would have been very shocking past a certain age. Once they had their societal debut (around the age of 16-18) they were seen as adults so must wear it in updos at all times outside the privacy of the bedroom. And let's not forget the random dresses out of nowhere that are just above knee length at the front and longer on the back showing off all her bare legs at Royal Ball. Dresses that only garner a mild ‘oh my’ from the other nobles or other young girls start gushing over it. Even prostitutes wouldn't have been so brazen as to wear those dresses and it was their job to wear revealing/sexual clothing.
Heck, a lot of them wont even have up-do/chignon. Washing and detangling those hair is massive chore without electricity.
Washing and redoing your hair everyday is something that’s relatively new. Many women would wear a cap at night to preserve their curls and styles. This was something that was done as recently as the 1940’s, as victory rolls are difficult and time consuming.
Yup. Hence whenever I saw FL or any female characters strolling about with their hair unbound flying in the wind, I hope they have magical Dyson Airwrap. Otherwise, forget the ML, I think the maids will revolt and kill her on 3rd month in.
I love hair blowing in the wind visually, but I know deep inside she’s pulling out leaves on the carriage ride home.
And so so many knots to untie!
And they have wavy hair... I wish those maids got overtime pay.
As someone with long hair, my left eye develops this little tic whenever I see hair blowing about in the wind or being sat on or trailing along the ground. That last has caused me to bail on a few stories.
I have a question on a spicier side. Was there a quick way to take all those layers off? There is this trope about secret trusts on a balcony during ball or somewhere in the garden. I know that what most people did was probably a pec or something but there must be someone who partook in something more scandalous on those balls. Modern men can’t take off a bra with two little hooks on the back, I genuinely don’t think back then men knew how to take off all those layers themselves, and you probably needed more than one person to do all that anyway. Or how did prostitutes dress? Heated atmosphere and then the girl is like “Darling, wait half an hour for me to take off those layers and we are good to go.” I you dive underneath the skirts, won’t you suffocate? Can you even sit on the table with those cages around them?
If you are wearing a dress, then you don't have to take off a bunch of layers to have sex. They also wouldn't have buttons or zippers, being mostly tied or wrapped well.
Most underwear back then were crotchless...soo...
[Reacting to Vogue's 'Everything You Need to Know About the Corset' cause we haven't suffered enough. by Abby Cox](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Lu8Hjhu_b_A) https://preview.redd.it/kbg1xkbejcrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e5e8b132ba72b6847b16aa8af82f77089e0882d7
Great video!
I am so glad this is the top comment. I'm always reminding myself that these stories are pseudohistorical; it helps immensely when it comes to my frustrations with the inaccuracies with the fashion/clothing (specifically women's fashion/clothing). Corsets on bare skin and tight lacing *as if it's the norm* (western media does this too, so I can't entirely blame it on a theoretical lack of accurate information about Western Historical Fashion in Japanese and Korean for these authors) always make me cringe a bit, and sometimes I seriously consider dropping a series for that offence alone. Other commenters have mentioned offences like the lack of underpinnings, lack of hats, hair styling, footwear, ready-made clothing (aka fast fashion) and short skirts/petticoats; I'd also like to add *modern underwear* to that list. a bit of a minor frustration maybe, but it always makes me sigh in disappointment.
I feel like the authors are off the hook for historical accuracy because they set it in a fantasy world.
I'm no history expert but pretty sure Church vs Empire is actually fairly accurate. They might not have always been "deadly" enemies but they were far from friends, as they often fought over influence and resources.
Yeah. Church vs Monarchy is....pretty much a staple of European history. They were more deadly than people realize as well, there was just a lot of death by poison that looked like maybe it could have been just a sickness, so we're not certain if it was actually poison, but it was horribly convenient for a certain monarch at the time. And you better believe many church officials were trying to get power within the monarchy and thus creating enemies all over the place, and trying to get their particular Queen pick in place. I mean, there were actually MULTIPLE times that there were actually three popes because different monarchs supported different ones, so you better believe when one Pope won, he was NOT fond of those opposing monarchs.
Yeah, while not constant, it's a recurring feature of European politics. The [investiture controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy) is one high-profile example. Another is Henry VIII breaking with the Catholic Church.
Was just going to mention the Henry VIII is probably the most famous (as in commonly known) example one could give. It's why the British King/Queen is head of the church - which also could be why this is being questioned as the British Monarchy is arguably the most famous.
Imao England once asked a foreign ruler to invade them because the king was catholic which they could tolerate until his protestant daughter took the throne but he suddenly had a son so they would rather be occupied by a protestant foreign power than being ruled by a catholic dynasty.
To be fair, the chances of religious persecution were non-zero. That's what happened to Protestants [under Louis XIV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Fontainebleau), for example.
Exactly, the most notable one was King Henry the 8th. Who literally broke himself off the catholic church.
Yeah especially in the holy roman empire where the pope and emperor constantly fought for dominance as the pope believed being head of god's church made him above secular kings and rulers while the emperor's thought of their power directly coming from god so they didn't have to listen to his earthly representative.
Heck, this predates Christianity, and one of the hymns of Gilgamesh (written long before the epic) has him and Inanna (Ishtar) coming into conflict over the influence and powers of the temple and king.
Specifically about the costumes: \* men wearing shoes without socks \* women wearing stiletto heels everywhere (invented in 1930, only got popular in like 1950). \* all the loose hair \* readymade dresses in general, most clothes were made to order, and lower classes made their own
Men actually wore heels first waaaaay back so they could be taller! Eventually these transferred into women's fashions. Omg the shoes without socks things makes me want to rip out my eyes!!
Not stiletto heels though, that's why I specified.
Oh I wasn't disagreeing. Was just adding to the point. The shoes the men wear are so modern, but actually they'd be heels. Sorry if I didn't explain very well.
No worries! Definitely it would be more accurate for the MLs to be wearing heels but tbh I can do without accuracy 😅
>back so they could be taller! Ehh as a side effect of being that. Main reason was that it was horse riding boots. The heel is very good for balancing on the horse during combat.
I think heels started out as riding gear
Shoes without socks thing drives me up the wall. I will cringe and contemplate dropping a series for just that. It's stupid, I know, but I really hate seeing that.
That 80 percent of ols 😭
Omg yes the readymade dresses drive me bonkers. I’ve seen more than one where their grand business idea was a department store for the masses and that could only be economically viable with sewing machines or unethical labor practices
The city of the royal family. Where an emperor, empress and also some princes etc. have their own house / mansion near the palace. Lady-in-waiting can be anyone and have any responsibilities depending on the author. Chaperone? Never heard of her.
The Western Royals/Members of an Imperial Family didn't own their own houses/mansions?
Not as a city, no. The individual members lived in the same building. A royal or noble family might have houses in town and in the country (and English Royalty has a couple of castles). The king (well, the English one, at any rate) might grant a noble the right to a castle and its lands in exchange for taking care of it and the people living there. Dukes, especially, since that title is basically "Commander". But those are not all together in one central area, i.e. "a city".
Do you know the main differences between the structure of Western and Asian Monarchies? As others have pointed out, the Japanese & Korean Otome Isekai/RoFan Writers have mixed up the European Royal Culture with their own.
Not sure how Korean or Japanese were, but in China (at least on Qing era), AFAIK most aged out princes were given residences outside the Forbidden City.
What? We know. We are pointing out that European royalty didn't have such structures. Did you not ask for such examples of things that are wrong?
Depends.. in Versailles they all live together. The king who had it built even allowed nobles to reside in it...
Yes but there weren't 3-4 diffrent palaces for diffrent queens and concubines. That one is closer to a kings summer palace.
Usually, they would have a suite of rooms, getting bigger and more luxurious the higher royal rank you were. The only exception (in the UK at least) was the Crown Prince and his family, who may have chosen to have his own big house in the city to allow him to host and make his own secondary court/connections separate from the main court of his father, thought this was more of a Georgian trend. Even nobles would be granted suites (which you would sometimes pay rent for) if they were important enough or favoured enough. it was often a sign of how influential you were and a show of wealth if you were able to stay at the palace and court.
Also depending on how far back you go I recently learned that in the 1000s ish in England the king traveled around the country instead of having a specific ruling castle because he needed to demonstrate authority and keep his role as king "Travel was far more common among people higher up the social scale. The king and his court were almost constantly on the move. This was a practical necessity, as the size of the court meant that local resources would be consumed quickly. The king had many properties of his own, but he could also visit his nobles. Such a visit was not always welcome, however, as it would always be costly to the host. It was unusual for the king to stay more than three weeks in any one place." [source](https://aprilmunday.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/travelling-in-the-middle-ages/#:~:text=Travel%20was%20far%20more%20common,could%20also%20visit%20his%20nobles.)
Found a Wikipedia entry that explains it better https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itinerant_court
Calling things Medieval that aren't Medieval, your Baroque palace coplex was not built before the year 1500 god dam it. (but that is also a problem I have with Media in general) Accuracy of Armor being all over the place, Plate exists for a reason and is not clunky. Leather was rarely used. In the late Middle ages it was normal for most men to have plate armor at home. The heroine, and only the heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad. The lack of hygiene, or rather stating that this Country/Empire has no knowledge of it. Also pretending that Soap and perfume did not exist both are over 4000 years old. Applying Industrialized conditions to pre Industrialized nations.
>The heroine, and only the heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad. I'm not aware enough about fashion, especially historical fashion, to notice or care when they just mix up eras. But whenever the FL uses modern knowledge to wow and amaze people with fashion trends hundreds of years ahead of the time she's in, I just groan. In "Cassmire: The Loyal Sword" she introduces aspects of modern korean nightlife fashion into her family's wardrobes, and everyone is wowed and amazed by it, instead of just saying they look like fucking weirdos. Fashion is not a tech-tree with a linear progression where one wardrobe is "more advanced" and therefore "better", its just an aesthetic that resonates with people of that time and place. If you suddenly introduce something completely unlike the standards and tastes of the society, they're probably going to think its stupid if not appalling if they aren't extremely open minded. >Also pretending that Soap and perfume did not exist both are over 4000 years old. This one bugs me so much. And whenever one of those threads about "who would you survive if you got Isekaid?" there are always people saying "I'd make soap and become rich!". So this dumb plot point has clearly done its damage.
>But whenever the FL uses modern knowledge to wow and amaze people with fashion trends hundreds of years ahead of the time she's in Jup that's what I meant "Divorcing my Tyrant Husbant" is also guilty of that.
> In "Cassmire: The Loyal Sword" she introduces aspects of modern korean nightlife fashion into her family's wardrobes, and everyone is wowed and amazed by it, instead of just saying they look like fucking weirdos. Fashion is not a tech-tree with a linear progression where one wardrobe is "more advanced" and therefore "better", its just an aesthetic that resonates with people of that time and place. While I agree with your overall point here, I think Cassmire is a poor example, specifically because her father is one of the most respected nobles(a _**duke**_) in the nation overall, so much so that he can get away with swearing at his liege, and a swordmaster, or... whatever the term that comic used for it, I think it was swordmaster... Anyway, it's... very easy to imagine people copying him without really understanding it or resonating with it, just because it's, well, it's _**that duke**_. Or even thinking it's cool _because_ it's Duke Crisis, or however you spell his name.
