why couldn't Duc d'Angoulême gain supporters and usurp the throne from his Bourbon cousins?

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wildeirishe.com%2Fpost%2Fthe-saffron-shirt-part-1-saffron-and-silk-urine-and-grease&psig=AOvVaw0iqO4v5YauVO6mYXkQjiKc&ust=1680103650694000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCJCevPz3_v0CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAJ

The Irish just like the Scot’s wore the Leine croich, a saffron tunic that is often mistaken for the kilt. It was the type of clothing that evolved into the great kilt. Considering Gaelic culture came to Western Scotland from Ulster it’s no surprise the Irish and Scots once wore similar garments. The Irish do tend to wear kilts but only at weddings or pipe bands. Speaking as a Scot who has travelled to Ireland many times, I love the place.

Weren't tartans or something similar found with the tarim basin mummies/tocharians?

Look up Edvard Munch's The Scream & eruption of Krakatoa (1893).

That explains a lot :)

[removed]

This article is nonsense because the presumption that these artists were interested in painting the world as they saw it, aka, treated their paintings as a recording of the world. We know from writings, letters and actual art historians studying them that this is not the case. None of these painters presume their interest in realism.

Would their art be affected by the observation of light (and therefore be dependent on the atmospheric conditions)? Yes. Were they trying to record or are their paintings useful as a record of environmental pollution? No.

I'm older than tiramisu.

Well, I don't want to push an argument, so enjoy the rest of your day!

[removed]

Yes the language that was forced on us. Can you not step back and see what you are doing right now? You’re not Irish, you’re English correct? So please, respect what we consider our culture. Fly over to Ireland and ask us, go to our museums and learn. We have lost so much of our culture so it’s insulting to try tell us about it. Have a great life, im too busy to debate if im honest. My fault from a joke I made that people read the tone of wrong, was not my intention so apologies, I was just trying to have a laugh.

Culture can come from external sources. English the language is part of Irish culture, for example. Most cultures are heavily influenced by external sources.

I’m not denying it, we Irish people do not consider it part of our traditional dress. Why are people trying to tell us about our own culture? The English have worn kilts but you wouldn’t tell them it’s part of their culture. Military uniforms which the saffron kilt is, is not part of our culture as it was introduced by the English and invented by the Scottish. Plus if you have to consider that many Scottish people settled in ulster (ulster plantation) so yes those in ultster of Scottish descent will also sometimes wear it but again linked back to Scotland

I'm not pretending they are as integral as to Scotland, but why also pretend they don't play any role? The Saffron Kilt is still part of some dress uniforms, and there was a period in Ireland where they gained popularity as pro-Gaelic symbolism.

Sure, Americans like to blow things wildy out of proportion, but don't let plastic paddies dull your own history.

I already know the answer to this question…are you Irish? Ask any Irish person and they will tell you kilts are scotttish. Yes there’s times people wore it, hell even the new English king wears kilts. They are an important clothing for the Scottish people and we do not have any traditional or cultural ties with them.

Kilts historically have been worn in Ireland as well...

Interestingly, there is actually a horned helmet in one of the museums I visited in Copenhagen.

What are some of the coolest historical war/culture books you’ve read?

Nonsense, everyone knows all Englishman are either evil and cunning or bumbling and useless!

To add to this and go forward to Early Modern France, if the child was the son of a noblewoman they were usually treated well. Basically they were in a "in between" status: they had royal blood but absolutely no claim to the throne. So they were respected but always as high ranking nobles, not official member of the royal family.

The Duc d'Angoulême (bastard son of the French King Charles IX) was even more in a peculiar situation: his father was part of the Valois dynasty, but after 1589 (death of the last Valois king)... there were no longer any (legitimate) Valois. The crown went to their distant cousins the Bourbons (from which we get Henry IV, Louis XIV and so on). But he remained, like a remnant of that family. For example he was chosen as ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire in 1620, him being of the Valois blood made him suitable as a symbolic representative of the crown.

So yeah, legitimized bastard had a high status (none of this game of throne non sense)... but always on the side. A rank below the "proper" family.

>"why aren't they hating each other?"

French and German relations are way more interesting and surprising from this point of view. From Napoleon (who humiliated Prussia) to 1870 to WW1 and WW2... France and Germany went from extremely bitter rivals, for generations (way more than the UK and US ever was let's be honest) to close allies in a few decades after WW2.

Hell, Franco-English relations are also surprising in a similar way (although it took more time).

A government in exile doesn't really count as control, though, so I'd say from 1942 to 1944/45 the islands were "under" Japan, the US and the Commonwealth government retaining their claim but not yet able to enforce it. For a few months during the Japanese invasion and the subsequent US recapture, parts were Japanese-controlled and parts US-controlled, but in between the US was out of the picture in terms of de facto possession.

>was under both the Japanese and America at the same time??

Kinda? Although that's semantic, because that can be said for all occupied territory (by that logic Poland was under both German and Polish government in exile control).

Can someone show a picture of the paintings that aren't uselessly small?

I'm with the doubters here, except possibly in relation to Monet's 1899-1901 London works. London had long been famed for its smoke, efforts to control pollution dating back to the capital's rapid growth (and that of its coal shipments) around 1600, but into Turner's time much of that use remained domestic rather than industrial: the big increase would come later, with British per capita use (domestic, industrial and transport) nearly doubling from 2.6 tonnes in 1850 to 5 by 1900, a period when London's population grew 2½-fold, and the paper itself indicates that 70% of the rise in the metropolis's sulphur dioxide emissions occurred after Turner's death.

The chart suggests that Paris was a pollution minnow compared even with Turner's London, so if Monet was looking for hazy scenes, London around 1900 would be the place to go: half a century earlier, not so much, at least so far as industry's contribution is concerned.