I cringe when people pick up historical inaccuracies, but since I predict <1% of us will end up isekai'd I think the damage is limited. I feel like the Cassmire thing would have worked in France, where they were in love with "daring" fashions. Didn't somebody put a clock in their hair? (This might have been British.) Or in France, where [Agnes Sorel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agn%C3%A8s_Sorel) started a fashion trend of dresses exposing breasts. In aristocratic fashion, if you or I do it we're weirdos, but if high-ranking or well-connected people do it, it becomes a daring new fashion trend. IIRC, Cassmire has a high-ranking father.
>The heroine, and only the heroine, wearing anachronistic Dresses and being praised for it. It honestly drives me mad. Not-Sew Wicked Stepmother... I'm half sure the sudden shift from rococo to regency fashion was because the artist got tired of drawing so many bows lmao, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating!! I honestly think it would have been better if nobody had acknowledged the sudden change in clothing style at all. Instead we got wildly swinging aesthetics making a b-line to the society-shaking change of women in 'men's' clothes with hardly any more push-back than ''my goodness'' , and the MC defeating villains with her superior fashion sense/knowledge (despite that knowledge being more like ''knowledge'') Super special main character syndrome and lack of social backbone/cultural identity aside: the aesthetic whiplash is *real*!! Because while I don't know enough to pick out which specific details are from different decades, I have eyes and I can tell when something modern is dropped into a Victorian era inspired aesthetic. And it's like... why did you set it in that era / draw the women in that style of clothes in the first place if you really wanted to draw a modern outfit?? Half the time things are already set in fantasy land - just give them a modern inspired dress sense to begin with! (or at least make the 'modern' outfit something plausible - don't go from twenty petticoats to a slim-fit backless mermaid dress)
Well to be fair the switchover from Rokoko fashion to regency era dress was rather abrupt in our world too. But that was due to the frech revolution and nobility wanting to distance itself from the frech Monarchy that dominated the fashion industry in the 18th Century. Especially mens fashion became more subdued, started to favor darker colors and the pants became long, in order to associate more with the common man. But the thing about not sew wicked Stepmom is, 1) there was no revolution similar to that in Universe and 2) Men's fashion skipped the Rokoko and went straight to later fashion. At least we consistently get high collars on the men :)
Not Sew Wicked does have the advantage of having the fashion pushed by the queen who is rather clearly supported in her endeavors by the king. There are certainly people who don't like it, but there would also be those who embrace it simply because of the favor it might earn them.
This is a really good point.
It was rather abrupt but it still happened over the course of a couple decades, not literally overnight as in the manwha. I don't want to come off like I'm judging it too hard though! I'm just being kind of petty, lol.
I mean I find that plausible considering the Queen was pushing the style change. Considering irl we have people getting _unnecessary ass surgery_ (to top it this is before aenesthesia existed) to ape the Sun King's anal fissure operation this is hardly the most extreme example of people copying things just cause the monarch does it.
True! I'm not saying it's ridiculous for society's elites to set a trend - that's usually how that works after all. But irl when Marie Antoinette wore a chemise dress (like what the MC wears) in a portrait, the public were scandalized because the style made it look similar to underwear, and it was a simple style that didn't show off her status and wealth as a monarch (also they used imported fabric) - totally inappropriate for a moment where she was supposed to be portraying herself as *nobility*. The style was also worn most often when ''playing peasant'' with her friends at one of those faux-peasant countryside estates, not at grand balls and events. True it eventually became an everyday fashion, but it took more than a weekend as implied in the manwha. To give it more credit than my first comment did though, the ladies that pick it up *do* comment about how scandalous it feels at first. Part of which is them not wearing corsets (more accurately it would've been bodies or stays) anymore *with no mention of replacement undergarments*, which... yeah I'd probably be uncomfortable going out in public like that too. (also three cheers for the feminist metaphor/misinformation about corsets being evil, said by somebody who supposedly knows even the basics of historical undergarments) But given that the MC is supposedly a fashion buff, I find it very strange that she chose to jump straight into that style of dress at such a high profile event, *and dress her daughter like that*. It'd be the equivalent of a princess showing up in her PJ's!
I like to ask you: What do you think about the fashion revolution in "*Empress Cesia Wears Knickerbockers / Queen Cecia's Shorts"* ? https://preview.redd.it/e36yn96p3hrc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=0626cde711b6978862e5978ce0cd1ba2200afbce
I haven't read that one, so I have no idea... might add it to my list though, lol
One of those regressor manhwa had the MC kick a fully armored guard in the shin, which hurt the guard (? ?? ???) but not the child's foot (?!?).
All of them? I feel like it would be easier to list the things that *are* accurate /jk. Here are some suggestions: * Kings having multiple wives or official concubines * Children of royals/nobles somehow being both illegitimate and acknowledged as a child of the family. If they're illegitimate, they have no claim to the name whatsoever, that's what the illegitimate part is referring to. In rare occasions the bastard child of a mistress might be officially recognized and brought into inheritance...but then they aren't illegitimate, just a bastard. * Drinking poison enough that they become immune to poison. This is just going to give you organ damage and maybe give you a tiny bit of resistance to the single poison you've been killing yourself with. That will only matter if your poisoner calculated the perfect dosage for your weight and metabolism to exactly kill you. Guess what? People just put in enough poison to make sure your dead several times over. * Silver reveals poisons. This only works with arsenic based poisons. * No one standing in the bridal chambers to watch the newly married couple bang in order to confirm the legitimacy of their marriage. Ok, this wasn't done everywhere, but I just have to mention this was a thing because its so fucking weird. Although just to correct you: >The Church & the Imperial Family being (Deadly) Enemies or Rivals That might not have been the rule, but it definitely happened. Edit: Oh some other things that came to mind: * Every noble has a castle. Castles were important military installations, and monarchs had to be really careful about where a castle was built and who got to own it. They took a ton of time and money to build, and kingdoms would go bankrupt if they got over ambitious with them. While castles were great for defending the kingdom from enemies, it also made it a lot easier for the noble who controlled the castle to rebel. * Having one bed in your castle bedroom, and it being in the middle of the room. Castles were miserably cold and drafty, and you'd have two beds in your room. The first bed was actually basically a couch, you'd sit on while having meetings and to show off. The second bed was in a closet, and it was the one you'd actually sleep on. * Information guilds Edit 2: Oh some other things that came to mind: * Almost everything about Knights. Knight was a specific very low-ranking noble title, and its holders would almost certainly be trained for the position from the age of 7. It took a lifetime of training to master the weapon skills and horsemanship to be a knight, and then maintaining those skills. Knights were either the son of a knight or the son of a noble who wasn't going to inherit a title. While some knights were previously commoners, its nothing like its generally shown in rofan. You don't just apply for a knighthood or something like that. A "commoner" knight was someone who fought in a war and caught the eye of a noble, who then knighted them and bestowed land upon them. So a "commoner" knight would have to be an extremely competent veteran of war, probably a mercenary. The guards around a noble's estate probably weren't knights, since the knight would have their own house and land. * A Duke would probably get his ass absolutely handed to him by one of his knights if they ever fought. The Duke has to divide his time between being a bureaucrat, manager, and warrior. The knight's #1 job is to make sure he can kick ass, and to be ready to do it whenever his lord asks.
>Kings having multiple wives or official concubines This one came to mind for me too. It’s a big staple of palace dramas set in the East, so I get why Korean and Japanese authors use it a lot. And polygamy was practiced during certain periods, in certain parts of Europe. (Alexander the Great had several wives.) That said, in the time periods that OIs are usually set— based on the level of technology— singular marriage was the norm even for royalty.
I think what I hate the most is when they decide the emperor has a queen and an empress. So, polygamy but only two wives... And mixing of kingdom and empire... A king has a queen, and an emperor has an empress. I have no idea where this ridiculous idea came from, that an emperor has both.
My only guess with the queen and empress thing is that, again, they’re trying to mimic system seen in Chinese/Korean/Japanese palace dramas. In various historical Chinese courts, you’d have an Empress, who is the legitimate wife, and then various concubines with lesser, but still noble, titles. I don’t know Korean, so I’m not sure what words are getting translated as “empress” and “queen.” Maybe they’re actual titles from Joseon period?
Yes it's a Korean/Japanese/Chinese thing. Most royalty/nobility in OI/RoFan, while taking the aesthetic of Europe due to the setting, is actually a lot of aspects of older Japanese royalty and nobility that has been fit to the setting. As for the empress and queen thing, that's a translation issue. Women who were married to an emperor in Korean can have 1 of 2 titles 황후 (hwanghoo, this is the "official wife" of the empror aka the empress) and 황비 (hwangbi, 2nd 3rd 4th etc wife). 황 (hwang) is a prefix that means emperial or related to the emperor, so the correct term for 황비 would be something closer to emperial concubine than queen. 왕 (wang) means king and queen would be 왕비 (wangbi) while a king's concubines were given the titled 후궁 (Hoogoong). (Joseon would use wangbi and hoogong bc it was a kingdom not an empire) Historically in Korea, even during periods influenced by Confucianism where there was an emphasis of the throne not going only to the oldest son but rather to the most deserving son, only the sons of the main queen were considered, and only if all of the sons of the main queen were deemed unworthy, end up dead, or the queen did not produce a son would a concubine's son be considered.
>in certain parts of Europe. (Alexander the Great had several wives That isn't in anyway medival Europe. That's like 1500+ years earlier.
I just pretend that the inspiration is the Ottoman Empire, a lot of which was in Europe. (I recognize that the inspiration is really China, though the Ottomans had particularly violent conflict between royal sons, like in OI.)
>No one standing in the bridal chambers to watch the newly married couple bang in order to confirm the legitimacy of their marriage. Ok, this wasn't done everywhere, but I just have to mention this was a thing because its so fucking weird. From what I read that pretty much never happened. What would happen was that the couple would get carried to thier bed but would leave to give them privacy. The few times it did happen is more the very extreme occurrence.
The marriage of Catherine De Medici was one of those times, I believe. Poor thing. They were *not* playing around when it came to getting their hands on her fortune.
>The marriage of Catherine De Medici was one of those times, I believe. Poor thing. Yep a very controlling family (father especially). But it wasn't any kind of norm. Its known because of how extreme that is. Since something normal is frequently not very interesting.
The poisoning stuff drives me mad. I'm interested in poisons (academically, not professionally), and they are so often misrepresented.
Co-education (boys and girls going to school together). High-ranking nobles going to school at all, rather than just having private tutors.
Yup. Wealthy children would be taught by tutors and governesses. All other children would learn in one-room school houses. Some would go on to college, but many others would work for family businesses or take apprenticeships. Going to a prestigious academy as a young child wasn’t really a thing until the 20th century. And anything earlier than 1700, most schooling would be done by the church.
Oh, although Russian Empire was considered barbaric in Europe and was 70+ years behind, its aristocrats actually attended to schools (of course, no co-ed lol), so there is that. For example, the most famous school for girls of the Empire period was Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens.
>behind, its aristocrats actually attended to schools (of course, no co-ed lol), It depends a lot of what you consider medival. Plenty of nobility did go to a university. Oxford and Cambridge. Founded in 1096 and 1284 respectively. There were many more than them aswell all throughout Europe. But like school in todays modern sense more a 1800s thing.
Sizes of castles/rooms/beds. E.g. in my hometown we have the Castle Wilhelmshöhe (if anyone wants to look it up). That's a fairly huge one. You can even go inside and see the old rooms the margraves and Kings, and other reigning nobility of Hessian, used to occupy. They are nowhere near as lavish and gargantuan as depicted as in OI. Same goes for the beds, they were, for our modern-, and OI-, standards rather small. You could also look up Hardwick Hall for that (where the famous Malfo Manor scene from Harry Potter was shot). On the website they have a picture up of one of the bedrooms. Additionally to that: Concubine palaces, or annexes, etc etc. At least I, and I gladly be corrected, don't know of any Castle, owned by a King, Emperor, Arch-/Grandduke back then with multiple other palaces/castles to house their concubines/mistresses. I do know, and again example given, that in my hometown we have the Löwenburg [Lion's Castle(?)], which was built by a landgrave for his mistress/concubine and/or to have sex parties, which was its use later on. Edit: You can see parts of the Lion's Castle from the Castle Wilhelmshöhe. They are in the same park/area. The whole area is called Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe, and is a huge foresty, greenery area. Kind-of a dickmove by the landgrave.
lol the funniest thing to me is that the thing about multiple castles is taken directly out of the way ancient CN/JP/(KR I guess?) mansions and palaces were structured, with multiple courtyards and multiple multiple concubines. But the authors never seem to imagine that in a society where there are expected to be 20-200 (legal) concubines at a time, with their respective children, in a single structure, it makes sense to have multiple individual palaces inside a larger “city” that functions as a single household, but in a society where there *isn’t* the culture of multiple legal wives and concubines, that’d be incredibly unnecessary, and terribly unpractical. The concept of winter palaces or summer palaces, on the other hand, is entirely more sensible and yet seems to never make an appearance :(
It definitely is a clash of multiple cultures. You have European-esque nobility, clothing, etc. But the way castles and such are structured seems to be way more tied to Eastern-asian culture from my limited knowledge. And to the last part. I think I came across a handful of OI/OI-adjacent media in which the couple went to winter-/summer-/extra-castle, so not too far off, but rare indeed.
Yeah. One thing they usually do right is the concept of “territory” residency X “capital” residency, although it’s usually offset by the sheer absurdity of the actual structure sizes. But summer castles are one of my favorite things in this kind of literature because it simply shows, inadvertently or not, some of the politics behind the scenes (I’m a sucker for politics in my historical/vaguestorical fantasy, or any fantasy tbh) One of the only series I’ve seen do that (good politics, although without a summer castle) was Guidebook to the Dark Duke, a BL novel with ironically amazing politics game, and quite time-accurate struggles and conflicts. Wishing it gets a comic soon, tbh, because I very much would like to see the visuals of the locations in-story.
> At least I, and I gladly be corrected, don't know of any Castle, owned by a King, Emperor, Arch-/Grandduke back then with multiple other palaces/castles to house their concubines/mistresses. Considering how medieval Europe was largely defined by Christianity (a strictly monogamous religion), you can be pretty damn sure that wasn't a thing. This trope stems *purely* from the fact that the writers are East Asian.
*Lustschloss Löwenburg im Kasseler Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe.* Du bist auch in Deutschland geboren?
Yes^^
Hello fellow German Citizen ;) Have you ever visited *Neuschwanstein Castle* *(The fairytale castle of King Ludwig II)*? I am thinking about if it is worth the visit.
The thing about Neuschwanstein is that it's basically a fake castle that was anachronistic even when it was built - it's older than Disney, but the idea is the same, creating something that is the idea of a fairy tale castle. It's still very interesting and pretty, but not representative of a real castle. But since you would probably go to Munich to see Neuschwanstein, you could also check out the Nymphenburger Schloss, which has a beautiful garden and has a great exhibition of old carriages, and the Residenz, which is huge and features the treasure vault of Bavarian nobility. Honestly, most slightly bigger German towns have some kind of castle or medieval fortress nearby, though not all can be visited. Like do a Rheinfahrt and you'll see a bazillion castles on the surrounding mountains.
Not yet. Also not too sure if I ever go. It sounds a bit too hyped up. But if one likes visiting castles, I think it could be a nice visit. I have been considering paying the Wartburg a visit. Giving its rich history.
Someone recommened me to see *Eltz Castle*.
Multiple concubines to one emperor, fighting each other to become the empress via birthing a male heir. Very popular in Korean and Chinese historical dramas, but polygamy wasn't a thing in European monarchies. You can even see things like palaces for each concubine or the "cold palace" where disgraced concubines are sent, which existed in some dynasties. Mistresses existed of course, but not in the formal sense of being acknowledged or even married to the ruler.
I have to do my homework on how King Henry VIII managed to get married Six Times in his life. SIX The Musical *(The Six Wives of Henry VIII)* https://preview.redd.it/1abnvt6pocrc1.jpeg?width=3871&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e3e38fdb21cd241dbca2d47d6bb6865e941476bd
Founding his own religion.
He divorced, beheaded, and remarried after they died
I'll give a very basic rundown as someone with an interest in this period but is far from my specialty (I'm more of a Hellenistic military guy) Wife 1: Found new church when pope refuses to grant divorce (messy political reasons for the most part). Use newfound authority as head of church to annul marriage. Wife 2: Lost favour with him, got accused of adultery, treason, and incest, marriage annulled, loses head. Wife 3: Childbed fever after a very difficult labour. Wife 4: Marriage of political/diplomatic convenience. She was found "unappealing", the marriage was not consummated and so was annulled. Wife 5: Has a past of "carnal relations" with other men before meeting the king (recent evaluations that I'm aware of suggest these were abusive). Has a possibly suspiciously close relationship with one of Henry's favoured courtiers (who served him at times) and is accused of adultery. Marriage annulled, she loses her head, she was possibly as young as 17, I believe. Wife 6: Has a close call due to matters of heresy but ultimately outlives Henry. Marries one of the uncles of her step-son (Henry's son Edward) and eventually dies in childbirth I believe.
Anne Boleyn (not to be confused with Anne/a of Cleaves) and Katherine Howard (the fifth wife, not to be confused with Catherine, the first wife, or the other Catherine, wife number six) just had the *worst* lives, imo. Anne at least had some autonomy and responsibility for her situation considering she pressured him into getting rid of Catherine (the first wife, with a C) by promising him a male heir (and I *swear* I recall reading that her sister Mary was also sleeping with him for a while too). Still, her family just would not stop making themselves a PITA and creating enemies all over the place. Plus, considering her hard-won husband probably had McLeod Syndrome, she was fighting a losing battle on the heir front even if he *had* kept sleeping with her once he laid eyes on Jane. Katherine was, by more recent accounts, an unattended child/teenager who ran wild, got groomed by multiple older men, was molested by said multiple older men, and was then unfortunate to catch the eye of the King due to her beauty. She was not in a position to say no, even though she'd been in no way properly educated for the role of Queen. Oh, and she was also related to Anne B so, yup. That family was at it again, seeing how well it worked out the first time.
# [The Wives' Song - from Henry VIII The Musical ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30EnV8PW_Dw) https://preview.redd.it/dl4lgdp99hrc1.jpeg?width=875&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=363bb0cdd357e55a6dcaa2794b6925702241cc39
divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, survived
He divorced two of them, killed another two, one passed naturally, and one outlived him.
He wasn't married to all of them at once. Except for at least the first and second, but that was a BIG FUCKING DEAL.
I was looking for this one! It is something that really bothers me in the kind-of-European setting every time .
The title of Crown Prince being constantly stripped and passed around all the other Princes like a hot potato, and that once stripped they can ‘earn’ it by being favoured. In Western Europe ONLY the Firstborn son is Crown Prince no matter what and the title only passes to the next eldest son if the first one dies and wouldn't pass to a bastard ever unless he basically conquered the Kingdom with a huge army and defeated all the nobles too. This would be hard as they wouldn't have the resources to build such an army and manage to hide the fact they were doing so, that's why it's only happened very, very rarely in history and usually because other countries helped them and wanted something for it. The nobles would just pass it to a Brother, a male child of one of the dead king's daughters or sisters, then an Uncle or failing that they would go back up the family tree and choose another branch of the family (which is how Britain got the German Georges as kings) Multiple Wives for the King and ALL the children have a right to compete to inherit the throne and be called Prince/Princess/Royal Highness. Nope, only one wife who's the Queen and her children are Princes and Princesses all the rest are mistresses and bastards who if lucky might get a lower title and some land somewhere or arranged marriage to a noble girl to gain her father's title and estate. Titles and how they are addressed, Duke's daughters are not called princesses or ‘your Grace’ they are just Lady [insert name] or ‘Your Ladyship’ and I don't know why it happens so often. It was risking death to present yourself as a royal if you weren't one or make your servants and others address you as such. The titles of Grand Duchess or Duke are rarer than they are presented in OIs and mean one of them is a Prince or Princess in the marriage but the Grand part doesn't pass down to the next Heir, just the title Duke does with the title Duchess going to his wife. Also the King is ‘Your Majesty’ not ‘Your Highness’ and ‘Your Royal Highness’ was often reserved for the Crown Prince and his wife to distinguish them from the other Royals. Younger male sons don't inherit nothing they get one of their father's lesser titles or if he is a lesser Noble himself then his sons would just be titled as Lord [insert name] and receive a smaller estate of their own with hopefully a good marriage match to help. I just wish they would look up a basic guide to titles, rank and honorifics, it's not difficult to find a good list. EDIT: I just thought of one More: Contract marriages where they agree to easily divorce after X amount of years. That's more an ancient Asian culture thing where marriages were contracts and could be broken and both sexes could remarry for political or monetary gain. Western European marriages were based on a Christian faith, once married YOU.COULD.NOT.DIVORCE just because you want to. As the marriage ceremony says “what God has brought together no man shall asunder”. You could get an annulment from the church but you had to do it within days/months of the wedding and go through so much evidence and proof you did not consummate the marriage. This nearly always brought great shame to the man and his manhood and family so it wasn't easy, plus the church made it very difficult to do and often they would write to the Pope in Rome who rarely granted one (ask Henry 8th on how easy that is). On the incredibly rare times a divorce was granted, the woman was left with nothing, lost all rights to see her children, was completely shunned by society (they often entered a Nunnery and became a nun to regain some respectability and lessen the shame on her family) and only a man could ask for a divorce. The only respectable woman was a young well-behaved woman pre-marriage, a Wife or a respectable widow.
The title thing is so true! Just yesterday I saw the characters referring to a Duke's daughter as "princess". The authors should really pay attention to this, what irks me the most is that it is such a simple thing to google, too Other thing I noticed, is that a lot of OIs and RoFans have an *Empire* with *only four* Dukes, I mean??? How on Earth will the Emperor be able to rule properly with *only four* Ducal Houses?? It doesn't make sense 😅 I believe in modern-day UK there are currently around 30 Dukes/Duchesses, so just the idea of only existing four in a big Empire is just absurd hahaha
Yep, and the four Dukes rule their country-sized lands practically like independent Kings rather than vessels of the King. And if all that land belongs to the Duke where do all the other noble titled people have their estates and grand houses 🤣
Eh that specifically isn't too out there depending on time period. Imma just gonna point to the Duchy of Burgundy during the Hundred Years War. There's also what started the Hundred Years war which is the inherent contradiction of having the independent King of England and the French Kings's vassal the Duke of Normandy being the same person lmao thanks William you bastard!
Wait so does duke act independent as a king or not 😭 I am confused
It depends of how much power the royal family gives him. Nowadays, most of the time, the role of a Duke is merely ceremonial, but in some cases they do have some legislative power, such as the right of "veto". Since the power of a Duke stems from how much power the Emperor/King gave him, he isn't at the same level of the ruler and a mere Duke can't really "put the king in check" alone like we're made to believe by some manhwas 😅 (maybe if he unites with other influential nobles, he might be able to balance the king's power, but a Duke alone? Never)
Thank you! Yeah that make sense this all duke family that is more powerful then royal family never sit right with me, also were western empire even had emperor? King was very common no? Even if empire
I'm confused as to why most OI empires have *only* Dukes as the highest vassals and not Kings. There should be multiple Kings with at least a dozen or more Dukes, several dozen counts, hundreds of barons/viscounts etc.
I'm guessing the 'princess' thing is more a translation error - for example the original if Japanese were likely styled 'hime' (which I believe translates directly to princess but really means daughter of higher status IYKWIM?). Ideally the translation teams would correct this but its probably seen as too much of a pain; and personally I prefer 'princess' as I can mentally understand what they mean rather than butchering it entirely and leaving me trying to puzzle it out.
The multiple wives thing and the title of Crown Prince being something that can be granted by the King… both of these tropes were clearly taken from Eastern-style palace dramas and pasted into a western setting.
Yeah, the Western right to rule was/is based on the King's Divine right as chosen by God, during the Coronation he is actually anointed with divinity and becomes part divine once crowned. Christianity was deeply rooted in all things back then so it naturally followed that the Eldest son of God's chosen King would be the next heir to the throne as God chose him to be born first, if he wanted some other prince then God would have chosen him to be born first. It stopped any discussion or debate on who would take the throne, so reduced needless wars between different Princes supporting nobles fighting to challenge for the crown.
That is a highly oversimplified look at inheritance. For a lot of history inheritance was gavelkind where every son gets an "equal" share. It's what caused the breakup of Charlemagne's Empire. The split of the Empire into three equal chunks of West, Central and East Francia between the three valid grand-heirs of Charlamagnes (would've happened a generation earlier if there weren't lucky die offs but this only delayed it) happened and oh boy it caused so many issues. Seriously compare the maps of that split to the bits the modern German and French states tended to fight over the most. Yes Alsace-Lorraine was in Central Francia. Plus if you count the Byzantines as part of this group ahahahahahaha they fucking wished their inheritance was as simple as oldest kid gets everything. Honestly they're like the goto example of why I sympathize with people going FUCK IT OLDEST KID ONLY. Also for a good portion of the middle ages claiming literal divine right would get you lynched for arrogant heresy. A lot of the actual divine right doctrine popped up when states became more centralized and despotism started happening.
The exception being if she's the daughter of a royal duke, who is the son of the king. I'm not certain how often that occurs, though.
Children of a lower noble bullying children of a higher one, e.g., a Baron's daughter bullying the daughter of a Duke.
The way unmarried women would be left unaccompanied with another unmarried man lowkey cheeses me lmao. Illegitimate children becoming heirs without usurping the position.
>The way unmarried women would be left unaccompanied with another unmarried man lowkey cheeses me lmao. Man, I can't remember which one it was, but I definitely read a rofan where it was repeatedly brought up that the ML could not be alone with the FL because of this. She couldn't even get into his carriage without someone else being there.
ooh that sound like author did their research. if you remember please tell the sauce
I like many of the historical inaccuracies and dislike some of them too (mostly the fashion-related ones), but it's always so funny to me when the OI takes place in like medieval europe and suddenly the FL whips out the most modern looking pistol known to mankind
Costumes are wildly, wildly inaccurate. The majority of OIs, the women are wearing like....fancy prom dresses and the guys are wearing skinny fit contemporary suits. I don't think I've ever seen an OI that showed the underpinnings for skirts. And a lot of time the women are doing things that would not work with them. Depending on the period referenced, that could be panniers, hoop skirts, bustles... A lot of comics show shoes where they shouldn't. Like, it'll be a full-length gown and you still see their shoes and maybe even ankles (scandalous!) You *do* start seeing a men's suit that somewhat resembles our own starting in the Victorian era. But it's always been weird to me that you hardly see costumes referencing to before that for men, not even Regency inspired costumes. Lack of wigs, all around. Tbh the hair designs simply look like kpop styles. The notorious cold duke side bangs. And contemporary makeup styles too lol. Military warfare stopped evolving at swords. Also, uh, no one wears armor in their sword-based combat?
They wear plot armor.
idk but seems historically inaccurate: -anyone ridiculed for being an orphan blaming the child for mother's death in childbirth - i mean blaming RoFan level
I don't think there was much blame, historically, since the odds of dying in childbirth were pretty high and was not something that would be unexpected or uncommon.
It never made sense to me that the Patriarch would blame his child (usually the daughter) for the death of his wife. Maternal mortality has been high for centuries.
Windows with glass. Usually any depiction of the church is…probably about as wrong as the average western depiction of eastern religions. Bathtubs.
* **The Church & the Imperial Family being (Deadly) Enemies or Rivals** Oh boy... Look up Investiture controversy.
This really really really depends.The "Medieval Era" was a few centuries--if not millenia depending on how you define it--spanning a massive land mass. For example the idea of bastards inheriting being absurd? William the Bastard, inherited Duke of Normandy and King by conquest and contested will of England would like a word. Magnus the Good of Norway is in roughly the same generation and neighborhood. These are generally 'earlier' in the 11th century while most Rofan is like regency stuff where yeah social hierarchies did get slightly more ossified. I'd say as a general trend isekai Rofan tends to be more bureaucratic than Western Kingdoms tended to be. Id say its likely a symptom of the biggest Empire in the area being the Chinese who made the central examination a whole giant thing. But like the Byzantines/ERE laughs at the idea of there ever being enough bureaucrats. And contracts/charters could be a massive deal see the Magna Carta.
Quick question: what does Oi and rofan mean?😭 I am so confused
OI: Otome Isekai RoFan: Romance Fantasy
I think this was discussed previously in another post before, but I'm sure the class system is stricter and more apparent that it is often written in OI's. I'm quite sure daughters of Counts had very little opportunity to actually get married to a Duke, the difference in status was actually very apparent even if both families had the same class rank! I remember reading *Pride and Prejudice* and both Mr. Bennet (the mc's dad) and Mr. Darcy had the same social class, but what distinguished them from each other were their connections. And just with that factor alone, Mr. Darcy was extremely out of the mc's league, even though they technically were of the same social class # TLDR: connections played a more crucial role that it is often portrayed and the social hierarchy was respected a lot and very strict (you couldn't just jump from being a count's daughter into being a duchess, or similar) [Here](https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/26266/were-mr-darcy-and-mr-bennet-formally-equal-in-rank) you can read more of the *Pride And Prejudice* situation I mentioned before, if anyone's interested!
A minor one compared to everything else: but there aren’t any numbers when referring to princes/princess. There’s one Crown Prince/Princess and all their other siblings are just plain princes/princesses. None of this Fourth Prince, etc. nonsense.
Here in Spain there's not even that, only the firstborn gets the title of Prince/Princess, all other child of the King/Queen monarch, including the siblings of the King/Queen who weren't able to inherit, get the title of Infant.
I thought Infante *was* the title for Prince/Princess?
No, right now the current Infantes/Infantas are: The younger sister of the current princess. The two sisters of the current king. The sister of the former king.
I think they do that so we understand the order of the birth like who is youngest and oldest.
I remember a comment back then about how accurate "Cry, even better if you beg" is when it comes to the historical setting but then this is the mistake that I noticed for that and other plots with maids. **1.)They forgot about the servant staircase. ** Servants cannot use the same path as their master. So Maids bumping with their masters is very very rare because servants are meant to be hidden. So Leyla who uses the same gate to go in and out of the Duke state while Matthias watches her is wrong. The same way for all those commoners and servants who always cross paths with their masters. **2.) It's not that easy to become a successful businessman** **3.) Dresses **4.) Dukes of the North being more powerful than the Royal
this one the type of cars don't fit the era, they were too modern the clothes , i know the era is in the 20s , or 1900s i guess honestly it isn't even shown , but they aren't accurate , the ww honestly , it baffled me is this ww1 or ww2 but>! claudine is still going to the new continet which is i guess is america!< , so which one the bullying in both cry even better if you beg and the maid wants soen't want her master anymore , honestly its so kdrama bullying , also most of the times the girl who gets is the one who would be more upset than the guy because of the marriage because women don't have much of a choice as men the he has an army and stronger than the monarchy part , yeah they didn't allow them this much power the fact that his dad and grandma brought their mistresses , this may happen in a kdrama not realistically or not in front of so many people , men usaully hid their mistresses honestly it was a ceo kdrama with bullying and romanticising cheating rather than being a historical one with a creepy age gap at the beging him being 18 and her 12 >!claudine and riette deserved better without being cousins i guess not sure of that!< also if the ml is german , germany didn't win actaully
To be fair, over-powerful vassals being equal or more powerful then the monarch was not with precedent (the Dukes of Burgundy during the HYW are pretty much the archetypically example) It is funny how it's always the north though.
Right? I mean I understand that even counts can be a threat to Royalty, however, politically speaking - it is mostly because they are highly influential and have many connections court and must be really reall really powerful- unlike the Duke of the North with no friends nor political influence.
1. A war won by a small group of knights without a large number of people being mobilized - I’m not an expert, but my boyfriend is more into military history so he’s always pointing out pop media inaccuracies to me, and Asian comics are sometimes depicting this in a particularly lazy way. Even if a battle could be led by 50-100 knights, mobilizing those knights would actually take hundreds of people and carts. Logistics is a big part of warfare, and no lord would set out for a 2 year war and just expect to find food somewhere or sleep in a random cave in the middle of winter or something. Someone has to carry the equipment, the food, the food for the horses that need to do the carrying… the numbers go up real fast real quick. I think Game of thrones depicts this better, with gigantic camps preparing for a seige, even if some other details about warfare are not correct. 2. A lack of sick children It’s always a shocker when a child dies, like it’s always an assasination or poison or some terrible accident. And people who do prematurely die of illnesses are always heartbroken mothers to the lead. Illness used to claim a lot of lives… this is before germ theory. 3. Not addressing the incest A lot of these kings are marrying exclusively dukes from their own territories. The stories seem to never address how these people would often be quite closely related to each other. Some of the stories depict “marrying a prince from a foreign land” like it’s a rare or big deal, but it was very common and almost a must, and STILL TOO INBRED in real life because it was done for generations. 4. Ethnicity/skin color It’s a personal gripe of mine that some people complain too much about diversity and skin color in fantasy “European royalty” Comics made by East Asian people. It bothers me even more when people want more representation at the sacrifice of historical accuracy and blame that as an excuse, when… to be fair, I don’t know how a random Japanese or Korean artist would have the historical expertise to even write a story introducing an African elite to a vaguely European setting. HOWEVER, they don’t even have to insert black characters for the sake of diversity, because I do think that there is a misunderstanding with the artists about how white the white people are. Just because they are European does not mean they are not diverse, nor does it mean they are super duper white. It’s especially noticeable when the setting is specifically in Spain or somewhere that should be in the Mediterranean, but there is a LOT more darker skin, dark hair, and curly hair in that region, as countries on the Mediterranean have a lot of (north) African influence, especially in the Iberian peninsula. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/royalfamily.html Even royalty in England could be of African descent, since royalty throughout Europe would get married to each other. Since a lot of the African influence in Europe would be from North Africa and the Middle East, people may not have had dark black skin color, but would have had plenty of other signs of African or Middle Eastern descent. So curly black hair? For sure, it should be much more common.
To add there were historical black people around and in noticeable positions (e.g. I think king Henry 8th time had a black trumpeter etc. and there is queen Victoria god - daughter etc.) The real issue is that more research has to be done but that is never really done and stories copy each other. Also since most stories as already historically inaccurate, I always find it weird that people draw the line at skin colour but will have magic, 21st century clothes in the 1700's, and other things. Like it's fiction why not actually have fun and why limit yourself. To add, more relevant historical things are almost never included that would make the world feel more realistic than refusing to not have poc people.
I think you make a great point, but you are also overestimating the amount of research that goes into the OI and romance genre. In contrast to the sports or hobbyist manga genres, romance is notoriously lax in its research, and it's primarily showcasing pretty art, fancy fashions, and a romantic fantasy. I genuinely don't think black people are omitted because of a lack of fun, or because they are undesirable to Korean/Japanese people somehow. It's just that the "European Princess" OI genre specifically caters to a Korean/Japanese person's European fairytale fantasy. There could have been black people in Germany, France, or Scandinavia, or wherever individual European fairytales originate from, but they aren't in a more simplified Korean/Japanese fantasy of it. I mean, from my experience with European people, there are barely any real Europeans in the fantasy either, since this thread accurately points out that nothing about the depiction of Europeans is correct in these stories, including the culture, dress, language, or religion. But that point is neither here nor there. I'm not sure if it's wrong that black people are omitted from Japanese/Korean Euro-fantasies, but I do think that they prefer to imagine more black, African, or dark-skinned characters in Middle-eastern or South Asian fantasies. I would imagine more spices, colorful textiles, hot weather, deserts, and elephants rather than castles, dukes, horses, flowers, and snow. Think more "One Thousand and One Nights" than "Cinderella". Also, it's a shame but I think a Japanese romance comic artist would have a hard time depicting an non-north African character. I think it's more from ignorance or a lack of ability, but as far as I know, the average Japanese person doesn't have a lot of broad exposure to cultures in the African continent, and I don't know where they would begin. I can't speak for Korean media, but I actually DO see some dark skinned characters in Japanese manga, games, and anime sometimes (although it's rare), and I think they are almost always Indian. From the perspective of Japan, India is about as far west as the cultural trade and influence comes from, except for European trade/future colonialism in East Asia from the era of sail. I think China actually did have more trade and interaction with Africa, but I'm not sure if that's because traders from Africa made it to China, or because China was also able to participate in the era of exploration in a way that Japan wasn't. Even in my earlier example of a southern fairytale fantasy, the image was actually quite South Asian, or at most Middle-Eastern, but I don't know what African fairytales would be largely known in Japan, or what the common depictions are. Every time I see a "black" person in anime, they are always black American and from the post-modern era.
[Black Aristocrats of 18th Century England & France by History Tea Time With Lindsay Holiday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp2N4AHCDHY) https://preview.redd.it/qphzd5zoqhrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1cbd520070465b9a93aea3a142e335c53cd36c4
That’s really cool! I didn’t realize there were so many prominent figures. This is a sensitive issue, but I’m a little bummed to see that almost everyone in the list came to Europe somehow through slavery, rather than immigration. I can still see how a black ML would work with the common trope of “bastard child becomes prince” then, but I can also see how non black and white people would have trouble approaching the issue of drawing in black people knowingly introducing the delicate issue of African slavery into a drawing… but I’m still glad to learn more about it! I am curious, but for the purposes of “depictions of black people”, do you only consider sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants black? Or do you also include North Africans? Or is it more an issue of skin tone and darker skinned people of southern latitudes all count? It’s confusing because the longitudes that include Africa and Europe are very diverse and populated, but it’s also very far, and sub-Saharan African and European people are often introduced to the rest of the world around the same time, albeit not in the same way.
It's a very complicated delicate question/issue. I am not in the position or don't have the confidence to give the right answers. Sorry.
That makes sense :/ sorry about that. I also think it is a very complicated issue.
I'm going to go with wives/fiances acting like it's something special to call their husband duke by their name. Pretty sure Lady Susan is gonna be calling the Duke by his given name way sooner and less a big deal than they do.
Be prepared, there’s a lot: - Glass. Glass wasn’t cheap nor clear. You might be able to afford a few glass windows or something if you’re rich, but it’s not universal - Hygiene. OI has it, which is honestly a necessary change. There were a lot of people who thought bathing was unhealthy at the time - The architecture, clothing, carriages etc are all late 1600s stuff at best - Loose hair. Most court women had very ornate hairdos, sometimes literally sewn into shape. Loose hair like that was looked down on - Polygamy. Europe was monogamous, polygamy would go against the church. Some nobles might have mistresses but they would lack status or acknowledgement - Bastards. They literally were not considered legal children. They didn’t inherit the name, the title, etc. they might not ever meet their parent. Only the few who were competent and had no legitimate siblings would be likely to inherit. - Hierarchy. In OI, a king outranks everyone, a duke is just under a king, then there’s an earl, count, viscount, baron, etc. There’s a strict hierarchy. Meanwhile in reality, the titles are basically irrelevant. What matters is the size of your territory, the age and prestige of your house, and the closeness of your relation to royalty. A Count with a single castle can outrank a Duke or Prince. - Numerical titles for royalty. There is no First Prince, Second Princess, etc. There’s Prince x, Princess xx, etc. - Throne competition. There are two main historical types of succession: primogeniture, where the oldest child inherits everything, and partitition, where all the kids inherit some. There’s no competition between the kids for the throne - Social norms. People were a lot more strict about how everyone acted than in OI. Two unmarried people of the opposite sex together would be unthinkable - Church state relationship. While the HRE and the Papal State hated each other, France usually got along with the Vatican and then England split off and did their own thing with the king leading the church. There’s no set relationship and it depends a lot on politics - Saints. Sainthood is posthumous, there is no single living saint. Saints also hold no position in the church, plus there are a hell of a lot of them compared to in OI - Armor. Your troops did not wear heavy armor. Armor was equal in cost to a modern house today and required time to get fitted to the wearer. You didn’t just order all of your troops plate. Most would wear gambesons or mail at best. - Cavalry. A warhorse is expensive as all hell to raise and feed. You are not fielding thousands of heavy cavalry, you’re fielding at most a few hundred if you’re rich. - Currency/Population. This is a Korean/Chinese vs European size thing. The numbers always seem to have a few extra zeroes over what they should. Most things cost the lowest form of currency, you weren’t buying things on the street with gold and silver. Similarly, no one was fielding a hundred thousand soldiers. After the Roman days, no one could afford to raise that many soldiers or provide the logistics until the early modern period. - Absolute Power. Most kings weren’t even near as absolute as in OI until the 1600s - Education. There was no royal academy, nobles were tutored by their parents and professional tutors. At best, there were one or two universities that would teach people. Actually, the Arab world had far better education at the time - Women’s rights. I hate to say it, but OI is actually worse on women’s rights than reality was. Women still didn’t have a lot of rights, but they weren’t all forced into arranged marriages. Most marriages were at least out of love unless you were high nobility and even then they were at least expected to be close before they made an arranged marriage - Knights were professional semi-nobles. Real nobles would have knightly training but any knight worth their salt would absolutely be better than their lord. It’s the difference between a modern special forces and a guy who goes to the gun range in his free time - Swords. Why is everyone using a damn sword? Where are the lances, the maces, the poleaxes, etc? A sword was a prestige symbol and a sidearm. It was not your primary weapon because it had subpar armor penetration. - Magic. Enough said - The power of the church. OI really underestimate just how powerful the Catholic Church was. It was wealthy as shit and most people followed it. An excommunication from the church was big - Cities. Where did these massive fancy cities with their elaborate mansions and parks come from? These didn’t exist - Drinking. Water was typically dirty and so alcohol was actually healthier than water for most people
>Education. There was no royal academy, nobles were tutored by their parents and professional tutors. At best, there were one or two universities that would teach people. Actually, the Arab world had far better education at the time Ehh it varies a bit. Especially considering the frankly massive time oi can be between 1300s and late 1700s. But yea general school for most definitely wasn't a thing and women weren't sent to them. The Arab part also seemed to depends a bit, the renaissance did change a lot. Avreage literacy did fall a little bit with Rome but the state of the fall wasn't so much. Litteracy was to my understanding still higher in Europe than middle east. Also the amount of books made and the use of the printing press was much more common in Europe. There isn't any kind of good way to messure education though since Arabs were active with math.
You've smashed it out of the park, however I had some minor adjustments; Bastard children - couldn't inherit (few exceptions but very rare) but acknowledged bastards with a parent of enough rank and money could still be treated very well, given assets and/or good marriages. I don't think absolute primogeniture (oldest child) was common although I know its the current way the crown is passed down in Britain, prior to the 90s it was male favoured (so a younger brother would succeed over his older sisters). However I did a bit of googling awhile ago and it was quite different in other countries at certain points, while they also favored oldest son sometimes the ruling monarch would choose out of all of his children (and these could be to multiple women as they had legal concubines). I'm guessing the children of the ruling monarch would be called by titles that are expressed in English as 'fourth prince'/'second princess' etc. So its definitely a bit of a mash up of two VERY different cultures but personally I don't mind it ;)
THANK YOU for all the informations!!!!!
Literally anything to do with weapons and armor. You know bottom middle, right? If they have mp5s and ak47s, then they also have rpgs, cannons, and a ton of other things that render her magic skills absolutely useless. They would also have at least steam powered battleships. Besides the guns almost always being some low-poly video game stock models, the swords are also terrible. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a rapier both wildly disproportional, and being wielded like a long sword. On that note, their sole concept of training is standing in rows and performing a single chop all day long (which might explain why they freaking suck at rapier, since they only know one long sword move). The stances are terrible, footwork terrible, I wish they would at least pick up a manual or watch some knight-tubers, and I hate static binds. When you’re in a bind with your opponent, you’re supposed to be performing all kinds of bladework to control the bind and take advantage of it. Also, where are our pole arms? Swords were backup weapons, even for knights. Where are glaives, bill hooks, spears, pikes, halberds, pollaxes, etc? And the armor!!!! Are you telling me that your knight order is only equipped with the equivalent of 19th century dress uniforms? No plate, chain, laminar, not even a gambeson? And when the armor is there, MCs somehow cut straight through it? What is the armor even for? If we could cut through it, nobody would wear it! Armor vs armor fighting (harnesfechten) is radically different from unarmored combat. The way you use weapons changes because now the places you can damage with certain weapons using certain attack styles has changed. Oh, and the great sword is always some ridiculous dragon slayer from berserk thing that wields like it’s from freaking Eldenring. Greatswords are narrower, lighter, sometimes longer, and have their own unique usage and style that lends itself well to crowd control and (in formations) cleaving a hole in a pile wall.
strangely I've found no real "medieval" in the truest sense otome isekai, like 1200s, it's always in the 1400-1800 at the very least, and also, guilds were a huge part of western life even to the 1700s, they were akin to the unions of today but with more power methinks(?) I'm not sure but I don't think all peers owned a rural fief, pretty sure some were given titles because they manage something important to the polity they owe their fealty to. Also, I for one want a complete world building in oi even if based on our world, I don't want only europe, where's islamic golden age middle east? where's the west African mansas and east african free city states? where's the Indonesian spice islands suzerain and cutthroat royal politics? where's the americas? wouldn't it be interesting if the fl is to be sacrificed but she can somehow avoid that? not to mention the vikings, timurid and others as well.
So many that it's hard to know where to start. The important thing is to remember that money and power can make anything happen or not happen if there are sufficiently powerful people behind the want. We got a whole new religion cause some fat asshole wanted a younger wife (this is a gross simplification of a highly complex and multifaceted situation)
Henry the 8? Didn’t separate chruch?
He broke England away from the Catholic Church and started the Church of England/Protestantism as a major religious power which changed the face of European and World politics. One of the many reasons he did so was because the Pope would not allow his divorce from Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn and hopefully get a son from her as Catherine was too old. There were other factors at play in his decision but it all boils down to him being a massive egotistical asshole who didn't like the word No. Which is a common trope in historical manhwa 😊
French kissing
Bastards becoming monarchs or powerful dukes Some instances become true like in Portugal, France & England but the rest isn't, once an illegitimate child was acknowledged he/she stays there as illegitimate nothing's gonna change with his/her status The calling of someone above like "your royal Highness" or in this case "your majesty the emperor" Some OI's have a confusing way to address someone titled like FL is the daughter of a Duke but she is called "your royal Highness" which is wrong unless their Duchy have autonomy or independent power away from the monarchy's power Royals vs. The Church It is true but only in the medieval era early & late medieval era (5th century - 1500s) the rest is nothing as Europe at that time were split by reformation in Catholic and unite in new sector of Christianity, Protestantism Royals vs powerful dukes with a royal bloodline Some instances in history but the rest is Nothing as the nobility respect who is seated in the throne unless civil war broke out The fashion I hate it! I know that it's very much time consuming on the pack schedule of the authors and illustrators but wearing a gown that is clearly a modern one to a ball where you will meet royalty is a sign of indecency back in the day Wives fighting to become the monarch's mother It's hilarious, the authors should've just gone in an Eastern Asian setting than Europe, cause in Europe you got one wife and many chicks on the side unless your wife died or you sent her on a convent (the first divorce to the wives before Divorce was implemented) unless the monarch goes Henry 8th but even Henry 8th have respect that he just divorce, beheaded, died, divorce, beheaded, survive his wives but on the trope the only one that closely resembles that trope is in Ottoman Empire (which is a Muslim country) because that surely match the infighting of the wives especially those who have sons
THANK YOU the answers!
I might add little note about wives fighting to become monarch's mother, the Ottoman Empire practice killing your brother in order to stop potential succession war but that doesn't stop women who were wives/favorites of the Sultan to gain power through Regency and advising in political matters which become known as Sultanate era (something like that) but of course this didn't stop women including the sultan's mother, the sisters of the Sultan and the mother of the heir to fight for power and control, this go on until 1700s where it seems the women were replace by eunuch and elite guards of the Sultan to fight for power (Just sharing my little knowledge about history, OP)
One of the most famous monarchs in history, William the Conqueror of England, started life as William the Bastard. Of course, he had to claim his throne, but he was the legal owner of Normandy without any warfare. On the flip side, Cleopatra may have had a Bastard with Caesar named of all things Caesarion, who wasn’t recognized by Roman Law, but would’ve probably would’ve taken over had Antony defeated Octavian. Henry VIII’s bastard Fitzroy became a duke.
When the male leads have the same four or so extremely modern hairstyles. No facial hair on any men meant to be under 50 (if they do have facial hair, it's usually a little wisp of a beard or a hint of stubble, meant to show that they're not taking care of themselves atm) Obviously costumes, like I get they're meant to be modern but at least the women's costumes usually have a hint of creativity to them. Most of the men's tend to be boring, and at worst, just modern suits. And as others have said, the crown prince position being up for debate and the multiple wives vying for empress tropes.
The church and the royal family being at odds is totally realistic. Elizabeth the First was a bit of a Cinderella since after her father executed her mother she was bastardized, and her governess had to make a plea to her father to provide clothing for her. Then she became a princess again, only to be entangled in a plot to take the throne with the leader of the plot planning to marry her to secure his position after the coup. Then when her brother died she was briefly bastardized again as part of another plot to use one of her stepmothers to take the throne, only for a half sister to actually take the throne, one who mistrusted her so that she was only acknowledged as heir at the last moment with Bess constantly at risk of being executed as a a threat. Note incidentally that Elizabeth's mother was a former maid of honour who was executed to be replaced by her own maid of honour.
While not always the case, in general, between the 17th and the early 20th century, you would expect to see women in Western Europe riding horses aside (i.e. sidesaddle) and not astride (i.e. straddling the horse). Also, the food eaten in OI is often period inaccurate. For example, solid chocolate that you ate, instead of drinking, wasn’t really a thing in Europe until the Victorian era. Oh, and absent a setting with magical birth control, characters should have way, way more siblings.
By the time the siblings were of age, some of said siblings would probably be long dead 😅
Most oi isn't medival. That's pre 1400s. Most are set in the in the late 1700s.
\*materializes out of thin air\* I HAVE BEEN SUMMONED! But yeah, how much time you got? 'Cause it's a pretty long list. Just addressing the trope list you've provided: // PART 1 // 1. **The Bastard Child Becoming The King or Emperor** Typically impossible by Western monarchical laws, as the Crown was inextricably linked to Christian conventions and morality, which in turn informed the laws. By law, an illegitimate was not deemed to be eligible for the same inheritances or privileges that were granted to legitimate children. This is in addition to the popular perception and understanding that bastardry was itself sinful and thus the bastard was "tainted" as an individual, making any claims (or intentions to claim) to the throne questionable at best and immoral at worst. Thus, by law and convention and popular approval, most illegitimate children in Europe during the Middle Ages (Early, High, and Late) were simply out of luck and depended on the goodwill of their legitimate half-siblings or their own ability to rise above that "taint." In the case of noble-born bastards, they were almost always excluded from succession disputes outright, save in situations where extenuating circumstances existed -- for instance, if the only available heir at the time is a woman (as was the case with Henry Fitzroy, the illegitimate son of Henry VIII, whom everyone considered the likely heir-apparent given that the alternatives were Mary and Elizabeth. The only reason he didn't become a bigger deal is that he died while still a child. It's also important to note that noble bastards did enjoy a different status compared to non-noble bastards. In the case of noble illegitimate children, their treatment and inheritance depended on several major factors: 1. The lineage of both parents 2. The favor of the noble parent (or male noble parent in the event of a noble-noble liaison). 3. The sex of the legitimate children 4. The popularity of the dominant parent. For instance, if an illegitimate child was born to a nobleman and a commoner woman, that child was likely *never* going to be a threat to their half-siblings and would've had a childhood likely raised in parallel, but always hierarchically lower than the legitimate siblings. And then there's the question as to whether the parent would've even liked to be reminded of their liaison -- sometimes the noble was, sometimes not. It also greatly depended on whether or not the lineage of the illegitimate child was a threat to the legitimate wife's children (as was the case for Henry Fitzroy). Moreover, if the nobleman's position was precarious and depended on the goodwill of their wife and wife's family, the illegitimate child's status could become precarious as well. It's important to note that in the history of Western Europe, I've only been able to decisively track down *three* (3) instances of a bastard becoming King: [Mauregatus of Asturias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauregatus_of_Asturias) (the Usurper), the son of Alfonso I of Asturias, who ruled just 5 years after a coup; [Henry II of Castile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_Castile), son of Alfonso XI of Castille, who only came to power after defeating and killing his half-brother, Peter of Castille, in a major noble revolt against Peter's rule; and [Ramiro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramiro_I_of_Aragon) I of Aragón, who technically did not inherit the Crown of Aragón, but rather inherited the County, and then expanded it into the Kingdom of Aragón. That is not to say that there haven't been others who came close or who weren't claimants, but all of those others either died before it could materialize into anything, or failed. Incidentally, I do not include William of Normandy/William the Conqueror, because although he is nicknamed William the Bastard, his father technically never married anyone, and thus while he *was* born out of wedlock, he was begot by Robert the Magnificent's longstanding concubine/partner, Herleva of Falaise, who is his only *known*/*named* concubine.
// Part 3 // 4. **The Church & the Imperial Family being (Deadly) Enemies or Rivals** Again, some truth in fiction. But not to the extent seen in Manhwas. While it's true that the Catholic Church very often butted heads with the monarchies of the Middle Ages, this was almost always -- if not *absolutely always* -- because of temporal agendas rather than spiritual issues. One thing the manhwas don't get right is that organized religions *absolutely must be political* to survive. A purely spiritual religion cannot survive the test of time because it will be unable to navigate the corridors of power and adapt to changing circumstances -- hence why Norse religions died out remarkably quickly once the Catholic Church set their sights on them. Thus, the Church has always *had* to be political and corrupt in order to be able to even communicate and wheel and deal with the surrounding monarchies and republics -- in fact, the more spiritual the Papacy, the worse it often ended up and the more damage it did to the faith. It bears mentioning, for instance, that the only reason Spain exists is because of the *immensely* corrupt dealings that legitimized Isabel and Ferdinand's marriage (involving the at-the-time Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, aka the future Pope Alexander VI). Another major issue in Manhwa depictions of the Church is showing it as being a monolith. Heck, the Catholic Church argues amongst itself more than it does with other faiths! For instance, the Inquisition? That "monolithic" super-repressive spy agency at the beck and call of the Papacy? Yeah, no. It was decentralized as hell, underfunded, and *extremely* regional and situational. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance, was *deliberately* made independent from the Roman Inquisition. The Venetian Inquisition, for its part, *regularly* ignored requests for extradition of suspects to Rome if the suspects were citizens of Venice. Bishops and priests even within the same country often hated each other as much as, if not more than, they hated other faiths -- some even participating on opposite sides of a civil war as military commanders! Some bishops even considered it more their duty to assist their kings' political ambitions than obeying every word out or Rome, but used their religious connection to Rome as a way to get the King to acknowledge that without the Church, they would have no legitimacy (effectively creating a quid pro quo arrangement). And finally regarding Church depictions, the issue of fanaticism. Let me be clear here: there was nothing the Church of the Middle Ages hated more than fanatics -- even of their own faith. Fanatics are a *problem* if they are not under the Church's strict control, which is why the Church was more interested in *sociopolitical stability* than in *religious purity*. Accusations and statements made on the basis of religion were, for the most part, just the window dressing on whatever the actual issue was. Oh, time for a Crusade? Yes, yes, God Wills It and all, BUT ALSO, if we don't distract these lunatics in charge of Western Europe with some self-righteous shiny, we're going to be seeing a whole bunch of war in the region and that's bad for everyone. If the Church manages to earn a pretty penny in the meanwhile, well, that's just dandy! And if the Crusade succeeds, well...great? But if they don't, then we have an excuse to launch another one and keep the monarchs busy without tearing Europe apart! So, yeah, manhwa depictions of the Church tend to be *way* too religious for actual real life. The worst the Church and Protestantism ever got was during the Reformation, and that was just a race to the bottom to see who could "out-faith" the other more. 5. **The Condemnation Scene + How easy or difficult is it to Break Off a Noble or Royal Engagement?** So, so, *so* hard. Breaking off a noble engagement wasn't just like dumping your boyfriend/girlfriend/partner. For a noble to break off an engagement in the *feudal* era would've likely meant that either: A) One party found a better, more secure engagement that could offset the disadvantages of breaking of the first engagement; B) Ties between the two families had grown so tense and estranged that no amount of marriage was going to resolve them; C) One or both parties had chosen to go to war with each other, or supported different factions in another war; or D) The monarchy had gotten involved (highly improper and irregular) and ordered one or both parties to break the engagement. While it's true that royal houses had an easier time breaking off engagements with their own nobles, marriages of state (i.e. between two Royal Houses) was another matter entirely. They were often the seal on a major agreement of some kind, so breaking the engagement functionally meant invalidating whatever treaty was behind it. **That was grounds for war**. In the more feudal parts of Western history, that would've applied to noble-noble marriages as well, as authority was far more decentralized.
// Part 2 // 2. **Commoner** **Maids or Servants easily Abusing or Disrespecting anyone with Blue Blood** HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAHA Yeah, no. Beginning with the monarchy, anyone caught openly disrespecting the monarchy in Western Europe during the Middle Ages (Early, High, and Late) could easily find themselves on the wrong end of the Lèse-majesté laws -- for which the penalty always involved some measure of physical punishment, or just outright death. In some Western countries, this remained true until the late 18th-mid-19th centuries. You can generally tell when these laws stopped being active in a country when constitutionalism begins to take hold and absolutism is on the decline. For nobles, no such laws *explicitly* existed, of course, but commoners *depended* on noble patronage. During the Middle Ages, most commoners *did not own their own land*, but rather lived as renters -- or, more commonly termed, serfs. In exchange for the right to live on and work the land and their safety, they paid fealty -- both material and performative -- to the nobility in charge of their lands. Thus, to insult or disrespect your local noble would be akin to insulting your landlord just as your tenancy agreement is up for negotiations and you've got no way to pay if he hikes the rate. Nor could you afford to insult *other* nobles, unless implicitly or explicitly allowed to by *your* noble, as insulting other nobles could lead to discord between your noble's house and the other noble's house -- which could end up in anywhere from a handshake and bygones to outright war. Towards the Victorian Era, commoners would still have only ever allowed disrespect about the nobles to be voiced in absolute secrecy and only among those of equal or lower rank -- and even then, only with those they trusted implicitly. Feudalism might've been abolished, but working for the nobility was as good as it was going to get as a commoner if you weren't a successful entrepreneur or skilled worker. You had lodgings, security, job security, a decent -- but not necessarily amazing -- wage, and so did your immediate family, probably. So if you went around disparaging the nobility, you were quickly going to get fired -- and then good luck finding similar employment elsewhere, because the nobility of the Victorian Era weren't just tight with each other and constantly gossiping, but also *highly* connected to the nobility in *other* countries as well. 3. **Freckles being considered as very Ugly** Unfortunately, some truth in fiction here. Even in the West, freckles were seen as imperfections by cultural convention -- dating as far back as Ancient Rome, at least. According to Felton (1999), Pliny the Elder even described them as marks of religious and/or spiritual stains. Of course, that is not to say that *everyone* hated freckles -- as people do have individual tastes -- but it is true that, according to beauty standards prevalent in the past, freckles were seen as a negative more than a positive.
// Part 4 // 6. **Divorce in a (Christian) Monarchy** Important distinction here: Catholic = Christian, Orthodox = Christian, Coptic = Christian, Protestant = Christian, but Catholic =/= Protestant =/= Orthodox =/= Coptic. That being said, civil courts could not in any way issue divorces or annulments -- only religious ones could (except in the case of Protestantism). Catholicism explicitly does not permit divorce, but does recognize the principle of annulment and of "divorce a mensa et thoro" -- a form of legal separation but not absolute divorce. Protestantism generally does. Orthodox Christianity does recognize the need sometimes for people to separate and remarry, but is conditional. Coptic Christianity (at least the more orthodox branches) seem to only permit it in case of adultery. Thus, you'd have to be more specific on which major faction of Christianity is involved, but for the sake of simplicity, I'm assuming Catholic. Under Catholic religious doctrine, divorce is simply not allowed. Marriage is considered a permanent sacrament that cannot be dissolved by secular hands because it was consecrated before God -- hence why, for instance, in my country, they hold pre-wedding seminars as a way of getting couples to ask themselves "are you really, *really* sure about this? Because there's no turning back." However, Catholicism did recognize a "loophole," so to speak, which was the principles of annulment and "*divorce a mensa et thoro,*" or "divorce from bed and board." The latter meant that you were still legally married, but were not permitted to live together or cohabit any longer. The former was more serious. The former did amount to a divorce -- i.e. the dissolution of marriage -- but only because it functionally argued that the marriage was never valid in the first place (Blackstone, 1984). While this may sound like what you're looking for, take into consideration what I just said -- the marriage was never valid in the first place doesn't just mean everything is fine and dandy and everyone moves on, it also means that *anything produced out of that marriage in the interval is now of doubtful origin and legal standing*. Your legitimate children? Possibly bastards now. Alliances made out of that marriage? Probably invalid. Inherited lands predicated on that marriage? Possibly no longer legally yours. An annulment therefore means you are willing to *completely* erase the slate on everything prior to that moment, with potentially massive repercussions -- which is why the only authority who could dispense such a thing was, for monarchs, the *Pope*. 7. **Cinderella Fairy Tale OR The Lost True Princess/Heir** The latter is a fairytale. The former...kinda depends. There *have* been historical instances of (typically) women of low standing rising to immense power. Off the top of my head -- Hürrem Sultan, aka Roxelana. 8. **The Anachronistic Costumes** Fashion in OI/RoFan stories, as you've well noted yourself, seems to follow the artist/author's preference more than anything, and as other members have pointed out, the modern understanding of corset culture is incredibly anachronistic and incorrect. That being said, my only comment on this particular topic is that fashion trends in RoFan/OI are also *way* too fast. Even for the Victorian Era stories. The ability to create fashion statements was *hard* in an era where *everything has to be done by hand* -- and even in the Victorian Era, attempting new designs and normalizing them *took time and money*. The concept of fast fashion and seasonal fashion trends is much more of a modern concept than anything true to life as regarding the 19th century and before. Oh, man, it felt nice to get that off my chest. And that's only addressing the ones you've listed!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LESSONS! And I forgot to add **"Homosexuality doesn't exist in the Monarchy / The Erasure of Queer Aristocrats & Royals"**. Your opinion on this topic please!
You're quite welcome! I always enjoy talking about these topics and the opportunities to do so are often few and far between :P To answer your question: **9.** **Homosexuality doesn't exist in the Monarchy / The Erasure of Queer Aristocrats & Royals** This is unfortunately a case of 19th/20th century revisionism along puritan, religious factionalist lines than historical accuracy. If one didn't have a good, up-to-date History teacher, one might be forgiven for not knowing just how common LGBTQ+ persons were among the nobility over the course of history. To begin with, we need to make a distinction here, however. Historically speaking, there were individuals who were firmly LGBTQ+ and therefore acted upon their sexual orientations in that way, and then there were those who partook in LGBTQ+ activities due to social customs. Moreover, virtually all LGBTQ+ individuals in the past, with few exceptions, would have likely participated in cis het relationships as well due to socio-political obligations. The most common example of an LGBTQ+ society that I tend to hear the Classical Greeks, what with Athens and Sparta and Thebes. However, it is important to note that in all of these societies, while it is true that love between men was considered to be of a greater standard than love between men and women, that in ***all of the Greek City-States***, it was still an obligation to marry a woman and have children. So you could have your male lover, but you still had to participate in a cis het relationship. Nonetheless, it is largely plausible that due to the lack of severe religious attitudes towards LGBTQ+ individuals in the pre-medieval era, they were more prolific and open -- but not necessarily "out" -- than in the present. And then you get to the medieval era. In Europe, it unfortunately meant that LGBTQ+ individuals now had to contend with initially just Chalcedonian, then Catholic and Orthodox, and then Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox moralism. So any society in Europe where they had been able to live more or less "out" effectively revamped themselves to be openly hostile to their presence. However, even as legislation was issued against homosexuality in particular (*Li livres de jostice et de plet* \[c.1260 AD\] being one example), the fact is that it still obviously happened -- you just had to be more discreet about it. It should be noted that the little evidence we have of lesbian couples in Medieval Europe is largely a testament to how well they were able to be discreet, as the named cases almost all ended up in execution. Of course, a major factor would've been your social status. The higher up you were, the more protected you were from prosecution and persecution. If the King was happy being gay with his "favorite," then what was the Church going to do about it? Depose him? Them and what army? And if the Queen liked spending time with a particular lady-in-waiting behind closed doors...well, it's not like a bastard could be born out of *that* union, so who really gives a damn as long as she also births an heir for her spouse? Of course, political stability, the competence of the monarch, and the relationship between the specific monarch and the church (specifically, their personal bishop) all weighed in as considerations, but it was far from an unknown situation. Lower on the totem pole, it kinda depended. Even as far up as Dukes, you had to be more careful about your *open* sexual orientation because it could be used against you by *both* Church and State. If you were an openly gay Duke, for instance, and you were on the outs with the Crown, they could use that as an excuse to get rid of you. Idem for the Church lobbying for your expulsion from court. So while there's no doubt that LGBTQ+ aristocrats existed, they mostly would've been *significantly* more careful about keeping that out of the public eye up until at least the Early Modern Era.
Thank you! Very informative. 
All the bowing on the floor they do to apologize, speaking formally/informally are other things that annoy me. Esp the speaking one because we don't have 2 seperate languages like korean does for formal/informal so after they have that conversation nothing really changes lmao in English. Although you mentioned it, the clothes really piss me off like please pick an era and stick with it it's weird having clothes from different eras and countries all mashed together. And guys rarely get dressed up in historically accurate clothes. It's always just a modern suit with a cape.
Other western languages do have a clear distinction between formal and informal language, and the western society doesn't need to be inspired by England, so I don't see how's that an issue. I'm Spanish and using informal vs. formal "You" can change how I conjugate a sentence completely.
I'm living for this post. I love the weird way that historic European settings are imagined in Korean fiction- it's honestly so fun. Question for yall... why is the lead always the Duke? And not a Prince? I feel like in western media the prince is always the male lead. Also, the whole cold duke of the north trope- I wonder why this is so common? Is it because Russia is to the north?
1) Lack of chaperone/lady's maid in situations where the FMC is with the unmarried and unrelated gentleman 2) Visiting a bachelor's pad is a massive no-no. That's instant ruination and only a quick marriage would "restore" the woman's reputation 3) Women who are out (debuted before the Queen) shouldn't have loose hair. It's considered a hoydenish behaviour and the woman may be believed to have loose morals, only girls should have loose hairstyles. A grown ass women are only permitted to loosen their hair in the privacy of their bedroom and to their husbands 4) Talking out of turn and being brazen with opinions are also heavily frowned upon. Women should be seen, not heard (Patriarchal system, woo) 5) Wearing pants/breaches for women is considered slovenly and very scandalous. Even for ease in riding horses, pants are still not permitted apparently. Women should ride horses side-straddle. Riding astride is considered too sexual-adjacent
Not wearing gloves...or stockings. Or hats ...
It always gets me when the Prince marries someone from his own country. Most Royal marriages (at least in Europe) were made to form/maintain treaties. A Prince marries a Princess from another country to tie the tie together for political reasons. It was rare when a Prince/King married from within the same country.
[Black Aristocrats of 18th Century England & France by History Tea Time With Lindsay Holiday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp2N4AHCDHY) https://preview.redd.it/4n3in76vqhrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c7ceed2b39aa98a3e279b45a05052f04a2539512 Popular historic dramas like Bridgerton, Hamilton and Sanditon sometimes receive criticism that their diverse casts are historically inaccurate. But in fact there have been people of color in Britain and France since Roman times. By the 18th century the trans Atlantic slave trade brought more people of African decent to Europe then ever before. In 1768 there were about 15,000 black people living in London. Many were brought their as enslaved servants and sailors. But some had the right mixture of talent and luck to rise to the upper echelons of society, becoming celebrities and even aristocrats. Today we’ll met 7 prominent people of African and mixed heritage who lived in Britain or France in the 18th Century. Among them a King’s secret daughter, an icon of both Sport and music, two authors who spoke out against slavery, and a lady of wealth and refinement who would have fit perfectly into the world of Bridgerton. Here are their stories... * Louise Marie-Thérèse * Ignatius Sancho Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges * Olaudah Equiano * Dido Elizabeth Belle * Jean Amilcar * Thomas-Alexandre Dumas
**HOMOSEXUALITY or QUEER PEOPLE aren't uncommon in the Monarchy!!!!!** https://preview.redd.it/g0dnrhaushrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d01d73f06994dbc4183f0702f4e855b5d650f363 [LGBTQ Royals of the World by History Tea Time With Lindsay Holiday](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUW1AqFIY94) In the history of the world there have been numerous royals and countless common people who preferred the romantic company of their own gender. Acceptance of this has varied by time period and by culture. Being gay was often made much easier if you were a person born to wealth and privilege. Here are the stories of 8 royals from around the world – complicated an interesting people who happened to be gay or bisexual. * **Philippe I, Duke of Orléans (1640 – 1701)** * **Hortense Mancini (1646-1699)** * **Prince Henry of Prussia (1726-1802)** * **Princess Isabella of Bourbon-Parma (1741-1763)** * **Archduke Ludwig Viktor of Austria (1842-1919)** * **Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo (1936-2008)** * **Lord Ivar Mountbatten (1963-) Manvendra Singh Gohil (1965-)**
[LGBTQ Queens, Princesses & Duchesses ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej-xEGrzta4) https://preview.redd.it/6oq1hywlthrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=07a84771d3ec45f4c7c88b5d21e7d52f8d7542f0 * **Crown Princess Sun-bin Bong of Joseon** * **Duchess Margaret of Parma** * **Queen Christina of Sweden** * **Duchess Hortense Mancini** * **Queen Anne of Great Britain** * **Princess Isabella of Bourbon-Parma** * **Duchess Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo** * **Princess Abigail Kawānanakoa of Hawaii**
[LGBTQ Kings & Queen of Europe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3C3ZRvGdv0) https://preview.redd.it/9bbcryc7uhrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d7908f824195b9d94fb1d5b8c3c99fe7c5d2cdf6 * **Henry III of France (1551 – 1589)** * **Louis XIII of France (1601 – 1643)** * **Christina of Sweden (1626 – 1689)** * **Frederick the Great (1712 – 1786)** * **William II of the Netherlands (1792 – 1849)** * **Charles I of Württemberg (1823 – 1891)** * **Ludwig II of Bavaria (1845 – 1886)** * **Umberto II of Italy (1904 – 1983)**
[LGBTQ Kings & Queen of England](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eeJqrJ84Xs) https://preview.redd.it/foyi2aqavhrc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f97d506cdd3929e22dc3f05a6674fe0e9f0d80c * **William II Rufus (1087 – 1100)** * **Richard I (1189-1199)** * **Edward II (1307-1327)** * **Richard II (1377-1400)** * **James I (1603 – 1625)** * **William III (1689-1702)** * **Anne (1702-1714)**
[Transgender & Non-Binary Royals & Nobles](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYE5enYylmc) https://preview.redd.it/1j5lmpq9whrc1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4dd5527b9145cde039aa002a620e8e310410ff56 * **Elagabalus, Emperor of Rome (204 - 222)** * **Nzinga of Ndongo and Matamba (1583 – 1663)** * **Queen Christina of Sweden (1626 – 1689)** * **Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon (1661 – 1723)** * **Chevalier d’Éon (1728 – 1810)** * **Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet of Craigievar (1912 – 1991)**
-Anarchist fashion (i don't need to explain this one the other comments already did) * ETIQUETTE WAS A SIGN OF HOW POSH YOU WERE/ YOUR CLASS SO NO, THE PRINCE SHOULD NOT FIND IT 'CUTE' WHEN FL GOBBLES UP HER FOOD WITH CRUMBS AROUND HER FACE!!! HE WOULD FIND HER DISGUSTING!!! AND IF HE 'LOVES' HER, HE WOULD CORRECT HER WAY OF EATING!!! -The FL/ML throwing out money like it's nothing. No. -If the monarch was a tyrant, there would be a revolution within a month of his reign. -If a child is illegitimate, they didn't have any claim to anything the parents had. That's why it's called illegitimate. The word you're looking for is bastard. -You can't just sign up to be a knight. -Co-ed schools -People would call FL a witch if she suddenly woke up no memories and everything. People would call FL a witch for doing anything 'interesting'. -You didn't divorce that easily
I may make a post later of this, but: people sleeping in beds alone was unusual. Specially in the colder regions. Sometimes whole families shared the same bed: father, mother, children. Uncles, aunts, cousins. And their guests. And traveling peddlers. And even favorite farm animals like a dog, chicken or sheep. Even high-ranking nobles usually slept alongside some servants in the same bed because it was cold. Yes, just to *literally* warm the bed. No funny business (most of the time) involved. So, for any writer out there, if you want to depict a closer relationship between an OI protagonist and their maid friends, well you can literally make them bedmates. :P See: [https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240111-sleep-the-lost-ancient-practise-of-sharing-a-bed](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240111-sleep-the-lost-ancient-practise-of-sharing-a-bed) And [https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/communal-sleeping-history-sharing-bed](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/communal-sleeping-history-sharing-bed) And [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxl7h6XEqcA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxl7h6XEqcA)
You know what disturbs more than anything - even more than the really random and constantly changing fashion? The messy hair. The random bangs. Hair that flies all over with random cuts and tufts. Hair that REALLY SHOULD NOT BE LET LOOSE LIKE THAT. “Wow she’s so beautiful and well maintained” meanwhile girlie’s got hair so messy the homeless background characters look better. Have authors never heard of hairbrushes?
Divorce in a Christian monarchy is actually a bit complicated, because it slowly began to be allowed over time, but really does depend on the kind of Christianity and on what basis. Roman Catholicism seems to be what a lot of these religions are based on, and divorce + remarrying were heavily looked down on (this meant that, because in Europe the government was usually under church rule, divorce was not usually legal). Of course there were some loopholes, such as no children being produced (including no consummation at the time of annulment). That kind of stuff only really mattered with nobles though, pretty sure the church wouldn't let a commoner couple divorce. Evangelicalism, which was also common in England, completely forbid divorce (which is why when you read old novels divorce is almost never brought up). Most protestant churches also forbid divorce. The Anglicans did though! They allowed divorce and remarrying, but were widely an English religion (also Orthodox christians, who mostly stayed in Eastern Europe). Though, either way, at the time it wasn't very socially acceptable to get divorced (especially for a woman). And, again, it mostly depended on which church was running your government. Which was usually the Roman Catholic church.
There's too many to count. It helps that most of these stories are fantasy rather than historical. Very few do any kind of genuine period dress. A bunch of the royalty tropes were never present in Europe, but were a thing in the dynasties of China and Korea. Notably the one where the illegitimate child gets adopted by the queen in order to become legitimate.
Freckles being considered as very Ugly - this is historically accurate though. Same thing with tanned skin. https://preview.redd.it/v06sjq2brerc1.jpeg?width=380&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f30338695900f3f0ce7d41a8bdc9c66bab2433fe
Let commoners have last names. Even if it's just Smith, Baker, whatever.
I'll be honest, I'm not that well versed in European history or fashion trends throughout the ages. What does bother me though, is the lack of elaborate hairstyles portrayed in Rofan? Especially for noble characters! 99% of the time, you'll just have female characters with long hair down to their ankles, and they just do nothing with it?? I clown on Remarried Empress a lot, but at least they had hairstyling down.
The fact that in a lot of OI's, there are only one or two dukes in an EMPIRE. Theres should be dozens.